ARM Endline Evaluation EU RESTORE and SIDA 2023

FINAL REPORT END LINE EVALUATION FOR EU RESTORE AND SIDA PROJECT MARCH 5, 2023

2 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project END LINE EVALUATION FOR EU RESTORE AND SIDA PROJECT March 5, 2023 DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication are derived from project data collected during the end line evaluation and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union (EU), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) or Somali Resilience Program (SomReP) Photo on cover page depicting community members fetching water from a water supply facility constructed by CARE International under EU RESTORE and SIDA Project is courtesy of SomReP Program.

3 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAH Action Against Hunger ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency CAAPs Community Adaptation and Action Plans CAHWs Community Animal Health Workers CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere COOPI Cooperazione Internazionale COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease- 2019 CPI Consumer Price Index DAC Development Assistance Committee DRC Danish Refugee Council EU European Union EWEA Early Warning Early Action FCS Food Consumption Score GAP Good Agricultural Practices FGD Focus Group Discussion FEWS NET Famine Early Warning Systems Network FMNR Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration FSC Food Security Cluster FSNAU Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit GBV Gender Based Violence GSVCA Gender Sensitive Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment HH Household HADMA Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management Agency HHS Household Hunger Scale IDPs Internally Displaced Person(s) IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification KII Key Informant Interview NADFOR National Disaster Preparedness and Food Reserve Authority NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development rCSI Reduced Coping Strategy Index SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SWALIM Somalia Water and Land Information TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WMC Water Management Committee

4 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS__________________________________________ 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ____________________________________________________________ 4 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ____________________________________________________ 6 OUTCOME INDICATORS MATRIX ___________________________________________________ 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ___________________________________________________________ 7 1. STUDY BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ___________________________________________ 20 1.1 HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN SOMALIA ______________________________________ 20 2.0 METHODOLOGY _____________________________________________________________ 21 2.1 STUDY APPROACH ________________________________________________________ 21 2.2 SAMPLING PROCEDURE ____________________________________________________ 21 2.3 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION ______________________________________________ 21 2.4 DATA COLLECTION PLAN, TECHNIQUE AND TOOLS ____________________________ 22 2.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS_________________________________________________ 22 2.6 PROTECTION MAINSTREAMING______________________________________________ 23 2.7 STUDY LIMITATIONS _______________________________________________________ 23 2.8 PROGRAM CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS ____________________________________ 23 3. DETAILED END LINE EVALUATION FINDINGS _____________________________________ 23 3.1: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS _________________ 24 3.2 EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 1: EVALUATE TO WHAT EXTENT THE RESILIENCE INTERVENTIONS HAVE DELIVERED ON RELEVANCY, EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, COHERENCE AND IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY _________________________________ 26 3.2.1 RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROJECT____________________ 26 3.2.3 EFFICIENCY ___________________________________________________________ 28 3.2.4 PROJECT CONNECTEDNESS ____________________________________________ 29 3.2.5 KEY PROJECT IMPACTS_________________________________________________ 30 3.2.6: BENEFICIARIES ACCOUNTABILITY AND FEEDBACK MECHANISMS ___________ 33 3.3. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 2: ASSESS THE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED AS MEASURED BY KEY RESULT INDICATORS AS STIPULATED IN THE LOGFRAME _______ 36 3.3.1 FINDINGS ALONG RESILIENCE INDICES __________________________________ 36 3.3.2 INTERMEDIARY OUTCOME 1: ENHANCED RISK MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ___________________________________________________________ 42 3.3.3 INTERMEDIARY OUTCOME 2: ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY AND CAPACITY TO MEET SOCIAL NEEDS _______________________________________________________ 52 3.3.4 INTERMEDIARY OUTCOME 3 : ENHANCED LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION _____ 55 3.3.5: INTERMEDIARY OUTCOME 4: ENHANCED MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SOIL AND WATER SYSTEMS____________________________ 63 3.3.6: INTERMEDIARY OUTCOME 5: PROGRAM LEARNING AND RESEARCH_________ 67 3.4 EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 3: IDENTIFY AND ASSESS KEY LESSONS AND CHALLENGES FOR INFORMING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAM INTERVENTIONS _____ 69 3.4.1: FEEDBACK PROMISING RESULTS (PROJECT ASPECTS THAT HAVE WORKED WELL) _____________________________________________________________________ 69 3.4.2: PROJECT ASPECTS THAT NEED FURTHER ATTENTION (WHAT HAS NOT WORKED WELL) _____________________________________________________________________ 70 3.4.3: KEY CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS_______ 71 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________ 73

5 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project 4.1 NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER RISKS REDUCTION_____ 73 4.2 FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS _________________________________________ 73 4.5 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION ________________________________________ 74 5.0 ANNEXES___________________________________________________________________ 75 5.1 CROPS CULTIVATED AND YIELD PER SEASON ________________________________ 75 5.2: LIST OF SAMPLED VILLAGES _______________________________________________ 78 5.3: SCHEDULE OF COMPLETED KIIS AND FGDS __________________________________ 79 5.4: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED____________________________________________ 80

6 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES Table 1: Progressive measurements of the core indicators..................................................................16 Table 2: Sample size for the end line evaluation ..................................................................................22 Table 3: Data collection locations by region and district.......................................................................24 Table 4: Composition of household members ......................................................................................25 Table 5: summary of beneficiaries reached per result area..................................................................27 Table 6: Feedback mechanisms ...........................................................................................................34 Table 7: Project support received by beneficiaries ...............................................................................36 Table 8: Summary of findings along resilience indices.........................................................................37 Table 9: Resilience capacities across districts......................................................................................40 Table 10: Spearman correlation between resilience index and program intensity ...............................41 Table 11: Analysis of Stochastic poverty among the beneficiaries.......................................................42 Table 12: HH members’ involvement in the project implementation process.......................................43 Table 13: Information received by HH on hazards and shock ..............................................................45 Table 14: Perception on level of HH preparedness ..............................................................................45 Table 15: HH rating on DRR capacity...................................................................................................46 Table 16: HH rating on local leaders’ capacity......................................................................................48 Table 17: Recent shocks experienced in project locations...................................................................49 Table 18: Type of impacts experienced by HHs ...................................................................................49 Table 19: HH responses on social capital.............................................................................................51 Table 20: Activities under cash for work ...............................................................................................55 Table 21: HH sources of income...........................................................................................................56 Table 22: HH which record of profit gains.............................................................................................56 Table 23: average size of land cultivated per season...........................................................................58 Table 24: size of land cultivated and corresponding yield ....................................................................58 Table 25: Households access to loans .................................................................................................61 Table 26: HH access to financial services ............................................................................................61 Table 27: Asset score across districts ..................................................................................................62 Table 28: Primary sources of water during the wet season..................................................................63 Table 29: Primary sources of water during the dry season ..................................................................64 Table 30: Schedule of KIIs and FGDs ...............................................................................................79 Table 31: list of documents reviewed and links ....................................................................................80 FIGURES Figure 1: Household Headship .............................................................................................................25 Figure 2: Reasons for choice of feedback mechanism........................................................................34 Figure 3: Source of information.............................................................................................................35 Figure 4: Average resilience index between 2020 and 2022................................................................38 Figure 5: Absorptive Index by Livelihood ..............................................................................................39 Figure 6: Adaptive capacity Index .........................................................................................................39 Figure 7: Transformative Index across livelihood .................................................................................40 Figure 8: Extent of recovery from recent shocks and hazards .............................................................50 Figure 9: Level of severity of recent shock ...........................................................................................51 Figure 10: FCS across livelihood zones ...............................................................................................52 Figure 11: DDS across livelihood zones ...............................................................................................53 Figure 12: HHS across livelihood zones ...............................................................................................53 Figure 13: Reduced strategy coping strategy index .............................................................................54 Figure 14: Average asset score across livelihood groups ....................................................................62

7 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report outlines the detailed findings of the end-of-project evaluation for the European Union (EU) RESTORE and Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) funded projects, as well as the Annual Resilience Measurement (ARM) findings in Somalia by the Somalia Resilience Program (SomReP). With the rest of the SomReP projects also being implemented in South-Central Somalia in the districts of Baidoa, Afgooye, Xudur, and Doolow, the EU RESTORE and SIDA projects were specifically implemented in Somaliland and Puntland covering 44 villages in the districts of Badhan, Burco, Bosasso, Eyl, Hargeisa, Lasaanod, Lughaya and El Afweyn. SomReP focuses on 87 villages in total, addressing the specific needs and constraints of pastoral, agro-pastoral, peri-urban, fisher folk, and IDP communities. A total of 78,613 beneficiaries were reached through various resilience interventions implemented by partner agencies during the 36-month duration of the EU RESTORE and SIDA projects. SomReP implementing partner agencies include Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) Action Against Hunger (AAH), Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), Oxfam, Danish Refugee Council (DRC), World Vision (as lead agency), Shaqodoon and Cooperazione Internazionale (COOPI). While contributing to the overall SomReP aim of enhancing the resilience of vulnerable communities by increasing their adaptive and absorptive capacities, through community participatory planning, the goal for the EU RESTORE and SIDA Project was to contribute to the resilience of already vulnerable communities in Northern Somalia, and reduce the effects of forced displacement and irregular migration in the region. The specific objective of the project was to sustainably improve food security, livelihoods and build resilience through effective risk management, protection of productive assets and governance of natural resources for pastoral, agro-pastoral and peri-urban communities in Somaliland, Puntland and the South-Central Somalia. To achieve this, the project worked towards the following intermediary outcomes: • Intermediary Outcome 1: Enhanced risk management and disaster preparedness through community action and contingency planning. • Intermediary Outcome 2: Enhanced food security and capacity to meet social needs through sustainable cash-based assistance mechanisms and improved access to social capital. • Intermediary Outcome 3: Enhanced livelihood diversification for women, men, and youth through the restoration and protection of productive assets, value chains and the uptake and adoption of agricultural technology. • Intermediary Outcome 4: Enhanced management and governance of natural resources, including soil and water systems to support sustainable pastoral livelihoods. • Intermediary Outcome 5: Program learning and research generated and shared among relevant stakeholders (including communities, NGOs, and government) Building on the findings of the project baseline survey conducted in 2019 and the Annual Resilience Measurement study conducted in 2021, the purpose of the end line evaluation was to assess the projects performance in terms of its impact, effectiveness and sustainability as well as capture the project achievements, challenges and best practices to inform future strategic programming and project development. The evaluation will also review the recommendations provided in the baseline assessment and assess the extent to which they have been incorporated into the design of the resilience activities. The end of project evaluation was guided by six objectives which included the following: • Objective 1: Evaluate to what extent the resilience interventions carried out under the 2 grants have delivered on relevance, effectiveness; efficiency, coherence, impact and sustainability • Objective 2: Assess the impact of the programme with particular focus on establishing changes that have occurred as measured by key result indicators as stipulated in the log-frame • Objective 3: Identify and assess key lessons learned, challenges and draw recommendation for future programming interventions • Objective 4: Assess sustainability of the project interventions beyond donor funding • Objective 5: Conduct tracer study of the TVET graduates to assess their employability and measure the extent to which skills acquired through the program have improved their status

8 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project • Objective 6: Conduct tracer study on the VSLA groups formed through the program and measure the extent to which members have benefitted from being in the group and the extent to which their livelihood status has been impacted Key Evaluation Questions: The following questions guided the evaluation (additional details are included in the ToR appended to this report) 1. What the end line values for the key indicators are as provided for in Table 1? 2. What are the current household and community practices in relation to resilience building, agriculture, natural resources management, income generating activities, livelihood strategies, food consumption practices, and copping strategies? 3. What are the current household and community asset holdings in the impact area? 4. What are the common vulnerabilities and gender disabilities in the impact area and which groups of people are most affected? 5. What attitudes and beliefs do people in the communities have towards different vulnerable groups for example women and girls, lesser-clans, people with disabilities, landless farmers, and singleheaded households? 6. What is the knowledge level of people in the impact area on issues of inclusion and gender? 7. What economic and livelihood opportunities exist in the impact area for vulnerable groups (i.e. women and girls, lesser-clans, people with disabilities, landless farmers, single-headed household)? 8. Has the project addressed the identified community vulnerabilities and gender disparities? 9. Were the implemented interventions in line with the priorities of the households and communities? 10. Were the funds used economically, effectively and efficiently? 11. Was the implementation of activities timely and appropriately sequenced? 12. Have there been any unintended outcomes? 13. What were the enabling/disabling factors in achieving/impeding project outcomes? 14. What are the prospects for sustainability of the project after the external funding ends? 15. What were the project best practices and lessons learnt? 16. What has been the impact of the project on; • The direct beneficiaries, disaggregated by gender and disability • Community • Natural Resource and Environment Study methodology: For quantitative data needs, 2,733 household surveys were conducted which draw proportionate sample from the project beneficiaries across the 12 interventions districts in Somaliland, Puntland and South Central Somalia. The survey respondents comprised of 1,423 female who accounted for 52% of survey respondents and 1,310 men, who accounted for 48% of respondents. In addition, qualitative data was gathered from diverse stakeholders including SomReP technical advisors, key staff from each implementing agency, members of various community governance structures including Natural Resources Management, Social Action Committees, Village Development Committees, Water Management Committees as well as Early Warning Committees. Lastly, the study conducted tracer studies targeting 12 groups of Village Savings and Loaning Associations (VSLAs) as well 15 graduates of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVETS) across the 12 project implementation districts. Secondary data for the end line evaluation was obtained through comprehensive review of humanitarian situation and sector reports across the 3 states in Somalia from sources which included: Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) and Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit (FSNAU) and United Nations Office for Coordination on Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA as well as SomReP and program strategies and plans. In addition, the evaluation reviewed both the project design as well as monitoring and progress reports. Data analysis for quantitative data was done using STATA software while qualitative data has been analyzed using a combination of conceptualization, coding, and categorization of data to thematic areas in line with research questions and objectives. Summary of Key Findings along Resilience Indices

9 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Resilience Indices1 : The SomReP consortium defines resilience as the ability of people, households, communities, and systems to mitigate, adapt, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth. This includes assessing three capacities which include an absorptive capacity index, Adaptive capacity index, and Transformative capacity index to compute the resilience index across various levels. From the study, the overall average resilience index has continued to reduce from 30 in 2020 to 22 in 2021 and 20 in 2022. The reduction in average resilience index between 2021 and 2022 was statistically significant at 5% level of significance (P=0.0000). Unlike in 2021 where it was reported that the average resilience index was higher for men than women, in 2022 the average resilience index was higher for women (21.8) than men (18.2) and difference was statistically significant. The decrease in resilience index could be attributed to prolonged drought that has affected Somalia since 2021 and remains a worrisome issue to date. Absorptive capacities: Under this aspect, the evaluation assessed the target communities’ capacity to take intentional protective action and to cope with known shocks and stress such as extreme weather events caused by climate change, protracted conflict, and disasters-among others. The shock exposure index measures the overall degree of shock exposure for each household and the perceived severity of the shock on household income and food consumption. From the study findings, the Absorptive capacity index remained rather the same (10.9) between 2021 and 2022. Women had relatively higher absorptive capacity (12.8) than men (9.1) and the difference was statistically significant at 5% (P=0.000). Across livelihoods, pastoral households had the strongest absorptive capacity at 16.6, followed by agro-pastoral at 8.3 and peri-urban households had the weakest absorptive capacity at 6.5. Statistically, while there was significant difference in absorptive capacity means between pastoral households and agro-pastoral households and pastoral households and per-urban households (P=0.000), there was significant difference in absorptive capacity means between agro-pastoral households and peri-urban households. The decrease in absorptive capacity can be attributed to households’ exposure to prolonged drought and other shocks. Adaptive capacities: Under this aspect, the evaluation assessed the target communities’ capacity to make intentional incremental adjustments in anticipation of or in response to change, in ways that create more flexibility in the future such as adoption of good agricultural practices, improved livestock management practices access to income, food and other basic social services such as markets, water and sanitation. A key aspect of adaptive capacity is accepting that change is ongoing as well as highly unpredictable. From the study findings, the Adaptive capacity index reduced from 34 in 2020 to 32.2 in 2021 to 31.0 in 2022. The difference in adaptive capacities between 2021 and 2022 was statistically significant at 5% (P=0.0040). The results further show that women had higher adaptive capacity index at 32.6 compared to men at 29.5 and the difference was statistically significant at 5% (P=0.000). The agro-pastoral households’ adaptive capacity became rather stronger as it increased 33.3 in 2021 to 34.5 in 2022 but the adaptive capacity of pastoral households weakened as it decreased from 28.1 in 2021 to 25.5 in 2022. Adaptive capacity of peri-urban households, on the other hand, remained the same at 34. Transformational capacities: Under his aspects, the evaluation assessed the key duty bearers’ 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 marginalization2 . From the study findings, the Transformative index reduced from 29 in 2020 to 24.3 in 2021 to 17.8 in 2022. The difference in transformative capacities between 2021 and 2022 was statistically significant at 5% level of significance (P=0.000). The results further show that women had higher transformative capacity index at 19.9 than men 15.9 and the difference in means between men and women were statistically significant at 5% level of significance (P=0.000). The results also show that transformative capacity index decreased across all livelihood groups. Weakening of transformative capacity among households and communities in 2022 could be attributed to impact of covariate shocks such as the prolonged drought that undoubtedly has weakened capacity of informal and formal social networks to cushion each other. 1 https://www.fsnnetwork.org/sites/default/files/Methodology_Guide_Nov2018508.pdf

10 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project On poverty indices, there was no significant change in poverty levels. The proportion of households that were found to be structurally poor and stochastic poor increased from 61.9% and 0.73% in 2021 to 66.2% and 0.11% in 2022 respectively The proportion of households who were stochastically non-poor decreased marginally from 35.5% in 2021 to 33.3% in 2022. The results further show that none of the households was structurally non-poor implying that many households had depleted or lost their assets and therefore even though some are income non-poor, they remain vulnerable to becoming poor. Summary of Findings along Key Project Intermediary Outcomes Intermediary Outcome 1: Enhanced risk management and disaster preparedness: Environmental shocks and hazards have continued to negatively affect HHs supported by the project and thus poses a threat of eroding resilience gains made over the past 3 years. As noted form the evaluation finings, majority of households (75%) reported their primary livelihoods as having been affected by recent shocks/hazards- mainly as a result of the prolonged drought that has been experienced in Puntland and Somaliland and which has resulted in depletion of water sources (especially open sources such as earth dams and hand dug/shallow wells as well as depletion of vegetative cover. This has affected implementation of key activities in the CAAPs especially those related to water supply and natural resources management and also affected the key project outcomes. In addition the drought situation has resulted in massive displacement of local communities who are currently residing in IDP camps In addition, 57% of HHs indicated that a broad category of community members were targeted for various project interventions- including men, youth, minority clans as well as minority groups such as youth and people living with disabilities. This was a significant increase from 6.8% captured during the baseline survey and above the overall project target of 20%. The positive results were attributed to implementation of purposeful and targeted activities which promote gender and social inclusion, which were identified during the inception phase of the project using participatory Gender Analysis as well as Gender Sensitive Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (GSVCA). Lastly 34% household (36% female and 32% male headed) were aware of any existing disaster risk reduction plans or early warning system in their community. In addition, 57% of HHs (58% female and 56% male headed HHs) indicated they received alerts (warning information) prior to the occurrence of the hazard/shocks. This was a slight drop from 61.3% who reported having received the same during the Annual Resilience Measurement of 2021 as a result of devastating effects of persistent drought which continues to be experienced in northern Somalia. Lastly, 23% of households indicated their community as having any contingency reserve (such as fodder, grain and finances reserved for emergencies), with more women than men indicating awareness (27% of women against 18% of men). The result was attributed to project activities which have been promoting communities to build contingency funds which they have also used to implement some CAAP activities as well as preserved under community contingency reserves in bank accounts. The study captured 74% of households as aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the development of natural resources management plans. This was significant increase from baseline value of 0 (2019) and above the overall project target of 28% attributed to the project implementation approach that has prioritized collaborating with local government authorities in the design and implementation of CAAPs. Intermediary Outcome 2: Enhanced food security and capacity to meet social needs: The food security indicators have continued to deteriorate mainly due to the 3 years of consecutive drought experienced across the horn of Africa including Somaliland and Puntland. From the end line findings, less than half of HH (45%) reported an acceptable FCS (equal for both male and female) which was a significant reduction from 61% of households during the baseline (2019) and 50.4% during the Annual Resilience Measurement (2021). In addition, only 48% of households scored a medium Dietary Diversity Score while , only 17.8% of HHs reported low coping index- implying that most of the HHs have resulted to high coping strategies which could erode resilience gains attained over the past 2 years (2020-2021). Outcome 3 : Enhanced livelihood diversification: The results show that proportion of households who adopted diversified strategies (i.e. more than on strategy) decreased from 20.3% in 2019 to 15.4% in 2022 (agro-pastoral =20.5%, pastoral =15.3%, peri-urban =9.1%). The decrease in proportion of people engaging in multiple strategies can be attributed the worsening global economy and further aggravated by prolonged drought in Somalia which has further resulted in limited economic opportunities. This is also reflected in average household incomes which have declined by nearly half

11 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project from USD 140.45 in 2021 to USD 72.1 in 2022. In addition, the average asset score decreased from 35.3 in 2021 to 28.7 in 2022. Across livelihood zones, pastoral community had the highest mean asset score of 29.7 however the mean asset score in peri-urban community decreased from 31.3 in 2021. The average asset score however decreased significantly by half among the peri-urban community from 54 in 2021 to 26.9. For agro-pastoral communities the average asset score reduced marginally from 30.6 in 2021 to 29.2 in 2022. The decrease in average asset scores among communities could be attributed to the effects of shocks and mainly the prolonged drought which has been experience across project locations in Somaliland and Puntland. Subsequently, low access and uptake of improved agricultural and livestock management practices was also captured. This is despite the fact the EU RESORE and SIDA project has been promoting improved agricultural and livestock management practices. In particular only 10% of households indicated having benefitted (accessed) agricultural services, only 16% of households indicated having practiced any form of irrigation while very few sampled farmers engaged in crop production, mainly due to the fact that most of them were dependent on rain fed agriculture, and with continuing drought, the farming activities have continued to decline and only 13% of households indicated having benefitted (accessed) veterinary services Outcome 4: Enhanced management and governance of natural resources, soil and water systems: From the findings, 76.47% of households had access to water for multiple use. This was a significant increase from 60% during the baseline in 2019 and an overachievement of the 50% overall project target. This was a significant increase from 60% during the baseline in 2019 and an overachievement of the 50% overall project target. The favourable result could be attributed to the project efforts in rehabilitation and construction of multi-use water infrastructures and irrigation canals over the past 4 years. In addition, 67% of households reported their water management committee as functional during the end line evaluation (female 66% and 67% male). This was a significant increase from the baseline value of 14.5%, and also exceeded the overall project target of 60%. This was attributed to project interventions which supported establishment and capacity building of water management committees. In addition, approximately 5,320 hectares were under natural resource management mainly in Puntland against baseline survey value of 1,312 Taap. The results have been as a result of ongoing project activities which promotes natural resources management such as investments in expanding and rehabilitating water infrastructure enhancing community skills in natural resources management, training community water committees on operations and maintenance of water points as well as supporting establishment of pastoral and farmer managed natural regeneration and trainings. Outcome 5: Program learning and research: Through strategic partnerships under the EU RESTORE and SIDA project, the project has managed to publish 12 documents against baseline of zero in 2019 and exceeding the overall project target of 2. These positive results of continuous engagement of project staff with all levels of government (federal, state and local-district) which promoted synergy in the implementation and monitoring process. The collaboration was also an avenue for enhancing key government staff capacity on coordination and also entailed conducting targeted training for government staff on performance monitoring and reporting Summary of Findings along DAC Evaluation Criteria Relevance of the project: Project locations in northern Somalia (Puntland and Somaliland) have continued to experience deteriorating humanitarian situation across Somalia. According to recent update on humanitarian situation in Somalia, nearly 50 per cent of the population in Somalia where 7.8 million people are estimated to be affected by the longest and most severe drought in the country’s recent history. Over 1.3 million people are internally displaced due to drought and more than 50,000 Somalis, including those affected by the drought, have sought safety and assistance in Ethiopia and Kenya. More than 3.5 million livestock have died since mid-2021, devastating livelihoods and reducing children’s access to milk. In addition, the project has been considered as relevant by both the target beneficiaries’ and the line ministries’ officers and was cognizant of the prevailing humanitarian conditions and complexities on caseloads during the design period especially the 2018 drought which had a massive negative impact on the country as well as flash floods and strong winds caused additional shocks in the north and south of the country. In addition, FEWSNET/FSNAU technical release during the time also indicated that over 2.7 million people will face crisis or emergency (IPC Phases 3 and 4)3 between now and June 2018, 3 Somalia Food Security Outlook – February – September 2018: FEWSNET/FSNAU release

12 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project and the number of children under the age of five that were acutely malnourished children estimated at 301,000, including 48,000 who are severely malnourished and face an increased risk of disease and death. From the study findings, the project interventions were considered appropriate and relevant to beneficiaries in the target locations in addressing their pressing needs especially in addressing effects of drought in their locations, with majority of households (87%) reporting the project support addressed their household and community needs ( 88% female and 87% male headed HHs). The highest level of satisfaction was captured among peri urban and urban HHs (92%) followed by pastoral HHs (90%) then agro pastoral HHs (83%) and lastly among fisher folk at 52%. The design of the project was aligned with SomReP strategy which focuses on enhancing community resilience through interventions aimed at reducing hunger, improving food security, increasing household income as well as improving households and target communities coping capacities. The project specifically focused on working with target communities across the 12 target districts across Somaliland, Puntland and South West State which focused on drought recovery and building resilience to natural disasters after the severe drought which hit Somalia in 2017. The project design was also modelled on SomReP’s approaches that focus on increasing local communities adaptive, absorptive and transformative capacities to recover from shock quickly through building institutional capacity of actors and stakeholders as well as strengthening management of natural resources as well as safe guarding of target households’ and community assets. Efficiency: The EU RESTORE and SIDA project has demonstrated a combination of cost, quality and a level of sustainability under the conditions that prevailed during implementation. Firstly, the project was designed to respond to drought but was hit by a tropical cyclone as well as restrictions related to onset of COVID-19 pandemic. However, to cover the lost months, the project implementation team put in place measures to accelerate and fast track the rollout process especially the speedy preparation of Community Adaptation Action Plans (CAAPs) while the project management approved a No Cost Extension which has enabled the implementing partners to sufficiently cover all the planned project activities. In addition, the project implementation processes demonstrate a combination of approaches that have ensured value for money. The project staff SomReP and implementing agencies) confirmed having fully adhered to procurement and financial management systems which promote transparency and accountability. Procurement of all project materials has adhered to existing policies of respective procuring agencies which outline the tendering and awarding process for project works. The project procurement team have also utilised the approach of pre-positioning of key project materials (buying ahead and keeping them close to project location) to increase efficiency. Lastly, majority of HHs (80%) reporting that project support was provided at the right time (77% female and 82% male headed HHs). The highest response was captured among pastoral HHs (84%) followed by peri urban and urban HHs (81%), then fisher folk HHs at 80%) and lastly agro-pastoral HHs at 74%. Project Connectedness: The project design incorporated social protection component into the larger resilience building initiatives which included rehabilitation of productive assets, enhancing livelihood diversification, capacity development and community-led natural resource management initiatives. The drought recovery project was implemented through existing community structures which included relief and development committees, village NRM committees, members of VSLA groups, water management committees, agro-pastoralist farmers’ groups associations as well as Community Animal Health Workers at community based level. This was a deliberate effort of enhancing communities’ capacities for future needs. Project stakeholders including the government and communities were involved throughout the project cycle. In addition, government officials, community members from target villages participated in consultative meetings with project implementation teams during the planning, launch and rollout of project interventions including conducting of initial GSVCA, selection and registration of project beneficiaries. The active involvement of local communities in initial planning and development of the project was reported to enhance their understanding of their role and expectations in the implementation process. Lastly, the project involved the both local district and regional government teams in project aspects which included assessments (Gender Analysis as well as GSVCA), facilitation of development of village

13 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project CAAPs, and training of farmers on Good Agricultural Practices as well as providing support to Community Animal Health Workers. The government team was also part of joint monitoring team as well as participated in the monthly and quarterly project review meetings with other resilience partners where they shared progress of key activities as well as formulated approaches and strategies for addressing emerging issue which included the anticipated looming famine in last quarter of 2022. Key project impacts: It was evident that majority of project beneficiaries considered the project having positively affected the lives of their household members as well as those of immediate community members. Feedback from survey noted that 81% of respondents (79% female and 82% male headed HHs) considered the project as having greatly improved their lives as follows: 85% among peri urban and urban HHs, followed by pastoral HHs at 84%, then agro pastoral HHs at 74% and lastly among fisher folk HHs at 63%. Additionally, the project as contributed in increasing farmers’ adoption of good agricultural practices including provision of farm inputs has enabled agro-pastoral communities continue in effective production and post-harvest management practices thus granting food supply up to 3 month post the harvest time. Also, project interventions were noted to have contributed in reducing the disaster impacts comparing to the other years, for example, the drought experience in 2010-2011 caused losses to pastoralists for up to 80% of their livestock. However, in the current project locations which have mainstreamed preparedness, early warning and contingency planning, the drought experienced for 3 consecutive years (2020,2021 and 2022) has only led to losses of approximately 20-30% of livestock (as cited by government team in Puntland). The evaluation also established that cash transfers provided under the project (both unconditional transfers as well as cash for work) have contributed in meeting immediate and lifesaving food needs for the targeted vulnerable households across 3 states. In addition, cash for assets (work) has contributed in improvement of community assets that will remain accessible to targeted groups- even after the project ends in all project locations. Feedback from the study also noted that skills gained by various community groups trained under the project, such as CAHWs, VSLAs group have continued to utilise their skills in enhancing improved livestock management, promoting saving culture and establishment of income generating activities as well as adoption of good agricultural practices is a lasting impact. Members of community savings groups have already managed to accumulate savings which they are accessing and lending to other who are interested in starting income generating activities as well as accessing additional credit from micro- finance institutions for expending their businesses. This has also enabled community members to engage in economic recovery activities which is a pathway to self-reliance instead of depending directly on humanitarian aid. Lastly, the collaboration between project staff and government officers in design and implementation of DRR activities has resulted in high acceptance of DRR activities including integration in the National Development Plan with an accompanying budgetary allocation. This has also informed the creation of DRR units in municipalities which have positively taken up dissemination of early warning system and resultant actions. The DRR units have also taken up lead in conducting vulnerability assessments, development, implementation, monitoring and review of CAAPs as well as positively tracking dashboards. Conclusions and Recommendations The study reveals that environmental shocks and hazards, particularly drought, have negatively affected households in SomReP locations in general and EU RESTORE and SIDA locations (Puntland and Somaliland) in particular, eroding resilience gains made over the last three years. The drought has depleted water sources and vegetative cover, hampered intervention implementation, and resulted in displacement of some communities. Food security indicators have deteriorated, with fewer than half of households reporting adequate food consumption. Most households have resorted to extreme coping strategies, which may erode resilience gains further. Despite efforts by SomReP and EU RESORE and SIDA projects, access to and adoption of improved agricultural and livestock management practices has been limited. Due to widespread misconceptions and a lack of understanding of gender mainstreaming in local communities, the project has seen low acceptance and uptake of affirmative action for women. Notwithstanding the hazards and shocks that have largely affected SomReP and Somalia in the last year due to drought, the project has had a positive impact over the years, and there has been progress along the graduation pathway of project beneficiaries, allowing them to endure multiple cycles of shocks before the noticeable erosion of resilience gains. Based on the above study findings, the following is being recommended:

14 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project • Scale down agricultural interventions in unfavorable locations (especially in the northern parts of Somalia) and concentrate the same in the South West State. • Consider scale up capacity building of both government and CSOs who act as front line workers for DRR activities, especially in embracing adaptation model. • Organize farmers into producer groups or associations and provide linkages with markets in major towns. • Upscale support for livestock support to farmers through formation and training of livestock producer groups or associations. Tap into existing opportunity of livestock marketing infrastructure particularly using the shipping port of Barbera. • Upscale sensitization, awareness creation and knowledge transfer among target communities on applying gender lens on beneficiaries selection and targeting, participation and involvement throughout the project cycle • Continue to integrate gender lenses in project design activities including incorporating them in the log frame and performance indicators • Consider supporting an additional staff who will double up as the gender focal point. The staff should drive the agenda of gender inclusion at federal government level. This can be done on secondment basis to Ministry of Planning and Development to spearhead the development of national gender policy and pursue inclusion aspects in the National Development Plan. • Scale up targeting criteria and go beyond focus on having a certain number of women in project and considering that as gender mainstreaming. All implementing agencies should focus on enhancing inclusion right from project design and maintain focus throughout the project cycle (implementation process, monitoring, reporting, and evaluation) - including engendering approaches in the project monitoring, data collection and reporting tools • Intensify cross learning activities at all program implementation levels (community level, regional government level as well as federal government level. The focus should be on creating a learning journey throughout the process as exemplified by an ongoing USAID funded resilience program in Somalia. • Increase focus of early warning early action system, especially the use of already existing dashboards. These platforms are already providing critical information such as market prices for both livestock and related products as well as agricultural products; monitoring rangeland management through satellite imagery as well as provision of related advisory services. • Take up untapped opportunity of widening scope of support for livestock-based livelihood: The program focus on CAHWs as the major intervention for pastoral communities has yielded very low results. This has resulted in missed opportunities such as supporting pastoralist in organizing themselves under livestock association and building their capacity in improved livestock rearing. This should also include providing farmers with information on prevailing markets process for livestock thus enabling them negotiate better prices with buyers. This will also enable them tap into already existing livestock market in gulf countries through existing infrastructure (port of Berbera) • Conduct mapping of viable private partners in project locations which can support market-based interventions (both livestock and agricultural production groups/associations) and link them with pastoralists and farmers in respective project locations. Also utilize the private sectors actors in providing various capacity building activities such as training for producers groups and associations as well as in providing market information to producers.

15 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project OUTCOME INDICATORS MATRIX Core indicators Indicator ARM 2017 Results ARM 2019 Results ARM 2020 Results ARM 2021 results End line Evaluation/ ARM 2023) 2021 vs 2022 P-Value % households who are structurally non-poor [1] as measured by stochastic and structural poverty. Not computed Not computed 37.5% 35.3% 33.3 0.873 Resilience index 1 (as measured by Tango framework) Not computed Not computed 30 22.4 (female 21.7; Male 23.0, Agropastoral 23.3; Pastoral 20.0, Peri-urban 22.7) 19.9 (female 21.8; male 18.2) Agro-pastoral 19.5 Pastoral 21.4 Periurban/Urban 18.4 0.000* Absorptive Capacity Index 23.7 10.6 (Female10.1, Male11.1) 10.9 (female 12.8; male 9.1) 0.185 Adaptive capacity Index 34 32.2 (Female31.9,Male32.6) 31.0 (female 32.6; male 29.5) 0.004* Transformative capacity Index 29 24.3 (female(23.2, Male-24.3) 17.8 (female 19.9; male 15.9) 0.000* % of targeted households with little to no hunger as measured by Household Hunger Scale 32% 52% 73.20% 69.6% (Agro-pastoral 70.5%, Pastoral 66.9%, Peri-urban 70.4%; Female 69.2%, Male 70.1% 61.2% (Fisher-folk 70.4%, agropastoral 57.7%, pastoral 69.4%, periurban 53.5%; Female 61.5%, Male 60.9 %) 0.000* SoI1: % of households having acceptable food consumption scores (disaggregated by household head gender, and vulnerability type) 54% (livelihood disaggregation was not computed) 63% (Peri-Urban/ Urban 80%, Pastoral, 49%, IDP 68%, Agro-Pastoral 60%) 44.9% (PeriUrban/ Urban 47 %, Pastoral 46.2%, IDP 29.5%, AgroPastoral 44.3%) 50.4% (Agro-pastoral 41.7%, Pastoral 63.4%, Peri-urban 61.0%; Female 49.2%, Male51.6% 44.9% (Fisher-folk 64.8%, agropastoral 49.7%, pastoral 69.4%, periurban 53.5%; Female 44.9%, Male 44.9) 0.000* SoI2: % of communities who report to utilize EWEA information to make risk informed decisions (disaggregated by livelihood zone) Not computed 12.5% (livelihood disaggregation was not computed) 22.1% (PeriUrban/ Urban 12.3%, Pastoral 18.5%, IDP 7.4%, AgroPastoral 30.3%, Fisher-folk 33.3%) 53.1% (Agro-pastoral 53.7%, Pastoral 57.5%, Peri-Urban 45.7%) 83.2%(Female 85.5%, Male 80.7%; Fisherfolk 100.0% agro – pastoral 83.5%, pastoral 89.5%, peri urban 77.9 %) 0.000* SoI3: % increase in community Not computed HH 41 (Pastoral community 32, HH 24.3 (Periurban/urban HH 35.3 (Periurban/urban 54, HH 28.7 Peri-urban 26.9 0.000*

16 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project asset score (disaggregated by livelihood zone) in program areas Agro-pastoral community 42 37, Pastoral 23.7, IDP 9.1, Agropastoral 19.5, Fisher fork 8.2) Pastoral 31.3, Agropastoral 30.6) Pastoral 30.6 Agro-pastoral 31.3 So14: % of people in targeted districts (genderdisaggregated) who view local governments as accountable and responsive to community priorities in providing equitable services and promoting resilience interventions Not computed 10.5% (Male 7.9%, Female 1.3%)/ (Peri-Urban 10%, Pastoral 9%, Agropastoral 18%, IDP=5% 66.8% (Male 64.6%, Female 66.9)/ (PeriUrban/ Urban 67.4%, Pastoral 63.3%, IDP 61.1%, AgroPastoral 64.6%, Fisher-folk 66.7%) 65.1% (Agro-pastoral 63.27%, Pastoral 67%, Peri-urban/Urban 67.9%; Female 63.9%, Male 66.3%) 59.7% (Female 63.2%, Male 56.5%) 0.000* So15: % of innovations piloted through SomRIL and adopted for scale-up Not computed Not computed TBD 33.3%4 N/A Table 1: Progressive measurements of the core indicators Outcome indicators ARM 2017 Results ARM 2019 Results ARM 2020 Results ARM 2021 results ARM 2022 results 2021 vs 2022 PValue Io111: % of target households who have positive coping strategies as measured by the reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) (disaggregated by household head gender, vulnerability type, and livelihood zone). Not computed 60% (Peri-Urban/ Urban (75%) Pastoral (85%) IDP (68%) AgroPastoral (69%) 30.3% (Peri-Urban/ Urban (28.0%) Pastoral (27.3%) IDP (30.5%) AgroPastoral (33.5%) Fisher-folk (0.0%)), (Male (31.9%), Female (28.5%)) 22.6% (Periurban/urban 28.7%, Pastora10.7%, Agro-pastoral 25.5%; Male 19.4%, Female 25.5%) 17.8% Female 17.6%, male 18 % 17.4% Agropastoral 18.2% Pastoral 17.8% Peri-urban/ urban 0.000* Io211: % reduction in households who need humanitarian assistance during shocks and stress Not computed Not computed 26.80% 30.4% 30.2% 0.870 Io212: % increase in household incomes (data disaggregated by household head gender, vulnerability type, and livelihood zone). Not computed Not computed Mean 140.4522 N: 2700 Minimum 0.0, Maximum 5,245, , Std. Deviation 263.09463 N 2,871, Minimum 0.00, Maximum 4350; Mean 171.9 USD std deviation 1035. Agro-pastoral 189.0 USD, Pastoral 1128.2 Mean 72.1 USD Std. deviation 98.1 USD Min 0 USD Max 1255 USD Agro-pastoral 78.4 USD 0.000* 4 This is a process-oriented indicator and hence difficult to capture in absolute figures.

17 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project USD, Periurban 177.0 USD Pastoral 66.9 USD Peri-Urban 71.1 USD Io213: % of the targeted populations with all-year access to multi-use water (for irrigation agricultural production & domestic use) as a result of investment in large scale water infrastructure and small scale water infrastructure disaggregated by men and women household head gender, vulnerability type, and livelihood zones 15% 60% 77.50% 78.65% 76.47% 0.088 Io214: #of hectares under soil and water conservation measures Not computed 5 Hectare 28.9 Hectare Not computed* 5,320 HA N/A Io215: % of households experiencing yield improvements (by gender and livelihood zone) Not computed 40% (Gender disaggregation was not computed) 28.3% (Male 31.3%, Female 23.7%) 48% (Male 56.2%, Male 41.7%) Not computed* N/A Io216; % Increase in yield per unit hectares Not computed Not computed Not computed Not computed* Not computed* N/A Io3I1: % of HHs engaging in multiple income-generating activities as measured by participation index [1]. (disaggregated by household head gender, vulnerability type, and livelihood zone) 20% (Gender and livelihood disaggregation was not computed) 35.3% (Gender and livelihood disaggregation was not computed) 40.1% (Male 41.8% Female 38.1%), (AgroPastoral 44.7%, Pastoral 31.6%, Fisher-folk (0.0%), IDP 35.8%, PeriUrban/ Urban 42.6%) 66.8% (Male69.3%, Female=64.4%; Agro pastoral 72.7%, Pastoral 63.0%, Periurban/Urban 53.8%) 46.2% (Male 45.6%, Female=46.9%; Fisher-folk 50.0% Agro pastoral 46.2%, Pastoral 5.8%, Periurban/Urban 33.8%) 0.000* Io3I2: % increase in household asset diversification score (disaggregated by household head gender, vulnerability type, and livelihood zone) Not computed HH 41 (Pastoral community 32, Agro-pastoral community 42 24.3% (Periurban/urban 37, Pastoral 23.7, IDP 9.1, Agropastoral 19.5, Fisher fork 8.2) HH 35.3 (Periurban/urban 54, Pastoral 31.3, Agropastoral 30.6) HH 28.7 Peri-urban 26.9 Pastoral 30.6 Agro-pastoral 31.3 0.001* Io313: % increase in households who realize improved profit gains from their sales Not computed Not computed 63.9% (AgroPastoral 76.3%, Fisher-folk 66.7%, IDP, 35.8%, Pastoral 68%, PeriUrban/ Urban 36.6%), (female 68.6%, 58.6%) 72.3% (Agropastoral 74.3%, Pastoral 69.2%, Periurban/Urban 71.4%, Female 68.6%, Male 76.1%) 25% (Agro-pastoral 24.7%) Pastoral 32.3% Peri-urban 15.2% Female 25.8% Male 24.3% 0.000* Io314: % increase in households who reports easy access to markets Not computed Not computed 66.5% 65.0% (Agropastoral 58.3%, Pastoral 58.5% (Agropastoral 41.5%, Pastoral 0.000*

18 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project 73.5%, Periurban/Urban 73.9%; Male 64%, Female 65.9%) 69.3%, Periurban/Urban 63.5%; Male 52.9%, Female 64.7%) Io315: % increase in households who report improved $ sales volume per season Not computed Not computed 63.90% 62.40% 20.9% (male 22.1%, Female 19.8%) 0.000* Io316: % increase in households who have access to formal financial services (e.g. those able to open accounts /access loans from formal banks, mobile money providers) Not computed Not computed 36.40% 17.0% (Male 16.7%, Female 17.1%; Agropastoral 15.3%, Pastoral 17.1% Periurban/Urban 21.6%) 17.9% (Agropastoral 13.7%, Pastoral 26.8%, Periurban/Urban 9.2%; Male 14.7%, Female 21.5%) 0.375 Io317: % point increase in the proportion of women that engage in jobs in sectors of sustainable livelihoods (diversified productionrelated incomes) and economic growth (business development services like transport, milling, bulking, and input supply) Not computed Not computed 56.50% 55.30% Not Computed N/A Io411: Extent to which targeted communities are satisfied with delivery of basic services by local government (measured on a scale of 1 to 5) 3 (64.8%) 3 (54.86%) 3 (59.7%) (Agro-pastoral 61.1%, Pastoral 55.8%, Periurban/Urban 64%; Male 56.5%, Female 63.2%) 0.002* Io412: % increase of participation of women and other disadvantaged groups in decision making at the district level in the determination of development priorities and CAAP financing Not computed Not computed 46.2% Women, 37.4 of disabled household heads (periurban/Urban 45.4%, Pastoral 54.9%, IDP 23.2%, Agro pastoral 45.7%, Fisher folk 66.7%) 43.75 (Agropastoral 47.8%, Pastoral 40.6%, Periurban 37.5%) 68.53% (Female 64.5%, Male 72.9%, Disabled 60.0%) 0.000* Io511: Extent to which local development annual plans have incorporated priorities from communities identified through CAAPs (measured on a scale of 1 to 5) Not computed Not computed Not computed 2.8 3.7 (74.6%) 0.000* Io512: % of targeted government staff who are able to lead CAAPs monitoring and evaluation processes at the community level Not computed Not computed 42.90% 78.1% 77.2 %( Female 78.1%Male 76.1%) 0.419 * Values with asterisk are significant at 95% Confidence level (P<0.05)

19 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project

20 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project 1. STUDY BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 1.1 HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN SOMALIA According to recent update5 on humanitarian situation in Somalia, nearly 50 per cent of the population in Somalia – 7.8 million people – are estimated to be affected by the longest and most severe drought in the country’s recent history. Over 1.3 million people are internally displaced due to drought and more than 50,000 Somalis, including those affected by the drought, have sought safety and assistance in Ethiopia and Kenya. More than 3.5 million livestock have died since mid-2021, devastating livelihoods and reducing children’s access to milk. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) however notes that the non-declaration of a Famine for the October to December 2022 period as anticipated does not necessarily represent an improvement in the drought situation, rather it reaffirms a continuation of an extremely serious situation. As of December 2022, about 5.6 million people were facing acute food insecurity; 241,000 in Catastrophe while 6.7 million people had been projected to be facing IPC 3 and above from October through December, the updated IPC analysis indicates that between October and December 2022, about 5.6 million people across Somalia were experiencing high levels of acute food insecurity classified in Crisis or worse (IPC Phase 3 or above), including 1.5 million classified in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) and 214,000 in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). The population facing Crisis or worse (IPC Phase 3 or above) is expected to increase to more than 6.3 million between January and March 2023, including 322,000 in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5), and about 1.8 million children under 5 will likely face acute malnutrition through June, including over 513,000 who are expected to be severely malnourished. This situation is a build up to the previous quarterly update which painted a deteriorating situation. According to October 2022 Humanitarian Response Plan on Somalia Humanitarian Situation, the current drought in Somalia remained historic, surpassing the 2010/11 and 2016/17 droughts in terms of duration and severity. Four consecutive rainy seasons have failed, a climatic event not seen in at least 40 years6 . The current Deyr season (October-December) is also projected to underperform. Some regions that used to receive the rains in early October are already experiencing a delay. Humanitarian Needs were expected to continue increasing well into 2023, should the expected rainy season underperform and longer-range forecasts about a sixth poor rainy season materialize. In addition, nearly half of Somalia’s population had been affected by the current drought, with more than 1.1 million people having left their homes in search of food, water, and livelihoods. About 301,000 people were also facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity (IPC Phase 5). Approximately 1.8 million children under the age of 5 years face acute malnutrition between August 2022 and July 2023, including more than half a million children who are likely to be severely malnourished. The Somalia Situation Report of October 2022 also indicated an estimated 6.7 million people (or 41% of the total population) face severe food insecurity, including 2.2 million people who will likely be in an emergency (IPC Phase 4) and at least 300,560 people who will likely be in a catastrophe (IPC Phase 5) by the end of the year. Children are among the most severely affected7 . By July 2023, 1.8 million children may suffer from acute malnutrition, and 513,550 are likely to be severely wasted. Nutrition Cluster's trend analyses also indicate that the number of children admitted for treatment of severe wasting increased by 67 per cent between January and October 2022, compared to the same period in 2021. Admissions have been particularly high in Banadir, Baidoa, Kismayo, Hudur, and Beletweyne, which account for 50 per cent of the 39,944 new admissions in October 2022. Even though mortalities among malnourished children stayed within the Sphere standard, 929 children died in 2022, more than three times as many as the 362 children who died during the same time in 2021. The country continues to be affected by disease outbreaks such as Cholera, Acute Watery Diarrhea (AWD), and measles. 5 UN OCHA Somalia Drought Response and Famine Prevention 15 November - 15 December 2022 6 https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somalia-humanitarian-situation-update-2022-humanitarian-response-plan-revised-requirements-24- october-2022 7 https://www.unicef.org/somalia/reports/somalia-situation-reports-2022

21 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project According to the UNHCR’s Protection and Return Monitoring Network (PRMN), 1,599,000 people were forced to leave their homes in 2022. Of these, 538,000 were conflict-related displacements8 SomReP and consortium members (Adventist Development and Relief Agency(ADRA) Action Against Hunger( AAH,) CARE, Danish Refugee Council(DRC) and Shaqodoon) has been implementing the European Union (EU) and Swedish International Development Agency SIDA) funded restore project since 2019 with the goal of promoting the existing local adaptive capacity of households and communities, while building institutional capacity, strengthening the natural resource base and preventing loss of lives and livelihoods through early action. The project is implemented in Somaliland, Puntland and South Central Somalia in the districts of Badhan, Baidoa, Burco, Bosaso, Dollow, Eyl, Hargeisa, Lasaanod, Lughaya and Salahley targeting a total of 78,613 beneficiaries and addressing specific needs and constraints of pastoral, agro-pastoral, peri-urban, fisher folk and IDP communities. 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 STUDY APPROACH A cross-sectional study was employed in data collection process which also utilized a mixed-method approach which included conducted a household survey as well as focus group discussions with project beneficiaries. In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with key project stakeholders from implementing agencies, government officers and local leaders. The general approach to data collection process involved conducting household surveys as well as facilitating FGDs with sampled community groups which were carried out between December14-30, 2022. During the same time, in-depth interviews were conducted with key staff from project implementing agencies in the field while interviews with project advisors in SomReP were conducting from January 4-6, 2023. 2.2 SAMPLING PROCEDURE The study adopted both probability and non-probability sampling techniques. The study population (sampling frame) was drawn from project beneficiaries in the intervention villages across the 12 project implementation districts which include: Afgooye, Badhan, Baidoa, Bosasso, Burao/Burco, El Afweyne, Eyl, Hargeisa, Laasanood, Lughaya, Salahley and Xudur in the 3 states of Somaliland, Puntland and South West State. Key attention was paid to ensure equitable representation of households from the main livelihood zones which are pastoral, agro-pastoral, peri-urban and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).Since the study served both purposed on end line evaluation and Annual Resilience Measurement, the sampling process also took into consideration additional partners program sites in addition to those covered under EU RESTORE and SIDA project. Sampling for the baseline for the baseline survey included 1,404 households spread across 76 villages in the 7 districts which included Lughaya, Hargesia, Laascaanood, Burco, Eyl, Bussaso and Laasqoray. The 12 project intervention districts were part of 7 districts which were also targeted during the baseline survey were purposively and conveniently selected since they provided opportunity for both ante and post comparisons. Further on, the end lien evaluation interviewed beneficiaries a cross the livelihood zones which included pastoral, agro-pastoral, peri-urban, and IDPs. The study units (villages) were selected using simple random procedure. To get the number of villages per district a probability proportionate to size sample was obtained from the households number already calculated from the samples size. In locating the households, cluster sampling method was utilized in the villages. At the village cluster a right turn was utilized to locate the first households and the next household was located consecutively (this procedure was followed to until the sample size for respective location was meet). 2.3 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION Sample size calculation with reference to the Baseline, has been based on the primary indicator “% households who are structurally non-poor as measured by stochastic and structural poverty.” To calculate the required number of households for evaluation the sample calculator was used, and the procedure was as follows; 8 https://data.unhcr.org/en/dataviz

22 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project 1. Denoted P1 as the prevalence of the indicator at baseline and P2 as the estimated prevalence of the indicator at the time of evaluation. The sample size calculation was based on the difference between two proportions: P1 at baseline and P2 at end-line. The baseline proportions were derived from the EU RESTORE/SIDA Baseline Survey. 2. The significance level (Type I error) is set at 5%. The whole evaluation is designed to have a power of 80% to detect a specified difference between baseline and expected end-line indicators. To adjust for the two-stage cluster sampling (villages will be first selected based on their size, and then households are selected within each selected village), the sample size has been multiplied by a design effect of 2. 3. The primary indicator used to calculate final sample size is the ‘% households who are structurally non-poor as measured by stochastic and structural poverty.’ The prevalence of this primary indicator at baseline (P1) was estimated at 37% and its prevalence at the time of evaluation (P2) was estimated at 42.5%; an absolute difference of 5.5%. The sample size calculation formula for estimating the difference of two independent proportions adjusting for a design effect of 2, ratio of sample sizes at (baseline/evaluation) of 0.50 and estimated 4% nonresponse /refusal rate or missing data yielded a sample size of 2734 households. The sampling process also put into consideration the project targeting data from intervention villages and districts as shared by SomReP team. This data was used in the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sample distribution across the intervention districts and villages as summarized in the table below: Table 2: Sample size for the end line evaluation District No. of HHs Number of sampled HHs Afgooye 3105 304 Badhan 4995 321 Baidoa 4615 747 7249 Bosasso 1130 72 Burao/Burco 2730 175 El Afweyn 5012 321 Eyl 5961 382 Hargeisa 650 43 Laasanood 3382 216 Lughaya 787 59 Salahley 660 42 Xudur 800 51 Total 41,076 2733 2.4 DATA COLLECTION PLAN, TECHNIQUE AND TOOLS At field work phase, primary data for the study was obtained from wide range of SomReP EU RESTORE and SIDA Project stakeholders. The study adopted a participatory approach which involved utilization of diverse data collection techniques key of which will include initial consultative meetings, HH survey (from sampled community members), a desk review of existing literature, in depth interviews with key informants, tracer study with members of Village Savings and Lending Associations (VSLAs) and graduates from Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) as well as outcome harvesting with sampled community groups. The study team comprised of both male and female experts from the consultancy firm. The study leader coordinated the field data collection support by other technical experts and data collection manager. The evaluation experts were also supported by a team of national consultants based in the 3 states. Enumerators (who included both male and female local Somali team) directly collected data from sampled households as well as facilitated focus group discussions with sampled community groups. Training for enumerators and pre-testing of data collection tools was done for 2 days in and actual data collection process in the 3 states took approximately 2 weeks to complete. 2.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The evaluation team took all reasonable steps to ensure that the study was conducted in adherence of the following:

23 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project 1. Protected the anonymity and confidentiality of individual information by use of unique identification to conceal the identity of study respondents 2. Ensured respondents are not provided with any reward or financial compensation for their participation that may influence their response. 3. Respected the confidentiality of the information which is being handled during the assignment. 4. Ensured data collected will only be used only for the purpose of this study. 5. Provided full disclosure of the nature of the study, the risks, and benefits to the respondents 6. Ensured gender sensitivity and inclusion during the data collection and analysis process 2.6 PROTECTION MAINSTREAMING The evaluation team considered issues of access, safety and dignity of both the evaluation team as well as project direct beneficiaries. This was done by taking the following actions: (1) Avoided causing harm (DO No Harm Principle) through project activities and prioritization of safety and dignity of the affected populations, (2) Ensured meaningful access to assistance for persons in need / vulnerable individuals and groups (3) accountability to affected populations, placing them at the center of humanitarian action, and (4) Promoted participation and empowerment of these communities. 2.7 STUDY LIMITATIONS Timeliness of data collection under prevailing drought situation: Data collection for the end line evaluation was conducted in a period when most communities are still experience acute drought. Most agro pastoral and farmer managed natural resources regeneration have been adversely affected by the adverse climatic conditions. In addition, most pastoralist had moved with animals which necessitated the evaluation team to follow them to their grazing lands. Timeliness of data collection under prevailing security situation: Security situation in south Central Somalia remained unstable during data collection. Some villages in Baidoa were inaccessible during data collection which necessitated replacement after the sampling process had been completed. In addition, some households in Baidoa were displaced due to the insecurity and thus delayed HH data collection in some villages as the evaluation team worked with staff from the implementing agency to locate them. Content and length of data collection tool. Due to the need on incorporating findings of Annual Resilience Measurement, the use of the standard household questionnaire with additional evaluative questions resulted in a lengthy tool that took considerable time to administer and to prevent enumerators fatigue, the number of tools administered per day were reduced significantly. This results in additional days for fieldwork and related logistical costs. 2.8 PROGRAM CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS The Project benefitted from a No Cost Extension (NCE) for a duration of 1 year to enable project team accomplish all the project activities. This was necessitated by disruptions which were experience in the years 2020 and 2021. To start with the project experienced delay in 2020 due to restrictions which were effected by Ministry of Health at the onset of Corona Virus Diseases (COVID-19) pandemic in Somalia. This also necessitated the program to align project activities to mainstream COVID-19 preventive measures. The other delays were occasioned by environmental hazards and shocks which included the above average Deyr rains (October to December 2019) that resulted in widespread flooding in parts of Bay and Bakool region including Baidoa Town; as well as prolonged drought in northern Somalia (Puntland and Somaliland) which negatively affected activities on natural resources regeneration efforts as well as farming activities. 3. DETAILED END LINE EVALUATION FINDINGS This section of the report presents the main findings of the end line evaluation. Firstly, the section sets the scene by presenting the socio- demographics of the study respondents as captured through the household survey. In addition, the report outlines the project accomplishments along DAC evaluation criteria as well as key result indicators as stipulated in the log-frame. Subsequently, the report presents key lessons learned and challenges, sustainability of the project interventions as well as findings of tracer study of the TVET graduates and VSLA groups. Lastly, the report presents key recommendations

24 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project drawn from the analyzed and interpreted data as well as triangulated with findings analyzed from qualitative data. 3.1: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS Household Survey respondents: This comprised of 2,733 respondents drawn from the 12 districts across 10 regions in Somaliland, Puntland and South-Central Somalia. The survey respondents comprised of 1,423 female respondents who accounted for 52% of survey respondents and 1,310 men, who accounted for 48%of respondents. Female respondents were highest among peri-urban and urban population (61.4%) and lowest among agro-pastoral communities (42.9%) while male population was highest among agro-pastoral communities (57.1%) and lowest among peri-urban communities (38.6%). The slightly higher number of women was in line with project targeting criteria which focused on vulnerable target group which mainly comprised of pregnant and lactating women, women with children under the age of 5 years as well as women-headed households. The summary of sample size distribution across gender per district is captured in the table below Table 3: Data collection locations by region and district Region District Number of HH surveys Percentage Female respondents Male respondents Lower Shabelle Afgooye 304 11.1% 42% 58% Sanaag Badhan 321 11.8% 45% 55% El Afweyne 321 11.8% 68% 32% Bay Baidoa 747 27.3% 51% 49% Bari Bossaso 72 2.6% 44% 56% Togdheer Burao 175 6.4% 43% 58% Nugaal Eyl 382 14.0% 58% 42% W. Galbeed Hargeysa 43 1.6% 47% 54% Sool Laascaanood 216 7.9% 57% 43% Awdal Lughaya 59 2.2% 61% 39% Salahley 42 1.5% 26% 74% Bakool Xudur 51 1.9% 61% 39% Total 2733 100% Household size and members demographics: Household size: the average household size was 5 members at highest size captured in Hargeysa (7 members) followed by ceel Afwyne and Laas Cannod equally at 6 members while Afgooye,Badhan, Baidoa Bossasso, Eyl and Xudur had each 5. The least was captured in both Borao and Lughaye at 4 members. The average household size along livelihood type was also 5 with no differences across catergories. In addition, 74.3% reported no change in HH size in the past 12 months. However, 21% of households reported an increase (mainly among communities living in urban and peri urban areas and agro-pastoralists) while 5.2% of households reported a reduction in household size (mainly among the fisher folk). Marital status and highest level of education attained: Majority of respondents were married (81.2%) as also predominantly captured among male respondents compared to female. Conversely a higher proportion of women were also captured as divorced especially among fisher folk communities and also widowed among communities in the peri-urban and urban areas. Others marital statuses were captured as follows: divorced (7.7%), widowed (6.2%), unmarried (2.8%) and separated (2.1%). Access to formal education remains low. Most of respondents (62.7%) had only accessed Quranic schools (madrassa) across all livelihood types and gender, followed by primary level of education (16%) particularly among fisher folk, then none at 16.3% particularly among pastoral communities as well as 4% secondary mainly among fisher folk and lastly tertiary education (college, university) which accounted only for 1% of responses.

25 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Table 4: Composition of household members Marital status of Respondent Percentage Female headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisherfolk HHs Agropastoral HHs Pastoral HHs Periurban and urban HHs Married 81% 71% 92% 73% 81% 86% 74% Divorced 8% 13% 2% 14% 5% 8% 10% Widowed 6% 11% 1% 11% 8% 2% 10% Unmarried 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% Separated 2% 3% 1% 0% 2% 2% 3% highest level of education attained Quranic school 63% 64% 61% 57% 75% 49% 67% Primary 16% 17% 15% 27% 13% 18% 16% None 16% 16% 17% 0% 8% 30% 10% Secondary 4% 2% 6% 14% 4% 2% 6% First degree 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% Vocational college 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% HH head: Study feedback captured 52.2% of HH as headed by male, followed by 47.8% as headed by female. See the distribution across livelihood type in the chart below: Figure 1: Household Headship Households with head living with disabilities and other vulnerabilities: Only 2.9% of households reported the head as person living with disability (at 3% male and 2.7% female heads). The distribution among livelihood groups were as follows: 5.7% among communities living in urban and peri-urban HHs, 2.6% among agro-pastoral HHs, 2.3% among fisher folk HHs and 1.3% among pastoral HHs. This was a slight decrease from the cases captured during the 2021 ARM study which shows an average of 5.5% of the respondents as living with a disability. There were higher cases of males reporting disability (6.1%) compared to women (5.0%). VariousThere were higher cases of males reporting disability (6.1%) compared to women (5.0%). Various studies have estimated the population of people with disabilities at above 15% mainly because of their exposure to internal conflict and war or over the past two decades coupled with a weak and inadequate healthcare services. Survey respondents by type of livelihoods: The distribution of survey respondent along livelihood groups were as follows: 37% among pastoral HHs, 36% among agro-pastoral HHs, 25% among urban and peri-urban HHs and lastly 2% among fisher folk HHs. 48% 41% 40% 52% 55% 52% 59% 61% 49% 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Overall Fisher-folk Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban and Urban Household head Female Male

26 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Displaced population: Displaced HHs accounted for 31% of survey respondents. Displacement remain a major humanitarian challenge in Somalia where approximately 1,599,000 people were forced to leave their homes in 2022. Of these, 538,000 were conflict-related displacements million displaced people live in spontaneous settlements, usually in the outskirts of towns. Large-scale displacement has repeatedly been driven by people’s need for safe shelter, a lack of secure tenure in places of settlement and the search for food, as well as water and pasture for livestock. In addition to its violence, Alshabaab’s imposition of taxes on households, farms and livestock has also caused significant displacements in South-Central Somalia. Findings from the end line evaluation indicate that only 4.3% of HHs reported having been displaced in past 12 months (3.5%female and 3.7%male headed HHs). The reported displacements across livelihood type were as follows: 6.8% among pastoral HHs, 3.7% among fisher folk HHs. 3.3% among peri urban and urban HHs and lastly 2.4% among agro-pastoral HHs. 3.2 EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 1: EVALUATE TO WHAT EXTENT THE RESILIENCE INTERVENTIONS HAVE DELIVERED ON RELEVANCY, EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, COHERENCE AND IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY 3.2.1 RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROJECT Relevance to prevailing humanitarian context: Secondary data as well as feedback from qualitative data confirms a deteriorating humanitarian situation across Somalia. According to recent update on humanitarian situation in Somalia, nearly 50 per cent of the population in Somalia where 7.8 million people are estimated to be affected by the longest and most severe drought in the country’s recent history. Over 1.3 million people are internally displaced due to drought and more than 50,000 Somalis, including those affected by the drought, have sought safety and assistance in Ethiopia and Kenya. More than 3.5 million livestock have died since mid-2021, devastating livelihoods and reducing children’s access to milk. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) however notes that the non-declaration of a Famine for the October to December 2022 period as anticipated does not necessarily represent an improvement in the drought situation, rather it reaffirms a continuation of an extremely serious situation. As of December 2022, about 5.6 million people were facing acute food insecurity; 241,000 in Catastrophe while 6.7 million people had been projected to be facing IPC 3 and above from October through December, the updated IPC analysis indicates that between October and December 2022, about 5.6 million people across Somalia were experiencing high levels of acute food insecurity classified in Crisis or worse (IPC Phase 3 or above), including 1.5 million classified in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) and 214,000 in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5). The population facing Crisis or worse (IPC Phase 3 or above) is expected to increase to more than 6.3 million between January and March 2023, including 322,000 in Catastrophe (IPC Phase 5), and about 1.8 million children under 5 will likely face acute malnutrition through June, including over 513,000 who are expected to be severely malnourished. Relevance of the project outcomes to the beneficiaries and community priorities: The EU RESTORE and SIDA project has been considered as relevant and appropriate by both the target beneficiaries’ and the line ministries’ officers and was cognizant of the prevailing humanitarian conditions and complexities on caseloads during the design period especially the 2018 drought which had a massive negative impact on the country as well as flash floods and strong winds caused additional shocks in the north and south of the country. In addition, FEWSNET/FSNAU technical release during the time also indicated that over 2.7 million people will face crisis or emergency (IPC Phases 3 and 4)9 between now and June 2018, and the number of children under the age of five that were acutely malnourished children estimated at 301,000, including 48,000 who are severely malnourished and face an increased risk of disease and death2 . Data from HH survey captured positive feedback on appropriateness/relevance of the project as well as level of satisfaction on the services provided under various project sectors. From the study findings, the project interventions were considered appropriate and relevant to beneficiaries in the target locations in addressing their pressing needs with majority of households (87%) reporting the project 9 SOMALIA Food Security Outlook – February – September 2018: FEWSNET/FSNAU release

27 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project support addressed their household and community needs (88% female and 87% male headed HHs). The highest level of satisfaction was captured among peri urban and urban HHs (92%) followed by pastoral HHs (90%) then agro pastoral HHs (83%) and lastly among fisher folk at 52%. Observations of project support as provided to communities (community assets) such as rehabilitated water points and access roads were of quality standards. Feedback from field team observation also noted the workmanship and materials used in the construction have met the required quality standards. Feedback from government officers and local leaders indicated the targeted vulnerable HHs have been experiencing shocks which have been frequent since 2018. These included tropical storm/cyclone Pawan which caused flooding and destruction of crops, the onset of Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) which negatively affected live hoods in 2020-21 period, desert locusts which devastated vegetation cover in 2020-21 as well as ongoing drought which has resulted in massive loss of animals and crops. They also confirmed the project appropriateness and indicated it was well received well by the both the government and targeted communities as a contribution in enhancing local communities resilience to the common hazards and shocks. Data from HH survey captured community acceptance of the interventions, alluded to the appropriateness/relevance of the support that was provided. Lastly, the design of the project anchored on various needs assessment in the regions as well the Gender Sensitive Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment conducted in 2019 at the initial phase of the project. Alignment of the drought Recovery Project with SomReP Strategy The design of the project was aligned with SomReP strategy which focuses on enhancing community resilience through interventions aimed at reducing hunger, improving food security, increasing household income as well as improving households and target communities coping capacities. The project specifically focused on working with target communities across the 12 target districts across Somaliland, Puntland and South West State which focused on drought recovery and building resilience to natural disasters after the severe drought which hit Somalia in 2017. The project design was also modelled on SomReP’s approaches that focus on increasing local communities adaptive, absorptive and transformative capacities to recover from shock quickly through building institutional capacity of actors and stakeholders as well as strengthening management of natural resources as well as safe guarding of target households’ and community assets. Feedback from HH survey, KIIs and FGDs indicated that the project activated a crisis modifier targeting the most vulnerable HHs with unconditional cash transfers which acted as immediate lifesaving support. To further enhance target households’ capacities, the project implemented cash for work activities which focused on rehabilitation of community assets including water and irrigation structures. In addition, the project strategy incorporated activities which focused on strengthening the economic wellbeing of target beneficiaries which included supporting formation, capacity building and start-up kits for VSLAs and linking them with micro finance institution for credit facility, providing training for vulnerable youth through TVETs as well as supporting CAHWs with kits and linkages with drugs supplier and microfinances for accessing credit facilities. 3.2.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT The project implementation and monitoring was done in accordance with the approved project design documents including the log-frame and indicator tracking table which clearly defined core project indicators at impact, outcome and output levels. In-depth comparison, triangulation of findings with both qualitative data as well as attributions of the study findings are provided in details under sub-section 3.3 of this report. Project Reach: Through strategic partnerships under the EU RESTORE and SIDA project, the project has managed to publish 12 documents against baseline of zero in 2019 and exceeding the overall project target of 2. Lastly, project reports, it is also evident the project has reached a total of 195,538 beneficiaries through the different sectoral interventions for the entire implementation period as summarized in the table below: Table 5: summary of beneficiaries reached per result area

28 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Description # MaleHeaded HHs # FemaleHeaded HHs Total # of HHs reached Result 1: Enhanced risk management and disaster preparedness through community action and contingency planning to ensure protection of productive assets and sustainable livelihoods. 21,060 26,631 47,691 Result 2: Enhanced food security and capacity to meet social needs through sustainable cash-based assistance mechanisms and improved access to social capital enabling risk mitigation, promotion livelihood diversification and improved productivity. 24,107 21,517 45,624 Result 3: Enhanced livelihood diversification for women, men, and youth through the restoration and protection of productive assets, value chains and the uptake and adoption of agricultural technologies. 4,838 2,056 9,894 Result 4: Enhanced management and governance of natural resources, including soil and water systems to support sustainable pastoral livelihoods. 44,935 47,394 92,329 TOTAL 94,940 97,598 195,538 Feedback from HH survey captured majority of households (94%) as satisfied or very satisfied at 95% female and 94% male headed households) with the quality of overall support they received from the project. The highest level of satisfaction was captured among peri urban and urban HHs (98%) followed by pastoral HHs (97%) then agro pastoral HHs (88%) and lastly among fisher folk at 83%. Feedback from government teams as well as FGDs with local community members confirmed the overall quality of project outputs as both good and acceptable. In addition, majority of households (90%) considered the assistance from the project as having been helpful in addressing their needs (91% female and 94% male headed households), with the highest response captured among agro pastoral HHs (95%) followed by fisher folk HHs (94%) then pastoral HHs (90%) and lastly among peri urban and urban HHs at 86%. Lastly majority of households (91%) considered the assistance from the project as having been adequate in meeting HHs needs (92% female and 90% male headed households), with the highest response captured among agro pastoral HHs (95%) followed by fisher folk HHs (94%) then pastoral HHs (89%) and lastly among peri urban and urban HHs at 88%. Key informants also appreciated the additional year that was added to the original project implementation period which made it possible to adequately complete the planned project activities. In terms of implementation capacity, all implementing agencies confirmed they had adequate and qualified staff with all skills set required to achieve the project outcomes. In addition, key thematic advisors which included Food Security and Livelihoods, economic strengthening, natural Resources Management/Disaster Risks Reduction and Water, Sanitation and hygiene (WASH), gender and Social Inclusion as well as Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) provided technical support during the project implementation process. Lastly, both the local government authorities as well as key project staff have continuously provided technical supervision and monitoring during the construction and distribution of the project materials- in addition to project technical and financial staff involvement in procurement process of all project materials and goods. 3.2.3 EFFICIENCY The EU RESTORE and SIDA project has demonstrated a combination of cost, quality and a level of sustainability under the conditions that prevailed during implementation. Firstly, the project was designed to respond to drought but was hit by a tropical cyclone as well as restrictions related to onset of COVID-19 pandemic. However, to cover the lost months, the project implementation team put in

29 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project place measures to accelerate and fast track the rollout process especially the speedy preparation of Community Adaptation Action Plans (CAAPs) while the project management approved a No Cost Extension which has enabled the implementing partners to sufficiently cover all the planned project activities. Cost effectiveness: The project implementation processes demonstrates a combination of approaches that have ensured value for money. The project staff SomReP and implementing agencies) confirmed having fully adhered to procurement and financial management systems which promote transparency and accountability. Procurement of all project materials has adhered to existing policies of respective procuring agencies which outline the tendering and awarding process for project works. The project procurement team have also utilised the approach of pre-positioning of key project materials (buying ahead and keeping them close to project location) to increase efficiency. In addition, the project has continued to demonstrate value for money through layering of activitiesadopting of integrated approach which ensure beneficiaries received multiple interventions in a combination of at least 3 sectors covering food security and livelihoods, cash transfers, natural resources management including water, sanitation and hygiene as well as community based disaster risks reduction). Each of the sectors was reported to have adequate budgetary allocation to meet the planned activities and related logistics. Local currency depreciation and high inflation rates: From year 1, losses on foreign exchange have greatly affected the SIDA II project. This was mainly due to initial budget done 1n 2018 which anticipated an exchange rate of USD 1 = SEK 8 which rose to USD1 = SEK 9.46 after award in 2019 as well 1USD= 9.07 2020 which resulted in currency losses and financial gap of over USD 1 Million. This was mitigated against through elimination of non-essential budget lines (overheads and/or activity cost) by both SomReP technical Unit as well as implementing agencies budgets. Other sources of bridging funds have been realized from budget cuts done by World Vision Germany on the SIDA project as well as using hedging as a risk management strategy to offset some of the potential forex losses and World Vision International also added additional private funds to offset the remaining gap. Timeliness of Project Delivery: Feedback captured during the evaluation indicates the project implementation process has been successfully completed even after having been affected by combination of negative factors including the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in massive lockdown and restrictions on movement, currency depreciation and rising inflation rate as well as prolonged drought. Findings form the HH survey captured majority of HHs (80%) reporting that project support was provided at the right time (77% female and 82% male headed HHs). The highest response was captured among pastoral HHs (84%) followed by peri urban and urban HHs (81%), then fisher folk HHs at 80%) and lastly agro-pastoral HHs at 74%. 3.2.4 PROJECT CONNECTEDNESS The project design incorporated social protection component into the larger resilience building initiatives which included rehabilitation of productive assets, enhancing livelihood diversification, capacity development and community-led natural resource management initiatives. The drought recovery project was implemented through existing community structures which included relief and development committees, village NRM committees, members of VSLA groups, water management committees, agropastoralist farmers’ groups associations as well as Community Animal Health Workers at community based level. This was a deliberate effort of enhancing communities’ capacities for future needs. Project stakeholders including the government and communities were involved throughout the project cycle. Government officials, community members from target villages participated in consultative meetings with project implementation teams during the planning, launch and rollout of project interventions including conducting of initial GSVCA, selection and registration of project beneficiaries. The active involvement of local communities in initial planning and development of the project was reported to enhance their understanding of their role and expectations in the implementation process. Lastly, the project involved the both local district and regional government teams in project aspects which included assessments (Gender Analysis as well as GSVCA), facilitation of development of village CAAPs, and training of farmers on Good Agricultural Practices as well as providing support to Community Animal Health Workers. The government team was also part of joint monitoring team as

30 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project well as participated in the monthly and quarterly project review meetings with other resilience partners where they shared progress of key activities as well as formulated approaches and strategies for addressing emerging issue which included the anticipated looming famine in last quarter of 2022. 3.2.5 KEY PROJECT IMPACTS Data from HH survey confirms the project has positively affected the lives of their household members as well as those of immediate community members. Feedback from survey noted that 81% of respondents (79% female and 82% male headed HHs) considered the project as having greatly improved their lives as follows: 85% among peri urban and urban HHs, followed by pastoral HHs at 84%, then agro pastoral HHs at 74% and lastly among fisher folk HHs at 63%. From survey findings as well as feedback obtained through qualitative data, the project is credited to have realised the following impacts: Food Security and Livelihoods: Key impacts under this sector were noted as follows: Farmers’ adoption of good agricultural practices including provision of farm inputs has enabled agropastoral communities continue in effective production and post-harvest management practices thus granting food supply up to 3 months post the harvest time. In addition, various resilience building interventions have significantly contributed in reducing the negative impacts, compared to effects of the same in the past 2 years. Notably, the drought experienced in years 2010-2011caused losses to pastoralists for up to 80% of their livestock. However, in the current project locations which have mainstreamed preparedness, early warning and contingency planning, the drought experienced for 3 consecutive years (2020,2021 and 2022) has only lead to losses of approximately 20-30% of livestock (as cited by government team in Puntland). Evidently, cash transfers provided under the project (both unconditional transfers as well as cash for work) have contributed in meeting immediate and lifesaving food needs for the targeted vulnerable households across 3 states. In addition, cash for assets (work) has contributed in improvement of community assets that will remain accessible to targeted groups- even after the project ends in all project locations. Additionally, skills gained by various community groups trained under the project, such as CAHWs, VSLAs group have continued to utilise their skills in enhancing improved livestock management, promoting saving culture and establishment of income generating activities as well as adoption of good agricultural practices is a lasting impact. Members of community savings groups have already managed to accumulate savings which they are accessing and lending to other who are interested in starting income generating activities as well as accessing additional credit from microfinance institutions for expending their businesses. This has also enabled community members to engage in economic recovery activities which is a pathway to self-reliance instead of depending directly on humanitarian aid. The quote below from a government officer “VSLA groups’ contribution towards community social fund initiatives has promoted acceptance of the VSLA approach as not only economic empowerment tool but also social tool to respond to emergencies to support vulnerable group members as well as other community. Therefore we view VSLA groups as important community-based institution, which can be relied upon to provide economic empowerments and social emergency support targeting the most vulnerable members of the community to improve their wellbeing”. Natural Resources Management and WASH: Key impacts under this sector includes the following: The project technical unit has effectively collaborated with both state and federal government which has resulted in acceptance of DRR activities among state actors including adoption of CAAPs by regional government in Puntland and Somaliland and their integration in the National Development Plans with budgetary allocation. In addition, this has resulted in creation of DRR units in municipalities which have positively taken up dissemination of early warning system and resultant actions. The DRR units have also taken up lead in vulnerability assessments, development, implementation, monitoring and review of CAAPs as well as positively tracking dashboards. Notably, capacity building of government officers on DRR, early warning systems as well as formation of early warning and early action committees has enhanced local and federal state capacity to lead in the design and implementation of DRR activities across the 3 states- with high results reported in Puntland by MoHADM. In addition, a considerable amount of land under natural resources has been rehabilitated under FMNR which has contributed in improving soil health and promoting regeneration

31 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project of vegetative cover. Still under this aspect of the project has continued to provide multiple use water to targeted households which has resulted in reduction in water prices and reduced water trucking. In addition, most households are able to access safe water for domestic uses. Lastly, integrating CAAPs in selection of project activities and linking their funding to cash for work activities, most communities have rehabilitated water assets, farming land and access roads which are key in building their resilience to future shocks. In addition, some communities were reported to have already mobilised contingency funds which they used to implement some CAAP activities as well as preserved under community contingency reserves in bank accounts. 3.2.6: SUSTAINABILITY In line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, all development efforts should focus on two key aspects: 1. To promote the kind of development that minimizes environmental problems; 2. To meet the needs of the existing generation without compromising with the quality of the environment for future generations. The design and implementation of the EU RESTORE and SIDA project has incorporated various measures for ensuring continuity of key project benefits beyond the project life as captured below: Strategic partnership with government at all levels: The project has adopted a project model which included working directly government officials in the sectors of agriculture, livestock, water, environment and natural resources management. This is in addition to working with local implementing agencies. Through this partnership, the project has been able to deliver quality and uninterrupted services to targeted communities. The use of partnership model has also enabled the project to operate in hard to work locations which are also hard to reach. Formation and Capacity Enhancement of Local Structure and Community Groups Training: The project invested heavily in supporting establishment and capacity building of local community structures which included the Natural Resources Management, Social Action Committees, Village Development Committees, Water Management Committees and Early Warning Committees. This served to increase their operational capacity both now and in the future as well as serve as provide smooth exit strategy for the project. The capacity enhancement across the key project components is captured in the subsection below. Food Security and Livelihoods: Under FSL component key sustainability measures include the following: • Enhancing skills, access to animal drugs and credit facilities for Community Animals Health Workers to strengthen their operations and reach. • Enhancing capacity of farmers in adopting good agricultural practices including providing them with livelihood kits ( seeds, irrigation and fishing kits) to increase crop production • Facilitating formation and capacity building of local community groups such as savings groups and groups operating income generating activities as well as linking them to credit facilities from local micro finance institutions • Supporting youth with Training on TVET to enhance their skills, supporting their internship and job placement as well as establishing income generating activities. Natural Resources Management: Under NRM component key sustainability measures include the following: • Upgrading irrigation canals from earthen to concrete lined to reduce water losses through seepage and enhance their longevity • Capacity enhancement of local water use and management committees to manage, as well as supervise operation and maintenance of the water infrastructures. • Capacity enhancement of local CBDRM committee to manage design and implementation of action plans • Use of CVCA s entry point and inform project interventions • Investing in preparation of CAAPs and anchoring all project activities on the same- which are also documents that can be updated yearly to capture emerging issues

32 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project • Investment in design and development of training guides and manual and modules for both assessments and capacity building purposes- which can also be referenced in future and updated regularly to capture emerging issues • Enhancing capacity of both government officers in DRR activities including utilizing their capacity to spearhead local and regional DRR agenda at district and regional level • Supporting community investments in contingency reserves. In Hudur district, the available contingency reserves were reported as fodder, and grazing land and grains that we only utilized during emergency (prolonged drought or flood). In Lughaya, the contingency reserve was reported as cash that community members have jointly contributed and co-financed by the local implementing partner (DRC) and saved in a bank account. Gender and Inclusion: Under this component key sustainability measures include the following: • Investment in key tools for assessments and monitoring as well as training guides for gender and social inclusion for use during the project. The utility of the same extend beyond the current project life. • Continuous sensitization of project team (including top decision makers) directors and management staff • Training of project management team and field officer on applying gender lenses in all project activities, throughout the project cycle • Identification of gender focal persons in each implementing agency- who are national staff to drive the mainstreaming activities for the current project- and even beyond. Other aspects of project sustainability are described below: Financial Sustainability: The project facilitated the formation and strengthening of Village Savings and Loan Associations and provided them with start-up grant as well as linked them with micro finance institutions for credit facilities as well as village/community contingency social fund accounts managed in collaboration with local implementing agencies. The project managed to set up an online cloud sourcing platform (Bulshokaab) which was has continued to crowd source funds for supporting implementation of selected activities in the CAAPs. The funds are sourced from community members’ individual contributions as well as the private sector. Finally, the project trained targeted youth through the TVET program, provided and provided them with tools and grants for supporting their start-up enterprises. Feedback from project staff established that the project has continued to raise funds for implementation of CAAPs through crowd funding where a total of USD 139,696 has been raised in support of 10 prioritised community projects. (43% from the community and 57% matching funds from the project through the implementing partners). Institutional Sustainability: The project implementation forged lastly partnership and collaborations with wide range of stakeholders including implementing agencies, local district and regional federal government structures as well as local community governance structures. The project also enhanced capacity of newly established or existing local community governance structures such as village development committees, Natural Resources Management, Early Warning, Social Action and water Management Committees to carry out their roles in the project implementation process and beyond. In addition, the project team facilitated formation and strengthening of livelihoods groups such as the VSLA groups, agro-pastoral field schools and CAHWs and provided them with requisite training, tool kits and start-up fund to launch them into sustainable livelihoods journey. The engagement with district and federal authorities including in preparation and funding of village CAAPs served to legitimise them in unparalleled ways within Somalia. Lastly, the project had a comprehensive capacity building component which targeted staff from collaborating ministries of Agriculture, Livestock, Water, Environment and Natural Resources Management. This was geared towards enhancing knowledge transfer through capacity enhancement of existing local structures whose formation and capacity enhancement were part of the project. . Policy Level Sustainability: The top governance and management structure for the program (Steering Committee) which comprised of key staff from the donors (European Union and SIDA), SomReP leadership through the Chief of Party and management team as well as key staff from both regional and federal government across the project- mainly working with line ministries of Agriculture,

33 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Livestock, Water, Environment and Natural Resources Management. This team has also continued to engage with other leading resilience actors on forums which shapes policy dialogue and discourse on resilience. This has culminated in inclusion of DRR plans developed under the project in collaboration with district and regional staff in the National Development Plan. Notably, working with government team at all levels (federal, state, district) promotes local ownership of interventions and also guarantees continuity of operations beyond the project. This is based on premise that government is capable of mobilizing resources from bilateral partners and other donors including making annual budgetary allocations for financing continuity of public services delivery. Environmental Sustainability: Various projects activities and interventions were directly aimed at enhancing positive environmental impacts. These included training of Agro-pastoral groups on Good Agricultural practices which had a leaning on conservation agriculture, development of community driven village CAAPs which promoted sustainable use, management and conservation of the environment along traditional and local knowledge and practices. This means that the CAAP documents developed under the project remain key advocacy tools for state level governments to prioritize resources, both with partners as well as with government grants. Learning Sustainability: The project technical Unit as well as field implementation team continued to coordinate project knowledge management and learning agenda among project implementing agencies, line ministries as well as other government bodies such as HAMDA and NADFOR. This has been achieved through targeted dissemination of key learnings forums and knowledge thus influencing approaches in implementing similar programs which focuses on resilience building. As outlined in details under the findings on intermediary outcome 5, the project TU has also continued to champion research through BRCiS consortium and Somali Response Innovation Lab as well adoption of technology in the project implementation process through strategic partnership with private sector actors such as Shaqodoon who has been managing online cloud sourcing platform (Bulshokaab). Lastly, the technical unit has continued to engage with other leading resilience actors on forums which shapes policy dialogue and discourse on resilience. This has culminated in inclusion of DRR plans developed under the project in collaboration with district and regional staff in the National Development Plan. 3.2.6: BENEFICIARIES ACCOUNTABILITY AND FEEDBACK MECHANISMS The project has various feedback and complain mechanisms which enables information sharing across project partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries. Beneficiary Feedback Mechanisms (BFMs) provide a method for strengthening aid agencies’ accountability to the communities where they work. BFMs provide a channel for community members to easily raise questions, suggestions and concerns about aid activities and have agreed on protocols for action to be taken in response. In this way community, members can ‘hold an organization to account for their actions, and ensure their answerability for how resources are used in their community. Feedback from beneficiaries indicated that they were well informed of the project activities and processes. The end line evaluation captured modest level of knowledge accountability and feedback mechanisms-with 48% of respondents (49% female and 47% male headed HHs)) reporting knowledge of any mechanism to report/complain about project concerns/issues. This was a significant drop 61.1% reported during ARM 2021 The highest knowledge was captured among fisher folk HHs (63%) followed by peri urban and urban HHs (57%) then agro pastoral HHs (46%) and lastly pastoral HHs at 44%. Mechanisms for feedback and utilization: The known mechanisms included use of a telephone number as provided by the project as reported by 54% of HHs (48% female and 60% male headed HHs) followed by use local community leaders at 43%(40% female and 46% male headed HHs), use of project field staff at 31% (34% female and 29% male headed HHs) as well as use of local government officers at 11%( 34% female and 29% male headed HHs). From the above 38% (37% female and 40% male headed HHs) reported utilizing the feedback mechanisms (17% among fisher folk HHs, followed distantly by 40% among agro pastoral HHs, then 37% among pastoral HHs and lastly 36% among peri urban and urban HHs). The most utilized mechanisms was telephone at 48% (48% female and 49% male headed HHs) followed by community leaders at 47% (48% female and 47% male headed HHs). See the table below for additional information.

34 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Table 6: Feedback mechanisms Feedback mechanisms Overall Female headed HHs Male heade d HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastoral HHs Pastora l HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Feedback mechanisms knowledge among beneficiaries Telephone 54% 48% 60% 26% 62% 40% 63% Community leader 43% 40% 46% 65% 39% 54% 34% SomReP field staff 31% 34% 29% 76% 27% 41% 22% SomReP office 21% 21% 21% 3% 17% 20% 30% Local authorities 11% 9% 13% 6% 18% 10% 5% E-mail 2% 1% 3% 12% 2% 2% 1% Suggestion box 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Feedback mechanisms utilized by HHs Telephone 48% 48% 49% 0% 51% 32% 72% Community leader 47% 48% 47% 67% 35% 63% 42% Local authorities 19% 16% 21% 4% 31% 20% 6% SomReP field staff 14% 11% 16% 92% 12% 10% 6% SomReP office 8% 10% 6% 0% 3% 14% 9% E-mail 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 2% 2% Suggestion box 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% The reasons for choice of the feedback mechanisms utilized by beneficiaries included accessibility (65%), ease of use (36%), affordability (27%) as well as confidentiality as summarized in the figure below. Figure 2: Reasons for choice of feedback mechanism For the proportion that reported having utilized the feedback mechanisms, most of them (89%) reported receiving a response form the project (88% female and 89% male headed HHs) led by HHs among fisher folk HHs( 96%), followed by pastoral HHs(93%),agro pastoral HHs (92%) and lastly peri urban and urban HHs at 78%. Most them (75%) at 79% female and 72% male headed HHs also reported they received the response within reasonable time (as captured among pastoral HHs (97%), fisher folk HHs(92%), agro pastoral HHs (65%) and peri urban and urban HHs at 61%. Sharing Project Information with Beneficiaries: The evaluation established that most of HH(70%) at 73% female and 67% male headed HHs) had received information about the project as captured among 74% of peri urban and urban HHs, followed by 73% among pastoral HHs, then 65% among agro pastoral HHs and lastly 63% among fisher folk HHs. In addition, 61% of HHs ( 61% female and 60% male headed HHs) confirmed they were informed on the selection criteria and inclusion of their HH as project beneficiaries as captured among peri urban and urban HHs, followed by 73% among pastoral HHs, then 65% among agro pastoral HHs and lastly 63% among fisher folk HHs. The main source of 65% 64% 66% 96% 52% 70% 71% 27% 23% 30% 4% 52% 8% 21% 14% 15% 13% 14% 12% 18% 36% 30% 41% 92% 27% 39% 33% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Overall Female headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastoral HHs Pastoral HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Reason for choice of feedback mechanism Ease of accessibility Affordable Confidential Easy to use

35 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project this information was project implementing agencies (69%) followed by village development committees (31%), other HHs (27%) as well as local government authorities at 17%. See the figure below: Figure 3: Source of information From the finding, majority of HHs (92%) reported the project staff as respectful (92% female and 91% male headed HHs) with the highest captured among peri urban and urban HHs (94%) followed by pastoral HHs (93%), then agro pastoral HHs (89%) and lastly among fisher folk HHs at 73%. Subsequently, most of them (85%) at 87% female and 84% male headed HHs) reported that project staff wer regularly present in the community and open to discussions as captured at 91% among peri urban and urban HHs, followed by pastoral HHs( 89%), then fisher folk HHs at 80% and lastly among agro pastoral HHs at 78%. Subsequently, majority of HHs (83%) at 85% female and 80% male headed HHs) expressed satisfaction with project CRM mechanism as reported by 89% of peri urban and urban HHs, followed by 88% of pastoral HHs, then 74% of agro pastoral HHs and lastly 55% of fisher folk HHs. Lastly majority of HHs (89% (at 91% female and 87% male headed HHs) agreed with the statement that “opinions/voice you raised through the CRM mechanism were accommodated” as captured among pastoral and peri urban and urban HHs equally at 94%, followed by fisher folk at 85% and lastly among agro pastoral HHs at 81%. Follow up KIIs and FGDs established that the beneficiaries targeting and selection criteria was both in line with DKH internal targeting and beneficiaries’ selection criteria and the government one both of which promotes inclusivity and promotes participation of key local community structures. KII with government officer in the Ministry of Water, Energy and Mineral Resources confirmed that communities were involved in the project implementation processes as follows: 1. Community leaders were involved in beneficiary selection to ensure that the most vulnerable were selected. 2. Before the actual selection, community members were engaged in sessions where they were informed about the selection criteria.3. At the planning stage, the communities were asked where they wanted various project interventions such as construction of new or repair existing water point needed to be implemented, and 4. During the inception period, community were provided with key project information, including the period duration of the project as well as the target or expectation of the project. In addition, KIIs with key project staff and FGDs with local community groups confirmed that adequate mechanisms for providing feedback which included the use of the a toll free number where beneficiaries could make voice calls or send a short message which is automatically recorded and later accessed by staff for follow up action. 69% 69% 68% 91% 67% 70% 69% 31% 28% 34% 12% 26% 45% 19% 27% 30% 25% 6% 16% 35% 33% 17% 17% 18% 0 29% 15% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Overall Female headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastoral HHs Pastoral HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Sources of information on project SOMREP partner Village development committee Another household Local authority

36 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project 3.3. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 2: ASSESS THE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED AS MEASURED BY KEY RESULT INDICATORS AS STIPULATED IN THE LOGFRAME Project interventions as received by targeted HHs: In line with the project design documents, the EU RESTORE and SIDA Project targeted vulnerable communities affected by shocks and hazards, particularly forced displacements and irregular migration, in a bid to increase their resilience. This comprised of pastoral, agro-pastoral and peri-urban communities across Somaliland, Puntland and South Central Somalia. The project focused on sustainably improving their food security and livelihoods as well as contribute in building their resilience through interventions in risk management, protection of productive assets as well as governance of natural resources. During the end line evaluation, we asked households to indicate which project interventions they had directly benefited from. From the findings, majority of HHs(82.3%) had received cash transfers( both unconditional and conditional) followed 23% who benefited from VSLAs, 10% who benefitted from water and DRR activities equally as well as 8% who benefited from crop production and 7% from animal health interventions. See the table below for country specific data. Table 7: Project support received by beneficiaries Project intervention Percent Female headed HHs Male Headed HHs Fisherfolk HHs Agropastoral HHs Pastoral HHs Periurban and urban HHs Cash transfers (unconditional and conditional) 82% 81% 84% 83% 85% 89% 69% Village Savings and Loan Associations 23% 27% 19% 6% 24% 17% 33% Water projects 10% 11% 9% 0% 6% 13% 14% DRR (early warning early action) 10% 9% 11% 4% 20% 0% 10% Crop production 8% 6% 10% 6% 17% 3% 4% Animal health 7% 8% 7% 11% 12% 4% 5% Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) 6% 8% 5% 0% 4% 1% 18% Natural Resource Management 5% 3% 6% 2% 10% 0% 4% Community Health Intervention 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 0% 1% Feedback from focus group discussions with various committees which included Natural Resources Management, Social Action Committees, Village Development Committees, Water Management Committees as well as Early Warning Committees confirmed that various project activities were implemented in their project locations. Key ones mentioned included cash transfers, rehabilitation of community assets (such as water and access roads) through cash for work activities as well management of communal rangeland. 3.3.1 FINDINGS ALONG RESILIENCE INDICES Resilience and Poverty indices: The SomReP interventions are focused on enhancing resilience capacity of targeted households. Key resilience indices as defined below have been tracked over time , especially while conducting Annual Resilience Measurement were also measured during the EU RESTORE and SIDA end line evaluation and findings are summarized in the subsequent table below. Resilience Indices: The SomReP consortium defines resilience as the ability of people, households, communities, and systems to mitigate, adapt, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth. Vision quest used three capacities to compute the resilience index across various levels. These capacities include an absorptive capacity index, Adaptive capacity index, and Transformative capacity index and are briefly defined below:

37 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Absorptive capacities assessed the target communities’ capacity to take intentional protective action and to cope with known shocks and stress such as extreme weather events caused by climate change, protracted conflict, and disasters-among others. The shock exposure index measures the overall degree of shock exposure for each household and the perceived severity of the shock on household income and food consumption. Adaptive capacities assessed the target communities’ capacity to make intentional incremental adjustments in anticipation of or in response to change, in ways that create more flexibility in the future such as adoption of good agricultural practices, improved livestock management practices access to income, food and other basic social services such as markets, water and sanitation. A key aspect of adaptive capacity is accepting that change is ongoing as well as highly unpredictable. Transformational capacities assessed the key duty bearers’ 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 marginalization. Table 8: Summary of findings along resilience indices Core indicators Indicator Baseline 2019 ARM 2021 Results ARM 2022 results 2021 vs 2022 P-Value % households who are structurally non-poor [1] as measured by stochastic and structural poverty. Not computed 35.3% 33.3 0.873 Resilience index 1 (as measured by Tango framework) Not computed 22.4 (female 21.7; Male 23.0, Agro-pastoral 23.3; Pastoral 20.0, Peri-urban 22.7) 19.9 (female 21.8; male 18.2) Agro-pastoral 19.5 Pastoral 21.4 Periurban/Urban 18.4 0.000* Absorptive Capacity Index Not computed 10.6 (Female10.1, Male11.1) 10.9 (female 12.8; male 9.1) 0.185 Adaptive capacity Index Not computed 32.2 (Female31.9,Male32.6) 31.0 (female 32.6; male 29.5) 0.004* Transformative capacity Index Not computed 24.3 (female(23.2, Male24.3) 17.8 (female 19.9; male 15.9) 0.000* * Values with asterisk are significant at 95% Confidence level (P<0.05) Resilience index: The overall average resilience index has continued to reduce from 30 in 2020 to 22 in 2021 and 20 in 2022. The reduction in average resilience index between 2021 and 2022 was statistically significant at 5% level of significance (P=0.0000). Unlike in 2021 where it was reported that the average resilience index was higher for men than women, in 2022 the average resilience index was higher for women (21.8) than men (18.2) and difference was statistically significant. The decrease in resilience index could be attributed to prolonged drought that has affected Somalia since 2021 and remains a worrisome issue to date.

38 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Figure 4: Average resilience index between 2020 and 2022 The results further show that pastoral households had the highest resilience index at 21.4, followed by Agro-pastoral households at 19.5, and lastly peri-urban households at 18.4. The decrease in resilience index was greatest among the agro-pastoral and peri-urban households (i.e. from 23.3 to 19.5 among the agro-pastoral households and from 22.7 to 18.4 among the peri-urban households) which could be attributed to their high exposure to shocks with a mean shock exposure index of 6.5 for peri-urban households and 5.4 for agro-pastoral households while pastoral had the least mean shock exposure of 4.7 among those who experienced shocks. Overall, resilience was stronger in Salahley (50) followed by Hargeisa (33.6), Eyl (28), and Ceel Afweyne (27.3) but weaker in Badhan (4.5), Lughaya (7.9) and Laas Caanod (13.7). While resilience index remained high for some selected districts. It is evident that resilience of the households weakened further in 2022 than in 2021 and there is a need for more concerted efforts to support the SomReP beneficiaries to mitigate the effects of prolonged drought. While the project already supported some selected beneficiaries prior to conducting the end-line evaluation, it is rather clear that as drought continues many more beneficiaries are becoming affected testing their resilience to limit. Absorptive index: Absorptive capacity index remained rather the same (10.9) between 2021 and 2022. Women had relatively higher absorptive capacity (12.8) than men (9.1) and the difference was statistically significant at 5% (P=0.000). Across livelihoods, Pastoral households had the strongest absorptive capacity at 16.6, followed by agro-pastoral at 8.3 and peri-urban households had the weakest absorptive capacity at 6.5. Statistically, while there was significant difference in absorptive capacity means between pastoral households and agro-pastoral households and pastoral households and per-urban households (P=0.000), there was significant difference in absorptive capacity means between agro-pastoral households and peri-urban households. Across districts, absorptive capacity was weakest in Lughaya (0.54), Badhan (0.98), Burco (2.3), Laas Caanod (2.6) and Xudur (6), but strongest in Salahley (49.2), and Eyl (22.3). The decrease in absorptive capacity can be attributed to households’ exposure to prolonged drought and other shocks. With the drought continuing to hit hard, the absorptive capacity of households will continue to wear unless humanitarian assistance continues to be provided or else resilience gains made are likely to be eroded. 30 22 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2020 2021 2022 Average resilience index

39 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Figure 5: Absorptive Index by Livelihood Factor analysis revealed that the key interventions that have significant influence on absorptive capacity index are informal safety nets, contingency reserves (cash, grain and fodder), finally household’s access to early warning information, and access to insurance. Adaptive capacity index: Adaptive capacity index reduced from 34 in 2020 to 32.2 in 2021 to 31.0 in 2022. The difference in adaptive capacities between 2021 and 2022 was statistically significant at 5% (P=0.0040). The results further show that women had higher adaptive capacity index at 32.6 compared to men at 29.5 and the difference was statistically significant at 5% (P=0.000). The agro-pastoral households’ adaptive capacity became rather stronger as it increased 33.3 in 2021 to 34.5 in 2022 but the adaptive capacity of pastoral households weakened as it decreased from 28.1 in 2021 to 25.5 in 2022. Adaptive capacity of peri-urban households, on the other hand, remained the same at 34. Across districts, adaptive capacities were stronger in Baidoa (42.1), Ceel Afweyne (41.8), Hargeisa (34.7), Eyl (31.3), and Xudur (30.7) but weaker in Badhan (11.0%), and Lughaye (20.3). Figure 6: Adaptive capacity Index Factor analysis revealed that the key interventions that have significant influence on adaptive capacity index are social networks, education and trainings, adoption of practices, bridging of social capital, and finally household’s access to credit. Transformative index: Transformative capacity index reduced from 29 in 2020 to 24.3 in 2021 to 17.8 in 2022. The difference in transformative capacities between 2021 and 2022 was statistically significant at 5% level of significance (P=0.000). The results further show that women had higher transformative capacity index at 19.9 than men 15.9 and the difference in means between men and women were statistically significant at 5% level of significance (P=0.000). The results also show that transformative capacity index decreased across all livelihood groups. However, the decrease was pronounced among the agro-pastoral and peri-urban households from 29.0 in 2021 to 15.7 in 2022 and from 22.4 in 2021 to 15.0 in 2022 respectively. The decrease was rather 14.8 14.7 7.8 10.6 8.3 16.6 6.5 10.9 0 5 10 15 20 Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All Absorptive capacity index 2021 2022 33.3 28.1 34.1 32.2 34.5 25.5 34.0 31.0 0 10 20 30 40 Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All Adaptive capacity index 2021 2022

40 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project marginal for peri-urban households from 23.1 in 2021 to 22.0 in 2022. Weakening of transformative capacity among households and communities in 2022 could be attributed to impact of covariate shocks such as the prolonged drought that undoubtedly has weakened capacity of informal and formal social networks to cushion each other. In the face of adverse covariate shocks such as this prolonged drought, everyone becomes affected and the focus of humanitarian actors shifts from building resilience to life saving responses which gradually leads to weakening of the transformative capacity. Transformational capacity was strongest in Salahley (76.6) and Hargeisa (53.3) but weakest in Badhan (1.55), Lughaye (2.83), and Burao (6.7). Figure 7: Transformative Index across livelihood Factor analysis revealed that the key interventions that have significant influence on transformative capacity index are social cohesion (sense of belongingness to a group inside or outside the community), access to veterinary services, access to agricultural services, access to basic services (i.e. formal financial services, insurance services, radio and TV stations), and finally living or belonging to a community which has functional community governance structures (such as ADC, EWEA committees, Water committees, and NRM committees, among others. The table below provides a summary of resilience indices per district. Table 9: Resilience capacities across districts District Absorptive capacity (%) Adaptive Capacity (%) Transformative capacity (%) Resilience capacity (%) Afgooye 12.5 24.1 12.1 16.3 Badhan 1.0 11.0 1.6 4.5 Baidoa 10.3 42.1 16.3 22.9 Bossaso 16.2 26.2 20.2 20.9 Burao 2.3 22.8 6.6 10.6 El-Afweyne 13.2 41.8 26.8 27.3 Eyl 22.3 31.3 31.2 28.3 Hargeisa 12.8 34.7 53.3 33.3 Laas Caanood 2.6 26.6 11.8 13.7 Lughaya 0.5 20.3 2.8 7.9 Salahley 49.2 26.2 76.6 50.6 Xudur 6.5 30.7 18.9 18.7 All 10.9 31.0 17.8 19.9 Correlations between resilience index and program intensity Correlation is a linear association between two variables. Thus correlation analysis helps to determine both the nature and strength of relationship between two variables. Correlation value therefore range from +1 to -1. A zero-correlation value indicates that there is no relationship between the two variables while -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation and +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation. The result from Pearson’s correlation tests between resilience index and program activities indicates that there is a weak positive correlation (r=0.2875; P=0.000) between program intensity (number of project interventions the households participates in) and the household resilience index and the correction is statistically significant at 5% level of significance. 22.5 22.4 23.1 24.1 15.7 22 15 17.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All Transformative capacity index 2021 2022

41 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Table 10: Spearman correlation between resilience index and program intensity Program intensity Resilience Index Program intensity 1.000 Resilience index 0.2875** (0.0000) 1.000 Thus the results imply that as the household participates in more interventions their resilience index is more likely to increase and so the vice-versa. These results underscore the importance of project layering and sequencing in improving household and community resilience and thus far confirms the project validity of program’s theory of change on program activity layering and sequencing. Correlation between resilience index and program activities: The results from the correlation tests between resilience index and program activities show that there is weak positive correlation between the following activities and resilience index: livestock production (r=0.1074; P=0.0000), crop production (r=0.0882; P=0.0000), EWEA (r=0.1491; P=0.0000), NRM (r=0.1353; P=0.0000), TVET (r=0.0565; P=0.0000), VSLA (r=0.3201; P=0.0000). The correlation between resilience index and these variables is significant at 5 %. The results suggest that despite the weak relationship, household’s participation in these activities increases its likelihood to increase the resilience capacity. The results, however, showed that there is weak and negative correlation between resilience index and cash transfers and the correlation was not significant (r=-0.1842; P0=0.0000). Previous studies have shown that cash transfers can have a wide range of positive welfare effects, including promoting increased resilience and mitigation the impacts of economic shocks10 . A study that was done by CARE International in Zimbabwe, and Niger showed that cash transfers had a net positive effect on both absorptive and transformative capacities, however the effects were rather ambiguous on adaptive capacity11. A study that was done in 10 Latin American countries concluded that cash transfers can be effective in replacing livelihoods for the structurally poor in the bottom quintile but less effective for transitory poor households who suddenly become poor due to shocks12 . The negative correlation between cash transfers and resilience could be because a result of prolonged drought and global economic crisis which has forced households to face shrinking economic opportunities including on-farm and off-farm employment and worse more force others to dispose their valuable assets particularly livestock as a way of coping. Thus cash transfers directed to these highly constrained households are mainly used for consumption purposes and sometimes depending on household size not sufficient to cover the entire period before the next disbursement. For cash transfers to have meaningful impact in situations like this where shock is covariate and last for long time, cash transfers need to be implemented at large scale and start in the early stages of the shock before people start adopting negative coping strategies. It is also important that cash transfers are implemented with other complimentary interventions that seek to address economic barriers for example combining cash transfers with other interventions which open opportunities to gainful employment or business such as vocational skills development, cash for work interventions targeting market structures, among others can increase the positive effects of cash transfers on resilience building. Other studies have found that cash transfers whose transfer values are calculated based on average household expenditure on food from demand side and not real food prices through market assessments are less effective. It is therefore recommended that cash transfer values should be based on very robust methods grounded in real market prices. Poverty Indices: One of the core indicators of the SomRep Annual Resilience Measurement is Stochastic and Structural poverty Index measurement. The whole aim of building community resilience is providing pathways that build economic groups while at the same time protecting them from the shocks and stresses that are likely to negate that development. In this program, SomReP embraces the definition of poverty based on the structural and stochastic elements. Stochastic and structural 10 Francesca Bastagli, Jessica Hagen-Zanker, Luke Harman, Valentina Barca, Georgina Sturge, And Tanja Schmidt (2019) The Impact of Cash Transfers: A Review of the Evidence from Low- and Middle-income Countries. Journal of Social Policy , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 569 – 594 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279418000715 11 Care International (2017) The Impact of cash transfers on resilience. A multi-country Study. 12 Matias Busso, Juanita Camacho, Julian Messina, Guadalupe Montenego (2020) The Challenge of protecting informal households during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Evidence from Latin America. Discussion Paper No. IDB-DP-780.

42 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project poverty is observed based on households' assets and other characteristics to create four categories of households: income and asset poor (structurally poor), income rich and asset poor (stochastically nonpoor), income poor and asset rich (stochastically poor), and income and asset-rich (structurally nonpoor)13 . Overall, there was no significant change in poverty levels. The proportion of households that were found to be structurally poor and stochastic poor increased from 61.9% and 0.73% in 2021 to 66.2% and 0.11% in 2022 respectively The proportion of households who were stochastically non-poor decreased marginally from 35.5% in 2021 to 33.3% in 2022. The results further show that none of the households was structurally non-poor implying that many households had depleted or lost their assets and therefore even though some are income non-poor, they remain vulnerable to becoming poor. Table 11: Analysis of Stochastic poverty among the beneficiaries Livelihood zone Structurally poor Stochastically poor Stochastically nonpoor Structurally nonpoor 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 Agro-pastoral 56.0% 57.6% 1.10% 0.10% 40.40% 41.9% 2.45% 0.0% Pastoral 75.4% 67.2% 0.31% 0.00% 23.80% 32.2% 0.47% 0.0% Peri-urban 58.9% 73.9% 0.23% 0.27% 38.50% 23.8% 2.35% 0.0% All 61.9% 66.2 0.73% 0.11% 35.50% 33.3% 1.88% 0.0% Across the livelihood groups, unlike in 2021 when pastoral households were the most structurally poor, in 2022 peri-urban households were the most structurally poor at 73.9%, followed by the pastoral households at 67.2%. The proportion of households who were structurally poor increased significantly from 61.9% in 2021 to 66.2% in 2022 (P=0.0000). These results imply that poverty levels worsened among peri-urban households with many of households losing valuable assets due to the persistent drought. The proportion of households classified as stochastically poor declined from 0.73% to 0.11% and likewise the proportion of households classified as stochastically non-poor decreased from 35.5% in 2021 to 33.3% in 2022. The worsening conditions as portrayed in poverty rates can be attributed to the prolonged effects of drought which have resulted in some households’ loss of valuable assets such as livestock but also forced households to adopt negative coping strategies such as selling of productive assets, decimating the overall value of these assets. At district level, the proportion of households who were structurally poor was significantly high in Badhan (95.6%), Bossaso (83.1%), and Baidoa (75.8%) but significantly low in Hargeisa (9.3%) and Salahley (0.0%). 3.3.2 INTERMEDIARY OUTCOME 1: ENHANCED RISK MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS Results chain Indicator Baseline (2019) Target End line value (2022) Intermediary Outcome 1: Enhanced risk management and disaster preparedness through community action and contingency planning in 44 villages across Somaliland and Puntland Io1I1: % of communities with greater involvement by women or marginalized groups in local planning and decision-making processes Io1I2: % of targeted communities indicating improved Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on contingency planning 6.8% 5% 20% Io1I2: 15% 57% 19% 13 World Bank Group

43 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Io1I3: % of community initiatives supported by sub-national and national institutions and authorities 0 Io1I3: 28% 74% Indicator 1.1: Involvement of women and other marginalized groups in decision making processes The development of CAAPs promoted involvement of all members of the community (villages) including marginalized groups such as women, youth. The end line evaluation established that diverse groups and individuals were involved in the community decision making processes especially as relating to community based early warning and early action which included local relief and development committees. During the end line evaluation, respondents were asked how men and women in the project locations have been involved in the project implementation process. From the findings, 41% of households reported both men and women having been involved on equal basis. This response was mainly provided by 65% of respondents among fisher folk, 44% among agropastoralists, 43%among pastoralists and 33% among populations living in urban and peri-urban area. This was a significant increase from 22.6% captured during the baseline survey (peri-urban/urban 28.7%, pastora10.7%, agro-pastoral 25.5%; male 19.4%, female 25.5%). The significant increase was mainly as result of various measures implemented by the project including mainstreaming gender and inclusion in all project activities along the project cycle. In addition, all project activities were guided by key recommendations from the Gender-Sensitive Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment which was conducted at the initial phase of the project. In addition, the project mainstreamed gender and inclusion for CfW and unconditional cash transfers specifically targeting and registration of female headed households, the elderly and people with disabilities and female members of the households. Also, the Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLAs) primarily targeted women to ensure female empowerment and enhancing their decision-making power at household and community level. A follow up question was also posed, which sought out what segment of community was generally involved in decision making and planning process. From the responses, 57% indicated that a broad category of community members were involved- including men, youth, minority clans as well as minority groups such as youth and people living with disabilities. The responses were as follows: 83% among fisher folk, 61% agro-pastoralists, 60% among pastoralists and 44% among peri-urban and urban population. See the table below for additional details. Table 12: HH members’ involvement in the project implementation process Segment of community members have been involved in the project implementation process Overall Female headed HHs Male Headed HHs Fisherfolk HHs Agropastoral HHs Pastora l HHs Peri-urban and urban HHs Men ONLY 45% 49% 42% 9% 38% 45% 58% women ONLY 13% 13% 13% 26% 17% 11% 8% BOTH men and women equally 41% 38% 44% 65% 44% 43% 33% Am not sure/ I don’t Know 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% Categories of people are normally involved in community decision making and planning processes? Men ONLY 34% 37% 31% 6% 26% 33% 48% Women ONLY 6% 7% 5% 6% 7% 6% 6% All men, youth, minority clans as well as minority groups( youth and people living with disabilities) 57% 53% 60% 83% 61% 60% 44% I don’t know/not sure 3% 4% 3% 6% 7% 1% 2%

44 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Qualitative feedback confirmed that all the established community-based structures that were used in the implementation of the project promoted social inclusion and in particular participation of women and youth. These included membership in agro-pastoral field schools, membership of VSLAs, and team of locally trained Community Animal Health Workers, Village Relief and Development Committees, Early Warning Committees as well as Social Affairs Committees. For those with administrative responsibilities (WMCs and SACs) a diverse membership base was promoted which draw members from VSLA village chairpersons, traditional leaders, and religious leaders, youth and women representatives. Other aspects included conducting of a Gender-Sensitive Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment at the initial phase of the project implementation in 2018 with the objective of analysing vulnerability to climate change and adaptive capacity at community and household-levels, as well as assessing community knowledge on climate. The finding from the assessment informed the design of CAAPs and ensured they are aligned with locally appropriate and gender-sensitive climate-change adaptation activities, as well as informed content of sensitization and awareness creation meetings with communities. Indicator 1.2: Improved knowledge, attitudes and practices in contingency planning The project supported communities to develop contingency plans based on the findings of the GCVCA assessment during year 1 of the project. The end line evaluation assessed the target communities’ knowledge, attitude and practices on contingency planning (their adaptive capacity as well ability to identify, plan and prioritize adaptation and resilient development). In addition, the evaluation assessed HH perceptions on their ability to design a course of action that helps the community respond effectively to a significant future event or situation such as drought, pest and diseases, floods, conflict that may or may not occur in the future. Results chain Indicator Baseline (2019) Target End line value (2022) Intermediary Outcome 1: Enhanced risk management and disaster preparedness through community action and contingency planning in 44 villages across Somaliland and Puntland Io1I1: % of communities with greater involvement by women or marginalized groups in local planning and decision-making processes Io1I2: % of targeted communities indicating improved Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on contingency planning Io1I3: % of community initiatives supported by sub-national and national institutions and authorities 6.8% 5% 0 20% Io1I2: 15% Io1I3: 28% 57% 19% 74% Knowledge of early warning system: The evaluation assessed the proportion of HHs that had were aware of existing early warning systems in their villages. From the findings, only around a third (34%) of HHs were aware (36 female and 32% male headed HHs). The highest knowledge was reported among fisher folk HHs (54%) followed by 35% among peri urban and urban HHs then 34% among agro pastoral HHs and lastly 31% among pastoral HHs. Early warning system: The project has been promoting a community based early warning system to ensure that communities are aware of shocks that affect them and are informed prior to occurrence of the hazards or shocks so that they can make informed decisions and get prepared in advance. An Early Warning System (EWS) represents the set of capacities needed to generate and disseminate timely and meaningful warning information that enables at-risk individuals, communities and organizations to prepare and act appropriately and sufficient time to reduce harm or loss.

45 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project HHs that had received early warning alerts prior to shocks or hazards: From the findings, 57% of HHs (58% female and 56% male headed HHs) indicated they received alerts (warning information) prior to the occurrence of the hazard/shocks. This was a slight drop from 61.3% who reported having received the same during the Annual Resilience Measurement of 2021. The highest proportion of households that received alerts were pastoral (73%) followed by fisher folk (60%) then 54% among peri urban and urban HHs and lastly 51% among agro pastoral HHs. The main alerts received included information on aspects which included conflict (40% of respondents) 47% female and 33% male headed HH), high food prices at 20% as reported by 19% female and 21% male headed HHs). See the table below: Table 13: Information received by HH on hazards and shock Hazards/shocks HH received information on Overall Female Headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastoral HHs Pastoral HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Conflict 40% 47% 33% 17% 14% 57% 48% Food prices 20% 19% 21% 17% 15% 12% 29% Desert locusts 6% 5% 6% 0% 6% 4% 7% Crop disease 5% 5% 6% 17% 6% 4% 6% Livestock disease outbreak 4% 5% 3% 0% 8% 0% 4% The evaluation also inquired from 57% of HHs that were recipients of early warning alerts whether the information they have received had been put into use. From the findings, 83% of them ( 85% female headed and 81% male headed HHs) reported that the alerts had assisted them to navigate through the shock/hazard( 100% among fisher folk, followed by 89% of pastoral HHs then 83% of agro pastoral HHs and lastly 78% by peri urban and urban HHs. Subsequently, 32% of recipients of alerts (36 female and 29% male HH heads) indicated they were very prepared for the ultimate shock/hazard (with highest captured among fisher folk at 50%. In addition, another 26% reported they were “somewhat prepared” (28 % female and 24% male HH heads). See the table below for additional information. Table 14: Perception on level of HH preparedness Level of prepared as reported by HHs Overall Female headed HHs Male heade d HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastoral HHs Pastor al HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Very prepared 32% 36% 29% 50% 13% 7% 12% Somewhat unprepared 28% 26% 30% 33% 15% 70% 20% Somewhat prepared 26% 28% 24% 17% 34% 16% 28% Not sure 11% 10% 13% 0% 37% 4% 39% Very unprepared 2% 1% 4% 0% 1% 4% 2% Overall, close to half (49%) of HHs (54% female and 43% male headed HHs) reported that their knowledge on contingency planning makes them feel better prepared for future shocks and hazards. The highest was captured among peri urban and urban HHs (61%) followed by fisher folk HHs (52%) then pastoral HHs (50%) and lastly among agro pastoral HHs at 38%. Knowledge of Existence of Community Based Structures for Contingency Planning: The evaluation assessed HHs knowledge on existence of various community structures which coordinate contingency planning activities at their villages. From the findings, 28% of households reported presence of a Natural Resource Management (NRM)/ Committee in their community. Slightly higher proportion of women (30%) were aware compared to 25% men. The highest knowledge was captured among the fisher folk (41%) followed by agro-pastoralists (31%), pastoralists (30%) and lastly urban and peri-urban populations (including IDPs) at 19%. Most of the households across the livelihood groups that reported presence of NRM committees also reported awareness of NRM plans that have been implemented in the past 12 months. The evaluation team asked to rate themselves on their capacity (ability) in planning and early action against shocks, hazards and disasters on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is the least and 5 the highest). Only 11% rated themselves as good and an additional 1%

46 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project as very good while majority rated themselves as either poor(42% or very poor(22%). See the table below: Table 15: HH rating on DRR capacity Rating on personal or HH capacity (ability ) in planning and early action against shocks, hazards and disasters Overall Female headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastor al HHs Past oral HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Poor 42% 42% 42% 24% 42% 45% 40% Neutral 24% 22% 25% 13% 32% 14% 28% Very poor 22% 24% 19% 61% 11% 28% 25% Good 11% 10% 12% 0% 12% 13% 6% Very Good 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% Feedback from KIIs with project staff and government officers confirmed they provided most information across all categories of shocks/hazards, while others included Agriculture Advisory and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, as well as Early Warning Committees. 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. Contingency reserves at community and household levels: Community contingency resources is a kitty that mobilized on the anticipation of hazard occurrence in the event of disaster. Only 23% of households indicated their community as having any contingency reserve (such as fodder, grain and finances reserved for emergencies), with more women than men indicating awareness (27% of women against 18% of men). The highest was reported among fisher folk (44%), followed by 27% among pastoralists, 21% among agro-pastoralists and lastly 17% among urban and peri-urban populations (including IDPs). Survey responses indicated that 65% of households that were aware of contingency plans contributed towards the community contingency reserves. The highest contribution was from among the urban and peri-urban populations (including IDPs) followed by fisher folk, pastoralists and lastly agro-pastoralists. The main contingency reserves that were reported as existing in the community reserves were ranked as cash/finances (70%), animal fodder (35%) and grains at 15%. In addition, 18% of households reported having contingency reserves as reported by 19% women and 16 men. The disaggregation along livelihood groups included 41% fisher folk, 21% pastoralists, 19% agro-pastoralist and 10 % urban and peri-urban populations (including IDPs). Feedback from FGDs with community committees confirmed they had contingency reserves. In Hudur district, the available contingency reserves were reported as fodder, and grazing land and grains that we only utilized during emergency (prolonged drought or flood). In addition, communities were supported to open community bank accounts for fundraising for their prioritized CAAPs. An FGD in Lughaya confirmed the existence of contingency reserve in form of cash that community members have jointly contributed and co-financed by the local implementing partner (DRC) and saved in a bank account. . Indicator 1.3: Community initiatives supported by sub-national and national institutions and authorities Under the EU RESTORE and SIDA project, some interventions targeted government line ministries officers at both regional and federal level with the focus on enhancing their capacity. The approaches adopted by project staff in working with government officers involved capacity building, supporting advocacy initiatives as well as policy formulation mainly on NRM and DRR. During the end line evaluation, target households were asked to provide feedback on involvement in the development of various community based plans. Their feedback is captured in the subsection below: Development, implementation and monitoring of NRM plans: The design and implementation of disaster preparedness plans in collaboration with district and regional government is critical in ensuring appropriate policies and strategies are put in place for institutionalizing DRR. Findings from the end line

47 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project evaluation notes that 74% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the development of natural resources management plans. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (95%) followed by pastoralists (91%), peri urban and urban communities-including IDPs at 91% and lowest among agro-pastoralists at 50%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (82%) compared to male (65%). Additionally, 72% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the implementation of natural resources management plans. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (95%) followed by pastoralists (91%), peri urban and urban communitiesincluding IDPs at 88% and lowest among agro-pastoralists at 48%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (80%) compared to male (64%). Lastly, 72% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the monitoring of natural resources management plans. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (95%) followed equally by pastoralists and peri urban and urban communities-including IDPs at 89% and lowest among agropastoralists at 48%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (80%) compared to male (63%). Findings from the end line evaluation notes that 62% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff hazard analysis and mapping. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (80%) followed by pastoralists (73%), peri urban and urban communitiesincluding IDPs at 72% and lowest among agro-pastoralists at 48%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (68%) compared to male (58%). Additionally, 80% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the formulation of the contingency plans. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (92%) followed by pastoralists (84%), agropastoralists at 77% and lowest among peri-urban and urban communities-including IDPs at 70%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (81%) compared to male (79%). Lastly, 71% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the monitoring and review of the hazard analysis mapping. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (92%) followed by pastoralists (88%), peri-urban and urban communities-including IDPs at 79% and lowest among agro-pastoralists at 52%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (79%) compared to male (64%). Development, implementation and monitoring of water management plans: Findings from the end line evaluation notes that 74% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the development of water management plans. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (93%) followed by peri-urban and urban communities-including IDPs at 88%, pastoralists (86%), and lowest among agro-pastoralists at 63%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (84%) compared to male (84%). Additionally, 80% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the implementation of implementation of the water management plans. The highest awareness was captured among pastoralists (91%), followed by fisher folk and peri-urban and urban communitiesincluding IDPs equally at 85% and lowest among agro-pastoralists at 64%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (86%) compared to male (74%). Lastly, 76% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the monitoring and review of water development management plans. The highest awareness was captured among peri urban and urban communities-including IDPs at 86% followed by pastoralists (83%), fisher folk at 81% and lowest among agro-pastoralists at 62%. The knowledge was higher among female respondents (81%) compared to male (70%). Development, implementation and monitoring of CAAPs: The involvement of government staff in CAAP development, review and monitoring process ensures that the government understands the voices and priorities of the communities and gradually finds short to medium to long term solutions on integrating their needs in government plans. Findings from the end line evaluation notes that 75% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the development of CAAPs compared to 42.9% compared during the ARM (2021). The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (100%) followed by pastoralists (79%), agro- pastoralists at 77%, and lowest among peri urban and urban communities-including IDPs at 53%. The knowledge was higher among male respondents (79%) compared to female (71%).Additionally, 69% of households were

48 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the implementation of implementation of CAAPs. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk (88%), followed by pastoralists (75%), agro-pastoralists at 68%, and lowest among and peri-urban and urban communitiesincluding IDPs equally at 46% The knowledge was higher among male respondents (73%) compared to female (65%). Lastly, 76% of households were aware of involvement of local authorities including government staff in the monitoring and review of CAAPs. The highest awareness was captured among fisher folk at 92%, followed by pastoralists (85%), agro-pastoralists at 69% and lowest among peri-urban and urban communitiesincluding IDPs at 67%. The knowledge was higher among female headed households (78%) compared to male headed (76%). From the household survey, most respondents 80% agreed with the statement “local government in this area is accountable and responsive to community priorities in providing equitable services and promoting resilience interventions” 80% female and 80% male headed HHs). The highest response was from among the pastoralists (82%) followed by fisher folk HHs at 80%, urban and peri-urban and urban HHs (79%) and lastly agro-pastoral HHs at 78%. When asked to rate the effectiveness of local leaders’ efforts in addressing conflict issues, 30% (33% female and 28% male headed HHs) rated the efforts as very effective (the highest rated was among fisher folk HH (54%) followed by pastoral HHs (42% then 26% among peri urban and urban HHs and lastly 20% among agro pastoral HHs. In addition, 34% of HHs (37%) for female and 31% for male headed HHs) rated as very effective the government efforts in addressing natural resources management related issues. The highest rating was among fisher folk HHs (61%) followed by pastoral HHs (44% then 32% among peri urban and urban HHs and lastly 24% among agro pastoral HHs. See the table below for additional details. Table 16: HH rating on local leaders’ capacity Rating Overall Female headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastoral HHs Pastora l HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Local leaders’ efforts in addressing conflict issues Somewhat effective 35% 35% 36% 15% 47% 20% 44% Very effective 30% 33% 28% 54% 20% 42% 26% Neutral 33% 31% 35% 31% 33% 38% 27% Somewhat ineffective 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% Very ineffective 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Local leaders efforts in addressing natural resources management related issues Somewhat effective 35% 34% 35% 4% 47% 20% 41% Very effective 34% 37% 31% 61% 24% 44% 32% Neutral 30% 28% 32% 35% 28% 35% 25% Somewhat ineffective 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% Very ineffective 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Review of project reports confirmed that various project interventions have been implemented in line with the project contingency plans. This has included activities such as development and adoption and implementation of 44 Community Action Adaptation Plans (CAAPs); training; training of DRR 40 committees (574) on disaster risk management as well as mobilization and sensitization of communities on CBDRM and design of community contingency plans. The project team has also continued to engage communities and government officials in project monitoring activities with 42 (30 male and 12 female) community members drawn from 11 villages having participated in reviewing implementation progress and re-alignment of CAAPs and Contingency Plans to accommodate emerging needs as necessitated by shocks, such as droughts and displacements. Feedback from discussions with natural resources management committees and members of FMNR confirmed that government officers supported the development of CAAPs (contingency plans. For example in Hudur, groups indicated that government officers participated as well as co- facilitated

49 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project formulation of CAAPs which covered aspects of water management and other natural resources use plan together with project staff. From secondary data, the project invested in scaling the adoption of CAAPs into state level plans through working with the Ministry to participate in the CAAP process and provide an in-practice experience around how these participatory tools work and support them to lead subsequent processes. Through this initiative, a total of 44 CAAPs were developed and validated including periodic joint monitoring visits between project staff and government officers. Feedback from interviews with government officers also confirmed their collaboration with SomReP and implementing agencies during the implementation process. In Puntland, the MoHADM worked with all partners in addressing project aspect of disaster risks management, disaster risks reduction and resilience actives across all locations in Puntland state. The government also appointed a project focal point who was responsible for enhancing effective collaboration and coordination of all project activities. Recent shocks/hazards: The project continued to promote community-based early warning systems to ensure that communities can identify hazards and effectively respond to them. Data from HH survey captured 26% of respondents as having experienced shocks/hazards in the past 12 months. This was highest reported among the peri-urban and urban communities-including IDPs(43%) followed by agropastoralist at 26%, fisher folk at 19% and lastly pastoralist at 19%. The proportion of those who experienced shocks/hazards demonstrated a slight reduction from those who reported the same in 2021(ARM 2021 report). The main shocks as experienced across the livelihood categories included droughts as reported by (72%) of households followed by conflicts (26%), COVID-19(25%) and high food prices at 20%. Additional information is summarized in the table below: Table 17: Recent shocks experienced in project locations Hazard/Shocks experienced in the past one year Overall Female headed HHs Male head ed HHs Fisherfolk Agropastoral HHs Pastoral HHs Peri-urban Urban HHs Drought 72% 68% 76% 20% 87% 50% 72% Conflict 26% 30% 21% 10% 12% 45% 28% COVID-19 25% 30% 20% 20% 16% 13% 40% High food prices 20% 19% 20% 10% 9% 18% 30% Flash floods 6% 6% 6% 0% 1% 1% 13% Conflict violence 5% 5% 4% 0% 4% 3% 6% Crop disease 6% 4% 9% 10% 10% 1% 6% Desert locusts 3% 4% 3% 0% 4% 1% 4% Death of household member 3% 3% 3% 20% 2% 1% 4% Displacement 3% 3% 3% 10% 5% 0% 3% Loss of employment 2% 2% 2% 10% 1% 1% 3% Crime/theft or high levels of insecurity 2% 3% 2% 0% 4% 1% 2% Livestock Disease Outbreak 4% 5% 4% 0% 6% 8% 1% Sickness or health expenditures 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% Impacts of shocks on livelihoods: Majority of households (75%) reported their primary livelihoods as having been affected by recent shocks/hazards- mainly as a result of the prolonged drought that has been experienced across all the project locations. The strong impacts were experienced among agropastoralists (62%) followed by peri-urban/urban and IDPs at 48%, fisher folk mostly reported experiencing slight impacts(63%) while pastoralist reported experiencing both near equal impacts (slight impacts at 38%) and moderate at 36%). See additional details in the table below: Table 18: Type of impacts experienced by HHs

50 End line Evaluation Report for EU RESTORE and SIDA Project Type of impact Overall Female headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisher folk HHs Agropastoralist HHs Pastoral HHs Peri urban/Urban HHs Strong 47% 44% 50% 25% 62% 24% 48% Moderate 33% 35% 32% 13% 30% 36% 36% Slight 16% 19% 14% 63% 4% 38% 13% Worst ever happened 3% 1% 5% 0% 3% 1% 4% Extent of recovery from recent shocks and stresses: The process of building resilience against shock and stresses includes being able to recover from shocks. Analysis from the data obtained from the HHs showed that most of households (48%) had “somewhat” recovered from effects of recent shocks experienced above (50% female and 47% male headed HHs). The proportion were nearly equal across 3 the livelihood zones, at 52% among Peri urban and urban HHs, 51%and among agro-pastoral HHs and 50% among fisher folk HHs. The least recovery was registered among pastoral HHs at 37%. The low recovery rate is mainly due to prolonged drought that has continued to negatively affect both pastoral and agro pastoral livelihoods across Somaliland and Puntland. See the table below for additional details. Figure 8: Extent of recovery from recent shocks and hazards Sources of support for recovery from recent shocks and stresses: The humanitarian community remained as the main source of support for vulnerable households in their recovery path for common shocks and stresses in Somalia. Analysis from the data obtained from the beneficiaries showed that most of households (80%) had been supported by humanitarian actors (77% from female and 85% male headed HHs). The highest response was recorded among agro pastoral HHs (85%) and closely followed by peri urban and urban HHs at 84% and distantly followed by pastoral HHs at 61%. The least was recorded among the fisher folk HHs at 20%. Other sources of support included community members at 25% and government sources at 25%. Effects of shocks and HH food consumption: Majority of households (83%) indicated the recent shock and stress also affected their household’s food consumption (75% for female and 90% for male headed HHs. Moderate impacts were predominantly experienced among pastoral HHs (71%) and peri urban and urban HHs while slight impacts were reported among fisher folk HHs (100%) the agro pastoral HHs reported diverse impacts (slight at 44% and devastating at 25%). See details in the table below: 48% 50% 47% 50% 51% 37% 52% 28% 23% 33% 38% 15% 27% 2% 2% 2% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Overall Female headed HHs Male headed HHs Fisher folk HHs Agro pastoral HHs Pastoral HHs Peri urban and urban HHs Extent of recovery from recent shocks Somewhat Mostly Completely