Inclusion of the Most Vulnerable People in Resilience Programming

Qualitative Study of Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion

Final Report

Monday, 09 September 2019

Submitted by:

Inter-riverine Consulting
Ms. Badra Yusuf
Mr. Guhad Aden
Mr. Stephen McDowell

Mogadishu, Somalia
+252 617 00 72 13
[email protected]

Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................ ii
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Somalia.................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research Objective & Intended Users of this Study.............................................................................. 2
2 SomReP, STREAM, Resilience & Vulnerability ............................................................................................... 2
2.1 Programmatic Components .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Resilience & Vulnerability ..................................................................................................................... 3
3 Research Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Research questions and approach ........................................................................................................ 4
3.2 The Field Work and Data....................................................................................................................... 5
4 Vulnerability................................................................................................................................................... 6
5 Findings .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
RQ1 Who are the most vulnerable in SomReP and STREAM communities? ................................................ 9
RQ2 Are the most vulnerable included in SomReP and STREAM programmes? ........................................ 11
RQ3 How can we better engage the most vulnerable? .............................................................................. 20
6 Reflections ................................................................................................................................................... 22
7 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 24
8 References ................................................................................................................................................... 26
9 Annexes........................................................................................................................................................ 28
Annex 1: Vulnerability Research Matrix ........................................................................................................... 28
Annex 2: Key informant Interviews Guide by category and location ........................................................ 32
Annex 3: Clan Composition in Research Locations .......................................................................................... 34
Annex 4: SomReP’s Description of their Activities ........................................................................................... 36
Annex 5: Examples of how different forms and categories of vulnerability could be matched to different
social protection investments .......................................................................................................................... 37

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion i

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to recognise the generous assistance provided by the SomReP and STREAM partner offices in
Baidoa, Dollow, Kismayo, Afgoye, Belethawa, Dhobley and Mogadishu. We are indebted to their staff’s generous
support. Also, Donald Ochieng and Ronny Kajaga provided invaluable technical guidance and editorial support.
We also wish to recognise SomReP and particularly, Kevin Mackey for their assistance during the preliminary
phases of this work.

Acronyms Danish Refugee Council
Internally displaced person
DRC Early Warning Committee
IDP Food Security & Nutrition Analysis Unit
EWC Natural Resource Management
FSNAU Somalia Resilience Program
NRM Somalia Resilience Action Consortium
SomReP Village Development Committee
STREAM Village Relief Committee
VDC Village Savings & Loan Association
VRC
VSLA

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion ii

summary fact sheet

SomReP’s positive deviance study in 2018, highlighted a need to better understand current and evolving forms
of vulnerability. Also, it was felt that the revised the Food Security and Nutrition sector’s guidance on targeting
was a great improvement but had gaps in how and who should be targeted and by resilience programmes in
particular. As a result, SomReP and STREAM jointly commissioned research into the nature of vulnerability and
the degree to which the most vulnerable are involved in their resilience programmes. SomReP and STREAM have
long championed a need to engage with changing vulnerability. They vigorously advocated that the invisible
vulnerable, (rural poor, ethnic minorities and traditionally marginalized groups - a key learning point from the
2011 famine), be assisted during the drought of 2016-17. In its current strategy, SomReP looks beyond traditional
notions of vulnerability. It commits to understand and engage marginalised populations and emerging forms of
vulnerability.

Through this research, SomReP and STREAM wish to understand who are the most vulnerable, if they are
included in their resilience programmes and how resilience programmes can better assist them. The research
used an ethnographic case study approach (influenced by grounded theory) to link theory and practise. Key
cases gave voice to the vulnerable themselves and cast those views within wider-societal perceptions.
Observations, interviews, secondary data and contextual literature provided different perceptions of
vulnerability and targeting processes. The field work included interviews with 132 individuals (non-beneficiaries,
beneficiaries, committee members, leaders/elders) in six SomRep and Stream operational locations: Baidoa,
Dollow, Kismayo, Afgoye, Belethawa, Dhobley. Other key stakeholders were interviewed in each location. Lead
researchers visited programme and non-programme locations.

As a qualitative, case study-based piece of research, its conclusions are limited to the experiences and opinions
of those interviewed. The research was designed to provide rich insight on vulnerability, inclusion and exclusion.
They were also conducted to provide an indication of how broadly that experience might be shared or be
descriptive of the communities where SomReP and STREAM work.

Understandings of Vulnerability

There is no single, definition of vulnerability. Depending on how one uses term, it may refer to entirely different
situations or people. SomReP and STREAM use the term to describe several different notions and categories of
vulnerability:

SomRep and STREAM seek to assist the most marginalized and vulnerable groups…such
as: households with malnourished children under 5, households with pregnant and
lactating women, female headed households, households supporting orphans or the

elderly, households who whose livelihoods assets have been completely depleted and
households from minority and traditionally marginalized groups (SomReP, 2018). They
also address and may respond to humanitarian notions of vulnerability (i.e. vulnerable to

acute food insecurity or famine).

To identify vulnerable people for the field work, and to determine who is the most vulnerable, required an
unambiguous understanding of the term and the people it described. A taxonomy was adopted to organise and
clarify what was meant or intended.

The taxonomy adopted proposes two forms of vulnerability; actual (occurrent) or potential (dispositional)
vulnerability. They are fundamentally different and may speak to entirely different people; a person who may
potentially be harmed or a person who faces harm. An example of potential vulnerability might be those who
own significant productive assets and may be harmed by drought. In contrast, a very poor rural person or an
urban aged person, may not be harmed by drought (they have no productive assets nor are dependent on rainfall
for their livelihoods) nor considered potentially vulnerable but may be actually vulnerable. As well, the taxonomy

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion iii

provides three types or causes of either form of vulnerability; inherent, situational or complex/pathogenic
which help to organise causal factors leading to either form of vulnerability.

Comparing the different types of vulnerable which SomReP and STREAM seek to address against this typology,
four different perspectives or lenses emerge:

 Humanitarian (Food Security-Nutrition / Famine)
 Social Protection (Somali and non-humanitarian notions of vulnerability)
 Ethnicity (clan)
 Emergent (consequences of war, and socio-economic, demographic change)

Humanitarian Lens: Humanitarian notions of vulnerability are predicated on susceptibility to a hazard. The Food
Security & Nutrition Analysis Unit for example consider vulnerability in terms of a household’s exposure,
susceptibility and resilience to specific recurrent hazards. It is an example of potential vulnerability, and an
individual’s susceptibility is largely premised on traditional, subsistent, rural livelihoods i.e. pastoralist, agro-
pastoralists or farmers.

Social Protection Lens: Social protection programmes may address actual forms of vulnerability without a need
to justify assistance on their susceptibility to a hazard. They may serve inherently or pathogenically vulnerable
persons such as the ill, mentally or physically handicapped, orphans, widows, indigent, extremely poor etc. This
lens would capture many of the vulnerable groups identified by SomReP and STREAM. It would also be
descriptive of Somali understandings of vulnerability.

Ethnicity Lens: Ethnicity has proven to be singularly important to vulnerability in Somalia. People from the same
marginalised ethnic groups, died disproportionately in the 1991 and 2011 famines. In the months prior to the
declaration of famine in 2011, neither the humanitarian system nor Somali’s recognised the threat to
marginalised clans, yet most of the mortality is believed to have occurred amongst them. Equally, during the
2016/17 drought, they were again not prioritised by the humanitarian system and were subsequently labelled
the “invisible vulnerable”. These ethnic groups could be exposed to both actual and potential forms of
vulnerability. Their causes might be considered pathogenic (i.e. multi-factorial, complex and historically
embedded in social and economic exclusion).

Emergent Lens: Emergent types of vulnerability would encompass consequences of war, or socio-economic,
demographic change. Traditional Somali notions of vulnerability may not recognise these forms of vulnerability.
Equally, they may not be well captured by Somalia’s famine early warning system. This emergent lens reflects
SomRePs and STREAMs recognition that vulnerability is not static and requires on-going learning.

Somali Perceptions of Vulnerability

Somalis consider the most vulnerable to be the poorest or Interviews provided insights into Somali
neediest, who also receive no assistance from others. They feel perceptions of the most vulnerable and the
that such people are often beneficiaries of resilience programmes possible prevalence of forms, causes or
categories of vulnerability. It helped to indicate

if the most vulnerable were involved with SomReP or STREAM programmes and why some are included, and

others excluded. It shed light on the aspirations and strategies of the most vulnerable, providing a benchmark

to assess the relevance and sustainability of activities as well as improvements that could be made.

The graph below summarises the 132 responses of beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, leaders, government officials
and committee members of who they understand to be the vulnerable. They emphasize poverty or need, which
may be associated with age, gender, illness, disability (mental or physical) and displacement. They also feel that
vulnerability is prevalent in their communities.

Interviewees reflected a shared understanding of who are the most vulnerable. Responses consistently
described the extremely vulnerable (i.e. needy or poor) who do not have someone to assist them are the most
vulnerable. Part of the shared understanding across interviewees may be explained by the pillar of their faith

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion iv

that requires them to provide alms to the vulnerable. Alms are often given to those felt to be the most
vulnerable. Using this shared understanding, the most vulnerable are believed to be included in resilience
programmes, although it may only be a small proportion of the total.

Their perception of the most vulnerable may be Graph 1 Number of Responses to "Who are the vulnerable?"

useful to distinguish between social protection Poor (Fuqara)
cases, but it does not compare the vulnerability Needy (Masaakin)
across the four different notions of vulnerability,
i.e. is a blind, elderly woman more vulnerable than Elderly
a household classified in food security crisis, nor if Poor Female headed HH
a blind elderly woman from a royal clan is less
vulnerable than a blind, elderly woman from a Chronically Ill
marginalised clan. Displaced

Vulnerble Minorities
Large HH (caring for others)

The beneficiary selection process is ultimately Debt

dependent on perceptions of vulnerability of 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

community members, their leaders and

programme beneficiaries represent social committees. In line with community-based targeting protocols, local
protection notions of vulnerability committees target individuals to benefit from the programme. Staff
reported that they used local commonly understood and accepted

Somali, notions of vulnerability (and language – masaakin and fuqara) to explain to committees who was to be

targeted for the programme. These understandings are broadly consistent with social protection notions of the

term. Staff said that humanitarian, food security notions of vulnerability are difficult to explain, understand, or

the criteria is not practical and ultimately difficult to apply.

The ethnic notions of vulnerability, which SomReP and Table 1 Beneficiaries by Clan
STREAM wish to address, are not characteristic of the
beneficiaries who were interviewed. Most beneficiaries Dominant Minority Marginalized
interviewed were drawn from the local dominant clan Clans Clans Clans
(see Table 1) even though non-beneficiaries considered 6 3
Beneficiaries 16 18 14

Non-Beneficiaries 22

themselves equally as vulnerable. Beneficiaries were drawn from the same dominant clan as the administrators,

officials, elders and committee members who selected them (see Table 2). It was also noted that some

programme locations were sited in communities of dominant clans, or which were difficult to access by minority

or marginalised clans. Non-beneficiaries felt they were not targeted as they had no voice in decision-making

processes.

Lastly, the profiles of beneficiaries suggest that Table 2 Committee Members by Clan
emergent notions of vulnerability may be
partially included in targeting. The interviewed Dominant Minority Marginalized
beneficiaries were older and often urban or in Clans Clans
camps reflecting processes of urbanisation, or Clans
16 5
Committee, Elders 32
and Leaders

displacement. The youth however were not represented.

Somali & Staff Perceptions of Targeting Processes

Humanitarian vulnerability may frame SomReP and STREAM wanted to understand how the
geographic targeting, but social protection mechanics of the programme worked to include some and
notions of vulnerability identify beneficiaries exclude others. Interviews described how humanitarian, food
security notions of vulnerability shape geographic targeting,

and how local, social protection notions of vulnerability are used to ultimately select individuals.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion v

Geographic targeting was said to be firstly informed by FSNAU and its different food security classifications and
secondly the presence of other NGOs. Operational considerations – rivers, distance from towns, presence of al
Shabaab - were also observed to have influenced geographic decisions.

Clan is a defining influence on Location and beneficiary selection depend more on local understandings of
location and beneficiary selection vulnerability (social protection notions). However, it is likely that clan may
be an even more influential determinant. Location selection, within a

targeted geographic area, was reported to be negotiated. Both

administration officers and programme staff interviewed believed the other pre-determines or steers

programmes towards specific locations. Neither felt the other was trying to address the truly vulnerable. Officials

were believed to be primarily concerned about advancing political or clan agendas. Staff were felt to use NGO

notions of vulnerability which were not considered credible and were felt to be primarily concerned about

advancing their NGO business interests. No matter the motivations, for both, clan was observed to be a powerful

determinant of location.

Most senior staff interviewed, were drawn from the local, dominant clan. Employing staff with relations to local
power structures is considered essential for programme implementation and credibility. The disadvantage is
that programming falls under the influence of the dominant clan. It was an issue openly discussed and
particularly disturbing for staff. They feel it is important to serve the vulnerable in their communities equitably.
They also feel that there is no recognition of the enormous pressure they are exposed to. They balance demands
of their employer against those imposed by the family, communities and local government. Ultimately, they feel
they have limited influence over locations selected and less for the individuals targeted.

Government administrators and officials equally felt enormous pressure and expectation by their families and
clan. Not only are they elected or appointed by their clan, due to the extreme and prevalent poverty in their
areas, they report having queues of people outside their doors every day begging for help or support from an
NGO. People queuing, it was felt by researchers, are likely to be from their clans.

The geographic and location selection to a large degree pre-determine which vulnerable will be included and
those who will be excluded. They determine the community and clan from which a community-based committee
will be asked to target individuals. Clan nonetheless continues to play a dominant role in this final phase of the
process. The committees which select beneficiaries are often part of and report to local administrative
structures. Graph 2 highlights their clan composition. Committee members also face expectations to assist not
only clan but neighbours or family members. Very practically, their perceptions of who is the most vulnerable is
limited to their experience or rather to the people they know of. Programme staff try to validate beneficiary
lists, but security concerns, time or resources limited the degree to which it is possible. Nonetheless, even with
these considerations, committees do select people widely felt to be the most vulnerable, if only from their clan
and reflecting their own notions of vulnerability.

Within these targeted populations, inclusion was also felt to be influenced by the type of activity on offer. Where
cash was offered it was highly sought after by individuals as well as their leaders, administrators or officials who
wished to be associated with largesse. At the same time, every official as well as other stakeholders were critical
of cash. They felt it did nothing to change underlying conditions of vulnerability and poverty. Instead they asked
for more programme activities that helped people to build their lives and become independent (i.e. not
vulnerable). They also recognised that giving away cash and providing immediate benefit was more attractive to
people. Ironically, it was felt that cash was captured by more influential voices or individuals, leaving the less
demanded, more sustainable activities to the less prominent.

Ambitions of the most vulnerable and the relevance of programme activities

In order to understand how SomReP and STREAM activities served or could better serve the most vulnerable,
the most vulnerable were asked about their ambitions and strategies for the future. The most vulnerable –
whether beneficiaries or not - sought stability and dignity for their families. This centred around decent food

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion vi

and clothes. They equally sought to see children educated and desired a more sustainable and improved means
of earing an income.

The most vulnerable are or wish to purse They Graph 2: Strategies of the most vulnerable to
business or labour to earn an income. Some IDPs expected to achieve their intended goals for the family
wish to return to farming. None reported a make these
desire to be a pastoralist or an agro-pastoralist Hard Work
changes NGO Support
through hard
Business
work and support from NGOs, as well as business, farming and Farming
Casual Labour
casual labour. Farming was sought by interviewees who were
Save
displaced and wished to return to their home, and only if they Educate Children

received support from NGOs. Notably, beyond these displaced Loan

people no one reported an intention to be a farmer, pastoralist 0 10 20 30 40 50

or agro-pastoralist. IDPs who had no assets at home would

rather stay in town and work as a day labourer. Traditional, rural

subsistent livelihoods are not descriptive of those interviewed.

SomReP’s activities were aligned with and proportional to the priorities and strategies of the most vulnerable.
Their activities emphasise micro-business development, financial inclusion and commercial forms of agriculture.
The programme appears to have recognised changing conditions and nature of vulnerability. They appear
relevant to the most vulnerable.

What can we conclude?

The research would suggest that SomReP and STREAM’s programmes include and are largely relevant to very
vulnerable people, many of whom are the ones they intended to assist. Beyond local notions, it is difficult to say
if these are the most vulnerable. We can describe the type of vulnerability, which is descriptive of beneficiaries
in the programme, but determining if those are the most vulnerable requires a subjective determination to be
made by SomReP or STREAM. Their beneficiaries demonstrate social protection or local notions of vulnerability
and to a certain degree, emergent types as well. Most of their beneficiaries are not the ethnically vulnerable. It
is not clear if these beneficiaries would be considered the most vulnerable according to food security or
humanitarian criteria. We can only say that it was not the criteria used to select them.

The community-based targeting mechanisms work. They target and include very vulnerable people. The clan-
dominated community-based targeting may be better understood as a powerful force of inclusion, not exclusion.
The system was not seen to deliberately or punitively exclude the vulnerable from other clans. It was simply
effective at capturing benefits for its own group. In this sense, the system may only be problematic where an
agency expects the system to target the most vulnerable from other clans. This, however, is precisely an
expectation of SomReP and STREAM. They feel it is important that the ethnically vulnerable are included and
assisted. Given the pervasive nature of clan, they are unlikely to be included using existing community-based
targeting mechanisms.

We can see that SomReP and STREAM are responsive to emerging, urban-based livelihoods and vulnerability.
Their activities align with aspirations and strategies of the most vulnerable. Continuing that commitment may
be valuable to remain relevant to emerging forms of vulnerability. Without greater engagement or involvement
of the youth, however, the programme may have a vulnerability-blind spot.

An area which the programmes may wish to examine more closely are the differences which emerge between
humanitarian and social protection notions of vulnerability. It has significant implications for programming.
FSNAU prioritised, acutely food insecure populations may include people who are vulnerable due to inherent or
pathogenic factors. Shocks and threats to pastoralists, farmers or agro-pastoralists may not be relevant to actual
challenges faced by a social protection caseload. As well, geographic targeting based on humanitarian, food
insecurity, may bias assistance away from important non-food security issues or overlook populations at great

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion vii

risk, but as a result of other forms of vulnerability (as was seen in 2011). In contrast, there is a strong
complementarity between Somali notions and understandings of vulnerability and the types people the
programme intends to serve. It may be an opportunity to explore alternate, sustainable means of identifying
and addressing vulnerability. Also, social protection notions of vulnerability provide a more granular lens to
vulnerability, than is offered by food insecurity, which can better align programme activities to populations of
concern. For example, vulnerability of the aged, disabled, indigent etc would be well served by unconditional
cash transfers. In contrast, vulnerability of a poor farmer may be better served by market linkages or financial
inclusion. Food security can still be a useful analytical framework to monitor conditions, but a social protection
approach may be more useful to programme design.

Ultimately, by asking these fundamental questions about vulnerability, SomReP and STREAM are placing
themselves in the vanguard of a wide range of humanitarian and social protection issues from welfare/safety
nets to inclusive equitable economic growth. It reconsiders an established status quo to ensure it is relevant to
a changing context.

Recommendations

Bridge Understandings of Vulnerability

 Bridge Somali and resilience programme understandings of vulnerability to enable greater
collaboration

 Recognise how different understandings of the term vulnerability bias targeting geographically and for
beneficiary selection and bridge the range objectives the programme seeks to serve

 Recognise and develop mechanisms to identify emerging forms of vulnerability (perhaps in youth) and
in marginalized clans that are meaningful to the programme, local government and society.

Modalities

 Help committees target the right beneficiary for the activity being implemented. The most vulnerable
must be clarified as those requiring welfare support versus those requiring assistance for economic
improvement

 Recognise the limitations of community targeting mechanisms and develop options to include the most
vulnerable outside of dominant clans.

 Recognise how geographic targeting and clan act to bias assistance and develop alternate mechanisms
to reach other locations where other forms of vulnerability are found

 Include the most vulnerable in programme design, location selection, beneficiary selection, monitoring
and evaluation processes not only their representatives

Programmatic Choices

 Continue to design programmes to reflect emerging and actual priorities and aims of the most
vulnerable – not based on stereotypical, traditional livelihoods

 Balance programme activities to recognise simultaneous demand/need for cash with the need
sustainable, economic improvement

 Recognise the scale of extreme poverty vs potential coverage of a programme and design accordingly

Improve contextual understanding and coordination with local actors

 Include local authority, state and federal ministries in program design, and implementation process to
co-create mechanisms to include the most vulnerable outside of the dominant clans

 Look for opportunities for Somali led solutions to clan-based exclusion

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion viii

1 Introduction

1.1 Somalia

After 25 years of state disintegration, conflict and continuous displacement, Somalia is showing timid but
promising signs of increased security and stabilisation. Government authority is slowly being established but
insurgents (notably Al-Shabaab), inter-communal conflict, poverty, high vulnerability to natural disasters,
internal displacement and weak governance still threaten stability. The electoral process held at the beginning
of 2017 brought Somalia a more representative government charged with urgent tasks, notably security sector
development, stabilisation, political inclusion and economic recovery.

Somalia remains fragmented and the federal project requires a range of state-building efforts at multiple levels.
Stabilising newly accessible areas through community reconciliation, providing tangible dividends to the
population, and establishing and strengthening local government are of key importance for advancing the
federalism process and generating enduring trust in the Federal Government and Member States. (European
Union, 2018, p. 2)

Urbanisation in Somalia is one of the highest in the region. With half or more or the of the population already
classified as urban (reported to be 50% as of 2014 - before the 2015-16 drought and excluding IDP populations,
another 10% of the population that is settled or urban (UNFPA, 2014). 30 years of war have resulted in extreme
poverty, particularly in the south. Characteristics and causes of poverty in Somalia include poor health, low levels
of education, insecurity and political disempowerment, lack of access to land and income-generating
opportunities, socio-economic marginalization, exposure to a range of climatic and economic shocks, and
ongoing conflict years of civil war have undermined traditional livelihoods, displacing hundreds of thousands and
has stifled the emergence of new opportunities for a largely young population. Of the 40% living in rural areas,
livelihood baselines (most of which developed almost 10 years ago), indicate that 50% are poor or very poor. In
other words, they lack the productive assets – animals or farmland for the life of a pastoralist, agro-pastoralist
or farmer, and depend as much or more on petty trade, casual labour or assistance from others. In fact, one may
ask why their livelihoods are described in terms of pastoralism, agro-pastoralism or farming? The country is
predominantly young with possibly 75% under 30 years and half of those or almost 40% of the total population
between the age of 15-30 (UNFPA, 2014)). Like young people everywhere, Somali youth, can be seen attached
to their smartphones and the internet. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or WhatsApp are ubiquitous. Many or
most may seek a future in town or employed (McDowell, 2013) but their qualifications are meagre and their
opportunities are few. Vulnerability in its many different forms, both old and new, are a function of this changing
context.

Resilience Programmes

After the famine of 2011, an enormous effort and investment was made by the international humanitarian
community to find a better way to assist Somalia than continuing the provision of relief supplies. The resilience
paradigm emerged and dominated thinking and funding. Several major resilience programmes began, the
Somalia Resilience Programme (SomReP), Building Resilient Communities in Somalia (BRCiS), the FAO-UNICEF-
WFP Resilience programme and later Somalia Resilience Action (STREAM). Initially, they were designed to
strengthen rural livelihoods and manage drought. They have evolved to include largely humanitarian cash
disbursements which in turn have morphed into longer-term welfare/safety net mechanisms (see (SomReP,
2019). The resilience programmes continue to evolve with SomReP and STREAM engaging with forces of
urbanisation, youth, business development and employment.

SomReP and STREAM have long championed a need to engage with changing vulnerability. They vigorously
advocated that the invisible vulnerable, (rural poor, ethnic minorities and traditionally marginalized groups) be
assisted during the drought of 2016-17. This was a key learning point from the 2011 famine. Somalia’s famine
early warning system, based on traditional livelihoods, food security analysis and targeting correctly alerted the

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 1

world to impending famine, but it did not identify the geographies or populations who would constitute the
majority of famine deaths (marginalized ethnic groups). In its current strategy, SomReP looks beyond traditional
notions of vulnerability. It commits to understand and engage marginalised populations and emerging forms of
vulnerability. Also, SomReP’s positive deviance study in 2018, highlighted a need to better understand current
and evolving forms of vulnerability. As well, while the revisions to the Food Security and Nutrition cluster’s
guidance on targeting was considered a great improvement, SomReP and STREAM identified gaps in its
conception of vulnerability and targeting. As a result, SomReP and STREAM jointly commissioned research into
the nature of vulnerability and the degree to which the most vulnerable are involved in their resilience
programmes.

1.2 Research Objective & Intended Users of this Study

SomReP and STREAM maintain that the holistic inclusion of all people in development is integral the resilience
and the well-being of community has a whole. Cognizant of this principle, both consortia have in place
mechanisms to ensure that most vulnerable households and communities are included in their programming.
Despite these efforts, the most vulnerable women and girls, lesser-clans, people with disabilities, landless
farmers, single-headed households are excluded or not adequately represented in the programmes. They wish
to address this issue and have committed to ensure their work is informed by society dynamics, and that these
excluded cohorts are assisted by SomReP and STREAM programmes to achieve their full potential. They expect
this research to help address these issues by providing answers to three questions:

 To what extent are the most vulnerable targeted and included in SomReP and STREAM programmes?
 What are factors which hinder or foster their involvement in these programmes?
 Are SomReP and STREAM programmes better align their programmes to the priorities and goals of the

most vulnerable?

2 SomReP, STREAM, Resilience & Vulnerability

Somali Resilience Programme (SomReP) and Somalia Resilience Action Consortium (STREAM) were established
to enhance the resilience of vulnerable households and communities against cyclical shocks and stressors as well
as to be able to better secure households’ needs year after year. They target interventions that aim to build
improvements in economic wellbeing. Furthermore, consortia advocate for the importance of resilience building
at the household and community level within the broader agenda of moving Somalia towards peace and
development.

2.1 Programmatic Components

The current phase of the SomReP programme aims To increase the resilience of chronically vulnerable Somali
people, households, communities and systems to climatic shocks and other related risks in targeted pastoral,
agro-pastoral and peri-urban livelihood zones by 2023. The programme expects to realise this objective by
delivering five results:

Result 1: Improved capacity of households to implement effective disaster risk management and positive
coping strategies to mitigate the immediate effects of exposure to shock

Result 2: Improved capacity of individuals, Households and communities to adhere to positive
development trajectories, despite exposure to shocks and utilize strategies designed to allow adaptation to
rapid and slow-onset hazards

Result 3: Improved capacity to engage in strategies for sustainable livelihoods and economic growth to
enhance food security and resilience

Result 4: Transparent and accountable governance structures at community, district and national levels to
ensure an enabling policy and regulatory environment for sustainable livelihoods and economic growth

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 2

Result 5: Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability & Learning systems in place, including a data management
platform, which form the evidence base for informed decision support analysis and strategic programming
with learning and research generated and shared among relevant stakeholders.

The main target group of the interventions are pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, and peri-urban poor which include
the internally displaced people (IDPs), who SomReP feel are particularly vulnerable, not only due to their
displacement but also as many are female-headed households, or youth with few employment prospects.
(SomReP, 2018)

The programme has established several different activities to deliver intended results. SomReP describes those
activities clearly (see Annex 4: SomReP’s Description of their Activities), but in ways which are not well suited to
the requirements of this research. The wide range of actions which SomReP, were re-organised into groups
which would speak more clearly to research requirements (see Table 2 below).

Table 2 Summary of program activities

Activity Description

Emergency Committees Training (early warning, risk reduction, etc.)
Natural Resource Committees Training,
Subsistence Farming seeds, tools, agronomy training, tractors, irrigation, sprays, water
reserve
Subsistence Livestock Training, water points,
Welfare Payments Unconditional Cash
Guaranteed Employment Schemes CFW, CfA, etc. - all conditional Cash
Micro & Small Businesses Training, VSLA, financial inclusion,
Employment Skills training, life skills training, internships
Business - Animal Health CAHW Training, Drugs training, Community Training
Business - Fruit fruit trees, training, market support
Business - Donkey Transport Donkeys
Business - Agriculture Storage, storage training, committee training, business skills training,
irrigation, water storage, fodder,
Business - Milling milling machines
Business - Milk Business Milk plant
Business - Honey Equipment, training,
Business - Poultry Equipment, training

2.2 Resilience & Vulnerability

The consortia consider reaching the most vulnerable individuals, households and communities and clans as an
essential to their notion of resilience. They observe that disadvantages in political, social and economic
relationships perpetuate inequalities. In the fragile and emergency contexts, SomReP and STREAM recognise
that the most vulnerable (women and girls, lesser-clans, people with disabilities, landless farmers, single-headed
households) face a higher risk of discrimination. Addressing these factors requires functioning and inclusive
institutions of good governance and accountability. In turn, SomReP and STREAM believe this change requires
institutions and processes that are transparent, accountable, and responsive to the people and that promote
positive society relationships (including a strong Village Development Committees, Early Warning Committees,
producers’ groups, Natural Resource Management/ water committees, Village Savings & Loans Associations,
and Village Relief Committees).

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 3

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Research questions and approach

The research has been designed to answer several questions, posed by SomReP and STREAM. Their questions
have been grouped under three research questions and sub-questions:

Table 1 Research Questions Inclusion/Exclusion Solutions
Vulnerability Are the most vulnerable targeted, SomReP and STREAM
included or excluded from SomReP and programming aligns with the
Who are the most vulnerable in STREAM programmes? Why? priorities and goals of the most
SomReP and STREAM vulnerable, how could they be
communities and what are their better engaged by the
developmental priorities and programmes?
goals?

What are local perceptions and To what extent do vulnerable communities Are SomReP & STREAM
understanding of vulnerability? and households participate in the programme relevant to the goals,
programme cycle (i.e. from needs strategies and priorities of the
What is the likely prevalence of identification, planning and design, most vulnerable?
different types of locally defined implementation, to monitoring and
vulnerabilities? evaluation) Beyond SomReP and STREAM
interventions, what are
What are their goals and priorities for How effective are community engagement opportunities to support the
different categories of vulnerability? processes (including formal and informal development and safety of the
agreements) to reach/include the most most vulnerable?
Are resilience interventions vulnerable?
implemented by consortia (SomReP
and STREAM) reaching the most How effective are consortia targeting
vulnerable Somali communities and strategies to include the most vulnerable?
households.
Do programme activities offer enough
How effective are government and benefit to assist or even attract the most
community (formal and informal) vulnerable (noting potential bias in
institutions in promoting inclusive selection of HHs for participation).
participation and decision-making of
the most vulnerable households. What are the underlying factors that inhibit
and foster inclusion and participation of the
most vulnerable households in the
programme intervention?

The research examined for several different notions (forms or categories) of vulnerability (discussed in section
4 Vulnerability) in people benefiting from the programme or in the communities where programmes operated.
It incorporated Somali perspectives of vulnerability and also allowed for emergent notions of vulnerability to be
captured. It also explored beneficiary selection mechanisms and processes to understand why or why not certain
groups of vulnerable people were included. Determining who was the most vulnerable, was challenging.
Ultimately the research found, that due to the different forms and causes of vulnerability, it is a question which
must be answered by SomReP and STREAM themselves. To enable them to answer that question, the research
documented different forms or categories of vulnerability, considered to be the most vulnerable by either
SomReP/STREAM or Somali perspectives, in people included in the programmes and in the communities where
programmes operated.

The research was qualitative and based on a case study approach. The approach was adopted in part to give
voice to the vulnerable themselves but also to cast those views within wider-societal perceptions. Preparatory
work began with a brief literature review of vulnerability, how the term is used in humanitarian and resilience
work (and specifically by SomReP and STREAM) and Somali notions of the term (see section 4 Vulnerability).
Based on this background work as well as understandings of the programmes themselves, sampling strategies,
and interview guidelines were developed. The research matrix included in the annexes, summarises interview

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 4

questions developed to answer the research questions (see Annex 1). Speaking with individuals on sensitive
topics, such as vulnerability and exclusion required measures to assure their safety as well as the safety of the
research team. A safeguarding strategy was developed and finalised together with SomReP. While the Federal
Government of Somalia is still in the process of establishing itself, a Research Approval request was nonetheless
prepared and shared with Federal and State level government (Ministries of Humanitarian & Disaster
Management or Planning & International Cooperation, or state Administration). Although the government is not
yet able to approve research, consistent with governance building approaches of SomReP, the importance of
the process was recognised and undertaken as a commitment to best practise. A complete set of the products
prepared during the preliminary phase has been submitted to SomReP and STREAM.

The approach of this research is designed to complement a second, quantitative piece of vulnerability research
planned for later in 2019. The two together offer a mixed methods approach. Within this qualitative piece of
research, specific questions will be included to test for wider prevalence of responses, which can be linked to
quantitative methods.

3.2 The Field Work and Data

Data collection methods are described in the research matrix (Annex 1: Vulnerability Research Matrix). Case
studies were developed using structured interviews with key informants, site visits and observations. Purposive
sampling was used to identify those to be interviewed and to provide the broadest picture of vulnerability in
each location. Rather than conducting large numbers of interviews we spoke with fewer people and used each
opportunity for a deep-dive case study. We spoke to program beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and community
committees/leaders. They documented different categories of vulnerability and their relationship (or not) to
resilience programmes. The research was conducted in locations with and without resilience programmes to
explore the possible prevalence of different categories of vulnerability as well as perspectives on the
programmes and their targeting processes.

Below are descriptions of the interviews conducted. Table 2 Summary of Interviews Conductedsummarises the
interviews conducted by location (Baidoa, Dollow, Kismayo, Afgoye, Belethawa, Dhobley). In each location
programme beneficiaries were randomly selected. Non-beneficiaries were identified from the same
communities where the programme was implemented and from nearby locations where there were no
programme activities. Interviewees were further prioritised by clan, age, sex, physical disability, and zakat
recipient

Table 2 Summary of Interviews Conducted

Categories Baidoa Dollow Kismayo Afgoye Belethawa Dhobley Total

Beneficiaries 54 4 4 4 4 25
8 9 54
Non-Beneficiaries 12 8 9 8

Committee Members 7 6 53 6 4 31
Leaders/Elders 2 2 1 13 2 2 22

TOTAL 26 20 19 28 20 19 132

Responses were recorded manually by researchers and input into an ONA project (an online data platform and
mobile survey software) each afternoon. Responses were recorded in Somali, to ensure that enumerators could
upload the rich content of their interviews. The lead researchers were able to supervise the data input and
conduct quality control in real-time.

Data analysis was conducted in Nairobi from July 4 to 14. An ONA dashboard provided a preliminary overview
of the field work results. Data was then cleaned. Outliers were identified and managed. The cleaned dataset was
exported into excel. Once in excel data sets were tested for internal continuity. Analysis of the data used an
iterative approach. Responses for each interview question were analysed by respondent type, age, gender and
geography. Each iteration provided deeper insight and raised more questions. Once the analysis team felt they
had reached a saturation point, guided by the research matrix, they began answering research questions and

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 5

sub-questions. This process in turn was iterative. Answers to research questions were condensed into summary
statements, which would subsequently be tested and retested to ensure a continuity and faithfulness to
interviewee responses. During this process, clan emerged as a defining mechanism of inclusion or exclusion. It
required additional classification of clans (and sub-clans) as dominant, minority or marginalised for each
location. Against this classification, responses were re-examined, and answers revised. Similarly, clarification by
interviewees on processes of beneficiary identification, required revisiting both the Community-based Targeting
Guidelines and additional interviews with staff to understand how the programme’s intended processes and
priorities meshed with the reported processes and prioritisation. Draft recommendations were proposed to
SomReP. SomReP’s team provided guidance on which were practical and more useful. Ultimately, there was
considerable consensus between researchers and SomReP requiring few changes to be made.

Field observations were shared at a USAID hosted event in Nairobi on June 17. A session was also held with
SomReP and STREAM senior staff providing an opportunity to discuss early findings.

The results of the research are the property of the contracting client. It is anticipated that an in-depth workshop
will be convened in Mogadishu in August to discuss the final results and how they might be incorporated into
resilience programming. If requested by the client, findings will also be shared with other core stakeholders such
as MoHADMA, or other government departments, or non-government stakeholders during or after the
Mogadishu workshop. Lastly, the research team will ensure that the findings of this work are complement the
planned complimentary quantitative research.

There are limitations to this work. Its qualitative nature and sampling approach limit observations made or
conclusions drawn to the experience of people interviewed in the locations visited. Findings are not
representative. Sampling sought to mitigate against this limitation and help increase the representativeness of
responses. Another limitation relates to the case-study approach. The quality of evidence is subject to bias or
perspectives of the interviewees. It also limits perspectives of vulnerability and mechanisms of inclusion and
exclusions to the experience of those interviewed. Again sampling sought to counter this limitation by including
individuals drawn from a range of backgrounds and experiences, consistently in each location. Also,
questionnaires were structured allowing interviewees to make objective statements about their personal
experience as well as opportunities to voice opinions more broadly. It allowed for triangulation of responses and
the documentation of a broad range of perspectives on vulnerability and targeting. By the end of the field work,
very little or no new information was emerging suggesting a point of data saturation had been reached.

4 Vulnerability

There is no single, definition of vulnerability. Depending on how one uses the term, it may refer to entirely
different situations, conditions or people. SomReP and STREAM use the term to describe several different
notions and categories of vulnerability:

SomRep and STREAM seek to assist the most marginalized and vulnerable groups…such as:
households with malnourished children under 5, households with pregnant and lactating women,
female headed households, households supporting orphans or the elderly, households who whose
livelihoods assets have been completely depleted and households from minority and traditionally
marginalized groups (SomReP, 2018). They also address and may respond to humanitarian notions

of vulnerability (i.e. vulnerable to acute food insecurity or famine).
Moreover, SomReP and STREAM have committed that they should not be bound by pre-existing nor traditional
notions of vulnerability in Somalia. They will evolve their understanding of vulnerability in order to inform their
strategic decision making (SomReP, 2018, p. 33). Given the ambitions of SomReP and STREAM and their multiple
notions of vulnerability, an unambiguous understanding of the term and the people it described was essential
for the research.

Framing Vulnerability

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 6

To better understand and identify the most vulnerable, a taxonomy was adopted. The taxonomy proposes two
forms of vulnerability; actual (occurrent) or potential (dispositional). They are fundamentally different and may
speak to entirely different people; a person who may face harm or a person who is in fact confronting harm. An
example of potential vulnerability might be those who own significant productive assets and may be harmed by
drought. Actual vulnerability might be a very poor rural person or an urban aged person, who struggles to feed
themselves, stay healthy or manage daily tasks whether there is a drought or not (plus they are unlikely to have
productive assets that could be affected by drought). As well, the taxonomy provides three types or causal
factors; inherent, situational or complex/pathogenic (Mackenzie, Rogers, & Dodds, 2014):

Inherent vulnerability is related to ‘sources of vulnerability that are inherent to the human
condition and that arise from our corporeality, our neediness, our dependence on others, and
our affective and social natures’ (Rogers et al. 2012:24). Situational vulnerability arises in a

context and is ‘caused or exacerbated by the personal, social, political, economic or
environmental situations of a person or social group’ (ibid.). In contrast, pathogenic
vulnerability is a state of being at risk of having situational or inherent vulnerabilities increased
or created as a result of ongoing relationships or socio-political situations that have negative or
harmful effects (ibid: 25). In this respect, the concept of pathogenic vulnerability can assist in
highlighting structural injustice and human rights violations. The two states of vulnerability are
dispositional and occurrent. Individuals have a dispositional vulnerability if they have attributes
that render them at risk of sustaining a particular harm, while they experience occurrent
vulnerabilities in circumstances in which they are acutely at risk of sustaining harm (Mackenzie
et al. 2014; Rogers et al. 2012) in (Durocher, Chung, Rochon, & Hung, 2016, p. 222)

Comparing this typology against the different notions and categories of vulnerability which SomReP and STREAM
seek to address, four different perspectives or lenses on vulnerability emerge:

 Humanitarian (food security-nutrition / famine)

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 7

 Social Protection (Somali and non- Box 1 FSNAU: Inclusion & exclusion

humanitarian notions of vulnerability) Impact Modelling, Famine and Humanitarian Vulnerability
 Ethnicity (clan)
 Emergent (consequences of war, and To ascertain the level of susceptibility to the damaging effects
of a hazard, and to guide actions to reduce disaster risk, the
socio-economic, demographic change)

Humanitarian Lens: Humanitarian notions of FSNAU has developed what could be considered an impact
vulnerability are predicated on susceptibility to a model. The model is based on food economy and livelihood
baselines (predominantly those of pastoralists, agro-

hazard. The Food Security & Nutrition Analysis pastoralists or farmers). Indicators or outcomes are measured

Unit, for example, considers vulnerability in and then classified according to IPC norms. The IPC has proven
terms of a household’s exposure, susceptibility to be an effective means of describing acute food security
and resilience to specific recurrent hazards (IPC, conditions amongst rural, traditional livelihoods. The IPC itself
2019, pp. 10, 28). It is a notion of vulnerability is designed to describe actual conditions not to predict future
consistent with that of UNISDR’s where a set of conditions. It is however, intended to be an evidence base from
characteristics and circumstances of a which future acute food security conditions can be anticipated.
community, system or asset that make it (IPC, 2019)
susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard is
vulnerability. (UNISDR, 2019). STREAM similarly Impact models provide rational, evidence-driven basis of
refers to vulnerability in the context of climate prediction. Predicting the future is complex. Impact models are
shocks and risks (ACTED, 2019). Many constrained to capture or interpret complexity, variability,
international agencies operating in Somalia refer changing conditions. These challenges are found in a range of
impact models climate change, health outcomes, technology,
policy (Miller, Foley, & Russel, 2014) (Monier & etal, 2018)

to the potential (dispositional) form of (Pindyck, 2013) (Scott, Solórzano, Moyer, & Hughes, 2017)).

vulnerability, such as susceptibility to acute food Relevant to Somalia is that impact modelling has been seen to
insecurity, acute malnutrition or famine. The be biased by the politicisation of responses (Nyborg & Nawab,
idea that there exists susceptibility to a shock and 2017, p. 72).

a disastrous outcome is predicated on Famine early warning is of the utmost importance in fragile

assumptions. Those assumptions in Somalia, are contexts such as Somalia. However, the limitations to impact
systematically modelled, monitored and are models must be recognised or the system may risk overlooking
largely premised on the relationship of actual reservoirs of susceptibility to famine.

traditional, subsistent, rural livelihoods i.e.

pastoralist, agro-pastoralists or farmers, their food security and famine (See Box 1). SomReP and STREAM

specifically mention this form of vulnerability in their strategies.

Social Protection Lens: Social protection programmes may address actual forms of vulnerability without a need
to justify assistance according to susceptibility to a hazard (i.e. as with the humanitarian notion). They may serve
inherently or pathogenically vulnerable persons such as the ill, mentally or physically handicapped, orphans,
widows, indigent, extremely poor etc. This lens would capture many of the vulnerable groups identified by
SomReP and STREAM. It would also be descriptive of Somali understandings of vulnerability.

Ethnicity Lens: Ethnicity has proven to be singularly important to actual and potential forms of vulnerability in
Somalia. People from the same marginalised ethnic groups, died disproportionately in the 1991 (UNCU;
UNOCHA, 2002) and 2011 famines (Maxwell, Majid, Adan, Abdirahman, & Kim, 2015) (Majid & McDowell, 2012).
While alerts were issued in the months prior to the declaration of famine in 2011 (Hillbruner & Moloney, 2012),
neither the humanitarian system nor Somali’s recognised the threat of famine amongst certain marginalised
clans. Most of the approximately quarter of a million excess deaths (Chechi & Robinson, 2013) are believed to
have occurred amongst them. Equally, during the 2016/17 drought, those groups were again not prioritised by
the humanitarian system and were subsequently labelled the “invisible vulnerable”. These ethnic groups
experience actual and potential forms of vulnerability. Their causes might be considered pathogenic (i.e. multi-
factorial, complex and historically embedded in social and economic exclusion). SomReP has prioritised ethnicity
as a form of vulnerability, minority clans and Bantu populations in the inter-riverine and riverine area have

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 8

become marginalised, and therefore undergo less urbanization, migration, education, and diasporic dispersal
over time, compared to the major clans in Somalia (SomReP, 2018).

Emergent Lens: Emergent types of vulnerability would encompass consequences of war, or socio-economic,

demographic change. Traditional Somali notions of vulnerability may not recognise these forms of vulnerability.

Equally, they may not be well captured by Somalia’s famine early warning system. Somalia is increasingly urban.

Prolonged war and urbanisation may mean social and gender norms are no longer grounded in a traditional

status quo but are being shaped by exposure to the wider world. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly for the

future, is that 75% of the population is likely under 30. Smartphones, internet, mobility and social media are

ubiquitous. This emergent lens reflects SomRePs and STREAMs recognition that vulnerability is not static and

requires on-going learning. Table 3: The 4 lenses and their forms and causes of

Differences across the four lenses of vulnerability and vuLlennersability Form Cause

according to Mackenzie et al’s taxonomy are Humanitarian Potential Situational / inherent

summarised in Table 3. Somali Actual Inherent / Situational

Identifying the most vulnerable Ethnicity Actual Pathogenic
Despite the many different conceptions of vulnerability Emergent Actual Situational/ Inherent /
Pathogenic?

underpinning the SomReP and STREAM programmes, the actual identification of vulnerable people is governed

by Somali perceptions of vulnerability. SomReP and STREAM have adopted the Community Based Targeting

Guidelines. The guidelines are cognoscente of a range of vulnerabilities and recognise bias and differences in

local perceptions of identifying the most vulnerable or those to be targeted. Also, vulnerability to food insecurity

(i.e. humanitarian notions) is a defining feature (Somalia Food Security Cluster, 2018). Nonetheless, targeting is

tasked to local committees and individuals and assumes they have a shared understanding of vulnerability. This

is not necessarily the case.

I had brought some assistance from Somali’s in the UK during the drought. People were jostling in
the queue to receive their share. One, relatively well-off lady caught my eye. I explained to her that
I was bringing zakat, from Somali’s in the UK. I asked if she thought she should be receiving this
assistance? Her reply, “Oh! I thought it was humanitarian relief.” She then excused herself from the
queue and together with others, identified the people who should receive the alms. Deqa Ali, 2017

Smith observed this gap between Somali and humanitarian notions of vulnerability in her comprehensive
preparatory work on social protection for Somalia (Smith, 2014). She observed how that difference is
fundamental and can affect a disconnect across international humanitarian work and social assistance of
Somalis. Those differences are well captured in anecdotal comments from Somali’s such as the one below:
Understandings of vulnerability in Somalia are bound in their cultural norms and Islamic identity. Somali social
networks or clans provide mutual assistance which are widely recognised to be robust and central to the
resilience of these communities during the last 30 years of war. As well, Somalis as Muslims, share with Christians
and those from many other faiths a prerogative to provide alms to the poor or needy. Giving alms, or zakat, is
one of the five pillars of Islam. The Quran describes seven categories of people who can receive zakat. Of these
categories, the needy, poor, travellers without means (which would include displaced or refugees), or those
heavily indebted, equally speak to broader development or humanitarian vulnerable populations.
In Somalia, those required to provide and those entitled to receive is also prescribed. According to Islam, those
with a minimum wealth, nisaab are required to provide alms and as such are not considered vulnerable. While
some Islamic countries have public institutions to ensure alms are distributed fairly and according to need, such
public institutions do not yet exist in Somalia. Rather, alms are likely to be given to those with whom the giver
has a relationship. Giving is likely to occur within clan and family relationships, and where a recipient is known
to be very vulnerable.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 9

A fundamental distinction between these notions of vulnerability and those of Somalia’s humanitarians is that
vulnerability is defined by an actual, not potential condition. Assistance is provided to those experiencing
hardship or are exposed to harm daily, not those who might experience harm if there is a hazard. Rather, this
notion of vulnerability and targeting is more aligned to welfare or protective forms of social protection actions.

5 Findings

This section of the report presents the responses gathered during the field work. Local government officials,
committee members, leaders and individuals (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) were asked for their
understandings of vulnerability and who should benefit from SomReP or STREAM programmes. As they
identify beneficiaries, their perspectives and priorities ultimately determine who benefits from resilience
programmes and who does not. Their responses are organised around the main research questions, with
response rates used to describe:

 which forms or vulnerability are included in the programmes and which are not
 why certain people are included, and others excluded
 who might be the most vulnerable
 how the most vulnerable might be better assisted

RQ1 Who are the most vulnerable in SomReP and STREAM
communities?

In this section, interviewees describe who they understand to be vulnerable and who is the most vulnerable as
well as their views on the prevalence of vulnerability in their communities. Many of those interviewed, were
people considered by Somalis as the most vulnerable, which allowed their personal goals and priorities to be
captured.

Who do Somalis consider Figure 1 Who are the vulnerable? summarises responses from 132 interviews with

to be vulnerable? individuals, committee members and local leaders. All were Somali. Almost all

respondents described the vulnerable as the fuqara (poor) or masaakin (needy) (i.e. 120 of 132 responses).

Other responses, female headed households, displaced, chronically ill, elderly, minorities, or indebted may not

be distinct categories of vulnerability but rather examples of who is poor or needy. Researchers emphasised

that simply being a female headed household, a displaced person or an elderly person does not make one

vulnerable. Rather, it is only the ones who are poor or needy that are considered vulnerable. They said a

defining criteria of vulnerability is an inability to care for oneself as well as not having assistance from family.

Figure 1 Who are the vulnerable?

120 119 120 88

81 26

80 60 51 Elderly person Vulnerable
minorities
40 Displaced 24 16
Household
0 Large size HH High level of
debt
Masaakin Fuqara (Poor) Poor Female Chronically ill

(Needy) Headed

Household

It was also noted, that the terms fuqara and masaakin are Quranic descriptions of people worthy of receiving
alms (zakat). The fuqara or masaakin according to the taxonomy used in this report, would be considered actual
forms of vulnerability, due to either inherent or occurrent causes (i.e. female headed households, chronically ill,
displacement, marginalisation, debt and large families). Potential forms of vulnerability i.e. at risk of famine due
to drought, were not mentioned.

Who do Somalis consider to Respondents were asked how to distinguish the most vulnerable from the
be the most vulnerable? vulnerable.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 10

Figure 2 How do you distinguish the vulnerable from the most vulnerable? summarises their criteria. The most
common responses, no money/poor housing, sick/disabled or slimness/malnourished are sub-categories of the
poor or needy. It is also illustrative of the conditions or causes which respondents associate with the poorest or
neediest.

Figure 2 How do you distinguish the vulnerable from the most vulnerable?

79
80

60 44 23 51
40 19 21 17

20 1 1 3
No remmittence No saving
0 Large family with no
income
Physical Hunger (Have no Standard of living ( Vulnerable No asset (Livestock, Unemployed Displaced

appearnance food to eat or eats Have no money, members who are farm)

(Slimness and less food daily) types of food needy in HH (Sick

malnutrition) cooked, Poor member, Orphans,

housing and Disabled people,

clothing) Elderly, Pregnant

women)

Their criteria describes actual forms of vulnerability. Overwhelmingly, responses refer to situational causes of

actual vulnerability; standard of living (n=79), appearance (n=44), hunger (n=23), but also inherent causes of

vulnerability, the sick, elderly, orphans etc. (n=51). It was Box 2 Identifying the most vulnerable

noted that respondents, even those from marginalised In an Islamic society, a “common understanding”
clans, did not mention marginalised clans to identify the of poor or needy and the poorest or neediest is a
most vulnerable (i.e. pathogenic causes of vulnerability). moral imperative. As payment of alms is one of
They also did not mention emergent causes. the five pillars of Islam, clarity of who gives and

who receives, is bound in faith.
Conceiving of the most vulnerable as the poorest or neediest

is consistent with Quaranic guidance and requirements to The Quran guides that the poor and needy are
provide alms. For that reason, a credible means of those without a minimum level of wealth
distinguishing the most vulnerable from the vulnerable was (nisaab). People with a minimum level of wealth
considered a practical necessity, as those most worthy of cannot receive alms (zakat) but must provide it.
alms are the most vulnerable. Box 2 reflects on faith and the Within these broad guidelines, Somalis interpret
their intent, in ways to identify the most

practical need to identify the most vulnerable. vulnerable that is practical and ethically credible.

Is extreme vulnerability Based on understandings of vulnerability as needy or poor, respondents feel that
widespread? extreme vulnerability is widespread in their community. 132 responses from
individuals who themselves are largely considered to be the most vulnerable, feel

that in their communities, large proportions are vulnerable (Figure 3 Are there many or few alms worthy people

in your community (n=132)

Development Goals & Of the interviewees who were Figure 3 Are there many or few alms worthy people
Priorities of the Most considered to be the most in your community (n=132)
Vulnerable vulnerable, their visions of the
future were broadly consistent Few
6%
(Figure 4). Most responses described better living
Many
conditions. The second and third most common visions 94%

were to have a business or a farm. The fourth most common

response was to have children attending school. A small

number (IDPs) expressed a wish to return to their villages.

The most common responses on how people intended to
realise these visions (Figure 5) was to work hard and
secondly, to receive support from NGOs. The third most
common response was to start a business. Of those who were displaced and wished to return, they indicated an
intention to resume farming, (but only if they received support from NGOs). Respondents who were IDPs, but
wished to stay, indicated they had no assets at home and would rather stay in the town, working as day

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 11

labourers. Also, some interviewees indicated that children are expected to have a job after they are schooled
(enabling them to both look after themselves as well as the extended family). A final comment relates to
responses of “no vision”. These responses were provided by elderly.

Figure 5 Aspirations of the Most Vulnerable Figure 5 Strategies to realise one’s Aspiration

No vision 20 40 60 80 Income diversification/Start 50
Become self-sufficient business
Send children to school Hard Work
Better living condition
Return to original place Seek Loan

More income Educate children
Get support from NGOs
Save money
Invest in farming
Own livestock Casual labour
Receive support from NGO
Invest in Small business
Own house programs
Farming
0
0

RQ2 Are the most vulnerable included in SomReP and STREAM
programmes?

In this section we present the responses to questions about the inclusion of the most vulnerable in programmes
and why some are included some and others excluded. Interviewees understand the most vulnerable as the
poorest and most needy in their communities. We used these responses to reflect on how the programme
relates to other categories of vulnerability (humanitarian, ethnic or emergent).

Who is included and who is not? Figure 6 Are programme
beneficiaries the neediest?
Do resilience programmes 23 of the
include the most vulnerable? 25 Figure 7 Why beneficiaries are the most vulnerable
6
interviewees who were programme
NO ACCESS TO CREDIT 1 37

VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF FAMILY… 3

beneficiaries, considered themselves LARGE FAMILY TO PROVIDE FOR 6 89
vulnerable and 18 of them claimed to be
worthy of receiving alms (the most CHILDREN NOT GOING TO SCHOOL 1 Don't know
vulnerable). 28 of 54 non-beneficiaries
interviewed felt that resilience programmes NOT-SELF SUFFICIENT (NO INCOME,… 6 14
included people worthy of receiving alms 8 10 12 14
NEEDY Yes No7

POOR

0246

(zakat) and 22 felt they did not (4 said they did not know). Across all interviewees they feel that the most

vulnerable are likely to be included in resilience programmes, but not all (Figure 6). Reasons given that some of

the most vulnerable are not included was simply due to the vast number of very vulnerable people, but also

clan-based exclusion. Beneficiaries in the programme reported they were the most vulnerable due to poverty

and to a lesser degree need. They were not “self-sufficient”, had no income, assets, or had to care for large

families (Figure 7).

Are there many In order to have an indication of the number of most vulnerable in the community, but
vulnerable outside who were not programme beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries were interviewed. 54
the programme? interviews were conducted with individuals who had no relationship to SomReP or
STREAM. Another 53 interviews were conducted with committee members, local leaders

and elders were involved but did not benefit from the programmes. Of these 107 interviews, 98 or 92% said they

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 12

were vulnerable (poor, needy, indebted) with 71 or 62% of the respondents considering themselves so
vulnerable that they could receive alms (Figure 8 Vulnerable & Most Vulnerable – non-beneficiaries - all
interviews). Reports of vulnerability were higher for the 54 non-beneficiaries. 98% or 53 considered themselves
vulnerable, and 74% or 40 felt they should receive alms (Figure 9 Vulnerable & Most Vulnerable – individuals
with no relationship to the programme). Of all the interviews conducted, more than four times as many non-
beneficiaries as beneficiaries considered themselves the most vulnerable. In addition, almost every respondent
Figure 9 Vulnerable & Most Vulnerable – non-beneficiaries - all interviews

Non-beneficiaries and Committee-Vulnerable Non-beneficiaries and Committee-Most
Vulnerable

8% Vulnerable 38% Zakat worth
92% Not vulnerable 62% Not zakat worthy

Figure 8 Vulnerable & Most Vulnerable – individuals with no relationship to the programme

Non-Beneficiaries: Vulnerable non-beneficiaries: Most Vulnerable

2% 26%

Vulnerable Zakat worth

Not vulnerable Not zakat worthy
98% 74%

(92%) emphasised that there are many people in their communities, who are not recognised as vulnerable or
the most vulnerable. These are people who were said not come forward due to lack of awareness of assistance,
absence of networks to recognise them (hear them) or help them.

Both beneficiary and non-beneficiary interviewees considered poverty or need to be the main reasons they were
extremely vulnerable. Also, to an equal degree both groups referred to caring for a large family (caring for
orphaned grand-children, or nephews and nieces for example) as a factor leading to their vulnerability. To a
much greater degree, non-beneficiaries feel that they are either not self-sufficient, or that the demands of caring
for a “vulnerable” family member are over-whelming for them. They reported that they were the most
vulnerable due to poverty and need, but also they were not-self-sufficient, were caring for a disabled or sick
person, or had large-families.

Are beneficiaries Examining interviewees by clan, indicates that 16 out of 25 beneficiaries were drawn
drawn from from the dominant clan in that location. 6 were from minority clans and only 3 from the
marginalised clans? marginalised or “invisible” clans (and only in one location). In fact, there were 2.5 times
more interviewees found from dominant clans than those from minority and

marginalised clans combined.

Of the non-beneficiaries interviewed, those from marginalised clans were a much larger proportion of the total

than beneficiary interviewees (14 out of 54). Also, the number of interviewees from minority clans were a much

larger proportion of the total than beneficiary interviewees (18 out of 54). Most non-beneficiary interviewees

Are emerging forms were nonetheless from dominant clans but were a considerably smaller proportion of
the total. Error! Reference source not found. summarises individual interviewees by

of vulnerability location and clan. These results raise the question that marginalized clans (the

captured by the ethnically vulnerable) as well as minority clans are not the focus of the programme. The

programme? list of the clans is attached as Annex 3.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 13

If we consider processes of urbanisation, changing gender roles, changing sources of income and changing
demography as drivers of new forms of vulnerability, they are partially represented in beneficiaries interviewed.
64% of interviewees were women and many from vulnerable single headed households. 32% of Beneficiaries
were drawn from urban locations; many were displaced although most were resident. Most were transitioning
to new forms of income, (see Figure 4 Aspirations of the Most Vulnerable & Figure 5 Strategies to realise one’s
).

Mechanisms of Inclusion & Exclusion Beneficiary Location Dominant Minority Marginalized
Clans Clans Clans
Which of the most vulnerable are assisted or Afgoye 2 2 0
included and which are not, are shaped to a large Baidoa 3 2 0
degree by practical realities and the mechanics Dollow 4 0 0
of process. Conceptual notions of vulnerability Belethawa 4 0 0
and programmatic intentions were observed to Dhobley 3 1 0
contend with financing and operational realities. Kismayo 0 1 3
This section discusses responses by interviewees 16 6 3
and field observations made by researchers on

how decisions are made to work in specific areas, Afgoye 44 0
locations as well as who is targeted.

Consistent with the SomReP strategy (SomReP, Non-Beneficiary Baidoa 5 1 6
2018, p. 15) and the community-based targeting Dollow 2 3 3
guidelines (Somalia Food Security Cluster, 2018), Belethawa 8 0 0
programme staff described targeting in two Dhobley 3 3 3
phases: administrative and community-based Kismayo 0 7 2

(geographic and community/group targeting as 22 18 14

described in the guidelines). This organisation of targeting processes was helpful to frame mechanisms of

inclusion and exclusion. Programmatic, or administrative, processes of geographic, sectoral and thematic

prioritisation, contractual arrangements, and staffing form a primary set of parameters. They determine the

locations and arrangements where a secondary process, community-based targeting, identifies individuals for

inclusion. We map key administrative and community-based decisions to three points in the programme cycle.

Two of those points address administrative targeting and the third community-based targeting. Figure 11

outlines the three points and key decisions.

Figure 10 Programme cycle & decisions influencing inclusion and exclusion

Proposal / Contract Preparation Launch

•Geographic (state/district) •Consensus on District •Identification of committees
identification •Location Selection •Committee identification of

•Thematic/population beneficiaries within locations
prioritisation

•Sector/Activity identificiation

1 proposal / contract

Administrative (geographic) targeting is understood to begin with the proposal and negotiations between
agency and donors. It defines for purposes of the proposal, who is understood to be vulnerable (and who is not),
and geographically which vulnerable populations can or will be assisted and which will not. Decisions on
geographic, thematic or population prioritisation (i.e. livelihood groups) begin with FSNAU and their notions of
vulnerability. Programme staff described how FSNAU reports are used to prioritise who should be assisted and
where.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 14

Decisions will be made on districts, sectors, and activities as an agency takes FSNAU information and translates
it into a resilience proposal. The proposal will reflect agency mandate, areas of technical expertise, experience
and possibly pre-existing operational presence. These factors are then balanced with donor priorities and
compliance requirements. Decisions on districts for the programme, may also be informed by the presence of
other organisations. This next step in decision-making narrows further who will be included and by default, who
will be excluded.

It is worth noting, that community consultation occurs later. Interviews with local authorities, state and federal
ministries said that they can be made aware of a proposal, but they have no influence on the design. It would
be difficult, though perhaps ideal, to include community input at this point, but recognising the expense
associated with field work, it may not be practical.

Programmes, once a proposal has been accepted, have a contractual commitment to work in specific areas
(States and possibly districts), serving certain types of individuals or households and undertake specific activities
in agreed sectors. It places parameters on the degree to which locations or activities but which are further
refined in the preparatory stage.

2 preparation

With a contract in place, negotiations are held with local authorities to finalise districts, locations and
populations. Community consultation and coordination with other actors at the State or district level may also
occur. Selection of districts and locations is a negotiated process, not necessarily a technical one. While there
are different perceptions on who controls this process, its outcomes have important implications for inclusion
and exclusion. 1 Also, by building on existing power structures and norms, the process may not be sensitive to
emergent or “non-traditional” forms of vulnerability

Location selection is also shaped by several operational and security considerations. It was observed that,
logically, programme locations tended to be ones which were physically accessible and had infrastructure.
Programmes extended work into insecure locations although levels of activity and staff presence was noted to
be much less. Other communities were not served at all, as security conditions made it impossible to mount
operations. However, it was noted that perspectives on security varied across agencies. In Baidoa, for example
DRC would access locations which World Vision deemed insecure. For very practical operational and security
reasons, decisions are made which further influence where programmes operate, activities which can be
implemented and subsequently which of the most vulnerable will be included.

During the preparatory stage, programme staff described how for several reasons they must speak with district
(or possibly state) level authorities to agree on locations for implementation. During these discussions, staff feel
that local authorities try to influence who will benefit from the programme. Clan is central to these dynamics.
Almost all staff felt that district level authorities are the powerholders and represent the interests of dominant
or powerful clans. They also commented that these local authorities try to influence geographic targeting,
beneficiary selection and may also attempt to influence use of certain companies. One international staff
member claimed their local NGO partners and well-known businesspeople were trying to direct programmes to
work with their family or clan members. Another staff commented that during political rallies in communities,
officials promise assistance to be provided by an NGO.

“The local authority has a list of locations and sections (where) they want NGOs to work,
…they will make sure you work there. In such cases, we distribute target beneficiaries
among (different) Kismayo sections” Program staff in Kismayo

1 Detailed descriptions of community entry can be found in (Kajaga, 2016)

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 15

Interviews with state OCHA offices and cash working group focal points observed that location targeting is

subjected to clan dynamics. In Baidoa, they said that most aid is directed to the southern section and not the

northern section, nor sections where the Bantu live. People living in the southern section are generally from the

dominant clan. Strong lobbying by their residents to local leadership, committee members, local NGOs and

senior staff of INGOs (who are also drawn from the same, dominant clan), is considered to have influenced

decisions to prioritise their section. A similar case was highlighted in Dollow.

For their part, the district authorities said, “we…give hand Box 3 Location selection in Kismayo

support to the humanitarian actors when doing In Kismayo, STREAM had planned to work in rural,
prioritization of locations and activities.” They added that all riverine and coastal villages. During the inception
NGOs come with identified areas of interventions, with their period they were forced to change the
policies and procedures, or rather that NGOs come to programme location to Kismayo’s peri urban and
consult them, but decisions are already made. While that IDP/returnee settlements. Several factors had
may be, it does not preclude efforts by them to negotiate come to bear coordination with other actors,
and influence final decisions on locations. Even when security concerns, access, NGO and local authority
authorities felt they did not participate in the programme preferences. Programme staff, based in Kismayo
design or location selection, they exercised other levers to felt that local authorities ultimately have a strong
influence over location selection

influence programme activities and location selection. They were said to levy taxes on beneficiaries who receive

different forms of assistance, particularly cash and assets. This taxation was said to be prevalent and had

influenced programme decisions (location and activity type). Also, for agencies operating in Al Shabaab

controlled areas, there is greater organisational and personal risk if it chooses to implement activities such as

cash transfer or commodity-based assistance. If their activities result in the payment of taxes, directly or

indirectly, to Al Shabaab it may be considered as support to a terrorist organisation.

The local authorities interviewed (senior District officers) were influential in all research locations. There are
enormous pressures placed on them to serve the great numbers of extremely poor people in their areas as well
as their constituents. District officials interviewed were from the dominant clan in that location (see Annex 3:
Clan Composition in Research Locations). As representatives of their clan, they are obliged on many different
levels to secure their family and clan interests. The authorities were frank in interviews and described the
enormous pressures and expectations placed up on them. They said they have regular delegations who advocate
for an NGO to work with them. Individuals, driven by poverty and hardship come begging for assistance.
Authorities recognised their limited resources. They said they were motivated not only by family and clan
pressures, but also for action to come to bear on extreme, and widespread poverty in their communities. Some
staff members also acknowledged the enormous pressures and expectations placed on local authorities.
Practically, their ability to continue in that role, is contingent on the satisfaction of their clan members.

Staff is equally enmeshed in these processes and enormous expectations. For an agency to work and work safely
in these locations, access to networks and connections of the local power structure are necessary. The local
power structure is clan based. Hiring senior staff, from dominant clans, increases the probability that a
programme will be able to operate and meet its contractual obligations. It was observed that Somali staff in
almost all locations were drawn from the local, dominant clan2. Staff recognise the intent of their programme
and the importance of location and activities as determinants of which of the most vulnerable will be included
or excluded. Between the demands of the programme given to them by their organisational superiors and
expectations of their family and clan, they undergo enormous pressures and ultimately have limited influence
over these decisions.

2 It may also be a function of pressure of local officials, or from “ethnic” blind-spots in recruiting, but this was not the
impression of the researchers.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 16

Figure 12 Perceptions of Committee members of who Community in theory and to a certain degree in

makes decisions about location and activities practise, may be included in the selection of locations

30 29 and activities, and ultimately who will be included. Staff
said they undertake assessments, baseline data

20 collection and participatory rural appraisals. Local
12 authorities confirmed that there had been several
baseline surveys and field assessments prior to
10 6 interventions. Staff and authorities felt these processes
1 helped identify the right beneficiaries. It was
mentioned by staff that at least in one case, a
0 participatory rural appraisal was used to get
information about risks, pressures and vulnerabilities to
NGOs Committee Local Community

assess the decide with authority participate

location and NGOs inform the decision

decide NGOs making

locations

shocks in target communities. It was not made clear if

through PRA sessions, participants can substantively shape the programme, or rather if it is a formality where

they may provide input for locations and activities already identified. Also, while meetings were said to be public,

staff were not able to describe actions that ensure the inclusion of the most vulnerable. Rather they said they

relied on local committees to select participants for the PRA meetings. Figure 11 Perceptions of Committee
As will be discussed in the next section, these committees may also be members on the relevance of
from the dominant clan, have close relationships to the local programme activities

authorities and would tend to bias participations towards their own

people. 6%

In spite of efforts at participation or community engagement, Village 17%
Development or Village Relief Committee members generally consider 77%
decisions about activities and location to be made by the NGO ( Figure
12 N= 53, 4 interviewees said they did not know who made decisions). Yes No Somehow
They still feel programme activities are relevant (Figure 13). Some
concern was registered by researchers over this question and its
responses may be misleading. They felt that people were so poor,
almost any activity can be an improvement and, in that sense is
relevant.

Beneficiary and non-beneficiaries interviewed, Figure 13 Perceptions of Individuals of who is consulted by
consider decisions on location and activities to be NGOs
made by NGOs in consultation with Committee
members and local leaders (see Figure 14). They do
not consider themselves to have an influential role
in this process. This sentiment was particularly
pronounced in responses by non-beneficiaries.
Non-beneficiaries from the Eyle community and
IDPs in Baidoa felt that nobody is aware of their
existence. They felt they are not intentionally being excluded as they have been in the location only a short time.
The Eyl in Baidoa; the Bantu in Kismayo and the Gare in Dollow felt local authorities and committees are not
obliged to consider their demands nor accountable to them. Authorities and committees represent their own
communities (clans). They even felt that there were no channels available to make their needs or opinions known
to NGOs.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 17

3 programme launch Figure 14 Who identifies beneficiaries?
125
We refer to the programme launch as the point at which
operations start and beneficiaries must be identified using

community-based targeting. Staff explained that the approach 67 63 49
ensures inclusion of the most vulnerable as it uses committees or
local institutions and through them, can build on local knowledge 19 14

and credibility. Using committees for targeting is also considered

a practical and cost-efficient option. Agency staff felt that

household or individual targeting is difficult and would

necessitate a “census approach” or interviews with all

households. Figure 15 however, suggests that community-based

targeting involves a number of stakeholders, beyond committee members alone. Of 132 interviewees, 125

responses felt committee members decided on beneficiaries. 179 responses also mentioned elders and leaders

or NGO staff as having roles in beneficiary identification.

It is necessary to unpack assumptions that community-based targeting, using local committees, identifies the

most vulnerable. It assumes that the committee is representative, informed, understands and complies with the

intention of the programme and acts as an unbiased arbiter. 72% of beneficiaries versus 39% for non-

beneficiaries, felt represented by those who made the beneficiary lists. The most common explanation for

exclusion of the 54 non-beneficiaries interviewed, was that committees register their own people (i.e. clan and

family). Secondly, they said the program did not extend to their location (see Figure 16). Staff, local authorities

and OCHA echoed these opinions. They said that households who have no voice, or rather who are not from

dominant clans or not represented by influential lobbyists, are excluded. They may be equally vulnerable and

may not be excluded as much as invisible to decision makers. Interviews with OCHA, cash working group focal

Figure 15 Why non-beneficiaries believe they were not selected for the programme points and some senior

staff commented that

20 19 15 committees target
15
individuals with whom

10 7 they have a relation
5
6 (clan, neighbours,
3
1 2 family) or ones they are

0 encouraged to include
by local administration
Was not Committee Committee Others are Number of Program New arrival or lobby groups

present register ask money more target was didn't reach Village development

during their for vulnerable too small our

registration people registration location

and relief committees are features in emerging local level governance structures. Interviews with staff and local

authorities reported that committee members Table 4 Committee members by location and clan
are often appointed by local authorities. We

observed that 32 out of 53 committee members, leaders or elders interviewed, came from local dominant clans.

5 out of 53 came from marginalised clans in only three of the six research locations. Researchers observed in

settlements, committee leaders are mainly from the dominant clans, but deputy-leaders may be drawn from

the resident community which may be a different but less influential clan. They could be argued to be functioning

as they are intended to. Moreover, a clear message from this research is that most committee members consider

themselves to be amongst the most vulnerable, yet they are excluded from the programme and expected to

target others, who may be in conditions no different than their own.

Location Dominant Minority Marginalized

Clans Clans Clans

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 18

Some staff also observed that in communities Afgoye 8 8 0
with the same clans or different clans but of 3
the same influence, they can use universal Committee, Elders Baidoa 51 1
targeting. It has evolved as a response to the and Leaders
Dollow 5 2

disputes within the clan or community over Belethawa 8 0 0

who is and is not included. Universal targeting Dhobley 2 4 0
is said to have evolved with the emergence of 1
cash-based programming. An example of Kismayo 4 1 5
universal targeting was given in Cash for Work
32 16

programs. Agreements are made to have two or three people share the workload of one. Three people then

share one income, which is preferable to one receiving all and two receiving none.

These processes and bias in community-based targeting mechanisms are recognised by and extend to staff. Most
staff interviewed receive pressure from individuals, “lobby groups” or local authorities. Being from the same
clan, they are subject to “social pressures” if they do not comply.

“We switch off our phones during beneficiary selections because everybody will call you
and want to be included in the list regardless of their conditions. Our clans are the worst

because they capitalize on our presence” Program staff in Kismayo.

“When we started implementing the project often when I come home I find relatives
waiting me at home asking to be part of the assistance. They think just because I am
there managing projects, they should be the first one to benefit from it” Program Staff

member-Baidoa

Five out of six staff in Kismayo, Dhobley and Afgoye, indepently reported:

We program staff love to be fair and reach all the vulnerable people and communities, but
we are handicapped by resource limitations and socio-political pressures”

Also, four of the staff interviewed in Baidoa and Dollow, independently reported that they feel pressured by
either the clans or local authority.

Community-based targeting offers real strengths, but the process must be understood within a wider
social, economic and political context. Assumptions of representativeness, neutrality and ability to
target the most vulnerable, are not matched by opinions of staff, individuals or other stakeholders.
Rather, they observe a correlation between clan, family and access to assistance.

Vulnerability within Community-based Targeting

Even if community-based targeting systematically excludes some people, it nonetheless serves to identify the
vulnerable and likely many of whom are the most vulnerable within certain communities or clans. That outcome
is more remarkable, as vulnerability as conceived by resilience programmes was not well understood, not easy
to apply and conflicting in some instances

Staff all reported conducting sessions for the committees to understand the programme and their targeting
criteria, including vulnerability. They must explain resilience concepts and notions of vulnerability such as:

SomReP programs seeks to build both household and community level capacities by strengthening
livelihood systems to ensure the target groups have the adoptive and absorptive capacity to
minimize both the exposure and impact of shocks. To achieve this, the program considers a holistic
targeting approach which targets the overall community and focuses on livelihood systems of
farmers with an intentional involvement of all key groups including people who have assets and
local traders.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 19

One member of staff commented it is not clear – to beneficiaries and perhaps themselves - what this language
means nor who is vulnerable, so we use the terms – masaakin or fuqura. These terms are well understood. One
of the senior national staff explained that if they do not use local terminology to describe vulnerability, people
will not understand and see the NGO assistance as a public good, to which all are entitled. They added that by
using zakat terminology clarifies vulnerability and helps to exclude those who are taking what is not rightfully
theirs.

Practically, targeting the most vulnerable, even where the term is understood, has challenges. It was mentioned
that there is no clarity whether vulnerability should be applied to individuals or livelihoods. Individuals, they felt
to be the most vulnerable, may be disqualified for the programme because they or their household did not meet
livelihood criteria. Objective criteria, such as “households without assets” or “households without reliable
sources of income” were said to be problematic as Somali’s will not disclose their wealth and more so if they
want the NGO assistance.

In another example, IDPs were said to be vulnerable by the programme, but local authorities did not agree. Staff
felt IDPs faced considerable challenges as they had no access to land, homes, employment or income. They often
lived far from markets or services. They also felt that IDP clan or family support systems were “dysfunctional”.
Authorities countered that IDPs were better-off because they got NGO assistance and said support should be
directed to the host community who were more vulnerable.

Confusion on targeting the most vulnerable, can also result from the programme’s choice or justification of
activities and different ideas of who the most vulnerable are. Unconditional cash or relief may be an appropriate
form of assistance, for the most vulnerable or alms worthy masaakin. However, when it is given to others, to
stabilise income or based on certain livelihood and food security targeting, it does not go to whom Somali’s
believe if the most vulnerable. Authorities, while positive about cash support to zakat-worthy masaakin, were
frustrated and concerned that instead of the most vulnerable, able-bodied people were getting handouts. They
felt these people, as they are not the most vulnerable, should be helped to be self-sufficient.3 Conversely,
activities which could be described as economic inclusion, may not be relevant to the most vulnerable. Rather,
they require people with physical capacity, specific motivation and skills and a minimum of assets. On that basis,
staff said, rather than targeting the most vulnerable, they encourage committees to select people who can
succeed and are appropriate for the activities. It was echoed in interviews with individuals:

 If its business activity, people are selected who already have small businesses (Kismayo and Baidoa)
 If its agriculture activity, people are selected have farms, are able and willing (Afgoye and Baidoa )
 If it is fishing activity, people are selected who are fishermen (Kismayo)

Lastly, these challenges, to build and apply a common understanding of the most vulnerable, are recognised by
staff. To ensure congruence of committee generated beneficiary lists with beneficiaries intended by the
programme, lists must be reviewed and vetted. Due to time, staff and resource limitations, staff verify lists in
public meetings. It is not possible for them to make household visits. Challenges to verification are more
pronounced in locations with high levels of insecurity. Inevitably, as a result of confusion, complexity and
challenges to verification, there are inclusion errors. OCHA, Food Security and Livelihood Clusters, Cash Working
Group focal points in Dollow and Baidoa, some staff and money transfer agencies reported that some well-off
people are accessing NGO assistance. Not everyone in the programme is likely to meet agency notions of the
most vulnerable.

While many determinants of which most vulnerable will be included or excluded are already in place by the time
of community-based targeting, it is a process with enormous influence. It is a process inherently biased towards
the dominant clan and embedded with local authority and power structures. Staff is also embedded in these
processes but have little leverage to change their course. Within these processes, the most vulnerable are
identified, but more likely those from a given clan. This is achieved, however, despite muddied understanding

3 While the comment underscores confusion, one must also bear in mind the complicity of authorities in targetting

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 20

of the most vulnerable. Instead, it appears that default understandings of vulnerability, the needy and the poor,
are used. Other notions of vulnerability, the humanitarian, ethnic vulnerable nor emergent forms of vulnerability
are not likely to be captured nor included in the programme.

Case Study: Marginalization of Garre marre & Eyle Community

The Garre marre are a marginalised community. In Dollow they predominantly live in Bantaal Bay village.
The village lies at the edge of the river, accessible using a boat made of made sticks. It carries a maximum
of five people and a limited number of goods. Community members said they were trying to cope with
changing circumstances but their capacity to withstand was reducing. Their farms have poor irrigation and
they have no roads to market their goods. The village has no health facilities. People cross the river and walk
miles to reach the nearest clinic in Dollow Town. There are no schools. There is no other way to earn a living
but farming or animals but other clans control access to resources. Interviewees said it is even difficult to
access assistance from NGOs. They were not beneficiaries of resilience programmes.

The Eyle IDPs met in the Buur-Heybe IDP settlement in Baidoa said they were not recognised by NGOs or
local authorities. They have no education facilities, or health clinics. Their people live in very poor housing.
They have limited income generating opportunities and their businesses do not enjoy protection provided
by the dominant clans in Baidoa. The Eyle community are traditionally hunters. They are predominantly from
Bay, Lower and Middle Shabelle and Hiran. The community noticed that NGOs supported other communities
living in nearby IDP settlements. Those IDPs were from the major clans. The Eyle have no representation
within the dominant clan.

In this study, we see that the relationship between the NGOs and local authority to decide the destination
of assistance is extremely important. Disadvantaged communities are likely to be excluded in the same way
they are denied the power sharing system dominated by major clans.

RQ3 How can we better engage the most vulnerable?

While engaging the most vulnerable, may ultimately need to focus on factors that exclude them, there is also
ample feedback from interviews on how the programme can be better aligned to the priorities and conditions
of the most vulnerable.

Are SomReP & STREAM programmes relevant to the goals, strategies and priorities of
the most vulnerable?

Responses to this question, are complex and require clarity to the different notions of what is meant by the most

vulnerable. Responses to Research Question 1, guide on the aspirations and goals of the most vulnerable: a

minimum level of well-being – food, clothing, housing, or physical Table 5 Beneficiaries & their programme
appearance – self-sufficiency, education for children, owning
homes, or businesses. They also indicate strategies and priorities activities
to achieve those goals: work hard, support from NGOs, start a
Activity Responses

business, working as a labourer. Educating children can be seen Micro & Small Businesses 42
as an end in itself but also a means to an end, in that through Subsistence Farming 17
education children can get better employment and become more Welfare Payments 11
effective contributors to the family. Commercial Agriculture 11
Emergency Committees 6
There is a considerable overlap between these goals and Guaranteed Employment
strategies and the activities in which beneficiaries are involved. Of Schemes (CfW) 5
Employment
5

the 25 beneficiaries interviewed, most of their activity seems to Natural Resource 1
centre on business, commercial or financial activities and Committees 1
welfare/guaranteed labour. Support to subsistence farming is also Donkey Transport Business

a significant component, but perhaps less well aligned to goals and strategies. 20 out of 25 also commented that

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 21

they are involved in activities which they were doing prior to the programme and 18 of them intend to continue
their activity, with or without the programme.

Assessing the relevance of programme activities, should also consider different notions of the most vulnerable.
We could consider relevance from the programme’s or FSNAU’s perspective of the most susceptible to acute
food security (and possibly famine). However, the research indicates that other notions of vulnerability and
process may have prevailed. Rather, we might consider relevance to notions discussed in section 4 Vulnerability:
Welfare, Invisible Vulnerable, Emerging Vulnerabilities. A more fundamental distinction might better frame
reflections on vulnerability and transcend any of these categorisations: notions of welfare needs versus
economic inclusion.

The aims and target populations of economic inclusion activities are different than those requiring welfare
support. The former speaks to situational and pathogenic causes of vulnerability while the latter is a response
to inherent forms. Current programme activities can be shown to speak to these aims and target populations:

 Business, productive and commercial activities are relevant to poor but able and motivated
individuals. Given the pathogenic nature of vulnerability of marginalized clans, substantive economic
improvement, not subsistence would be highly relevant.

 Cash transfers and guaranteed labour schemes are very relevant to welfare needs, particularly for
different forms of inherent vulnerability (age, disability, illness, etc.).

Beyond current interventions, what are opportunities to support the development and
safety of the most vulnerable?

There is much which can be done to better engage and support the most vulnerable. Better engagement may
not require new activities. Current ones may be relevant. It is important to clarify what is meant by the most
vulnerable to better align beneficiaries to welfare support or economic inclusion activities. Another
fundamentally important opportunity is to address factors and processes that systematically exclude
marginalised and minority clans.

Better engaging local authorities and individuals (from within and outside the programme) in different phases
of the programme cycle may promote co-creation, co-monitoring, and allow feedback mechanisms which can
enable more adaptive, responsive management to engage and assist different categories of the most vulnerable.

Beyond these observations were several helpful suggestions from interviewees.

 Many expressed concerns about a need to balance cash distributions (unconditional) with activities
which build economic self-reliance

 It is important to further integrate resilience work and the national development plan, state plans or
DINA/RRF to harmonise efforts and priorities.

 Guaranteed employment schemes (i.e. the range of different cash-for-work initiatives) can be
connected with investments to rehabilitate or construct infrastructure or assist with the operation of
public services

 Help to settle and reintegrate IDPs, stop treating them as a humanitarian caseload
 NGO resources are limited compared to the need. Resilience programme should link more with local

services or businesses (a system approach)
 Being mindful that businesses are owned by specific groups from powerful clans which may try and

limit efforts to promote new businesses
 Clear descriptions of most vulnerable and regular information-sharing on welfare with community,

religious and business leaders can help align and coordinate zakat giving and welfare actions.

6 Reflections

The research itself and reflections it prompted help answer some of the primary objectives of the research. In
this section we will use the findings to reflect on research sub-questions. It seems that indeed, that SomReP and

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 22

STREAM programming includes the most vulnerable. Many of the most vulnerable however are likely outside of
the programmes. This research is not able to determine to what extent, the most vulnerable are included in
resilience programmes but responses would suggest that many times more of the most vulnerable are outside
of the programme. Processes of engaging with local authorities and community-based targeting can be shown
to have been effective in including the very vulnerable in programming. Very importantly, those same processes
may result in the systematic exclusion of others, particularly the most vulnerable from marginalized and minority
clans. The research has considered the most vulnerable from the perspective of Somalis themselves but also
from an ethnic lens (the most susceptible to famine). However, this research may help SomReP and STREAM to
make their own determination of who is the most vulnerable.

There are several factors which hinder the involvement of the most vulnerable in the programmes. A lack of
clarity of what is meant by the most vulnerable and the disconnect between Somali notions versus those used
by humanitarians is a foundational factor. During proposal design and programme preparation, there are a
number of decisions made which automatically exclude where and who will be assisted. Lastly, as operations
begin to interface with authorities and community, they become embedded in clan norms and local power
structures, which when not explicitly addressed, allow capture of programme benefits by dominant clans. Others
may not be deliberately excluded by these processes, but they are simply invisible to local authorities and
community-based targeting mechanisms.

 What are local perceptions and understanding of vulnerability?
 What is the likely prevalence of different types of locally defined vulnerabilities?
 What are their goals and priorities for different categories of vulnerability?

A clear trend that has emerged, is that Somali’s have a consistent understanding of vulnerability framed around
need and poverty. The most vulnerable, are the neediest and the poorest. Due to the technical application of
these terms in the Quran, there is a clear threshold of who is vulnerable. Secondly, perhaps due to the
pervasiveness of extreme poverty in Somalia, and the absence of any public or structured means to assist the
vulnerable, Somali’s have developed a means of prioritising and identifying who is the most vulnerable. What
emerges from the research, and bearing in mind its bias towards over-representation, is that vulnerability is
widespread in the locations where research was conducted. Most interviewees consider themselves the most
vulnerable.

The aspirations and goals of the most vulnerable are modest and seem to reflect the hardship of the current
situation: a minimum level of well-being – food, clothing, housing, or physical appearance – self-sufficiency,
education for children, owning homes, or businesses. These improvements match very well with those used to
identify and prioritise the most vulnerable. Their strategies and priorities to achieve those goals: work hard,
support from NGOs, start a business, working as a labourer. Educating children be an end in itself but also a
means to an end, in that through education children can get better employment and become more effective
contributors to the family. Given the programme’s rhetoric and subscription to FSNAU prioritisation, it may be
useful to remind ourselves that the most vulnerable do not consider themselves pastoralists, agro-pastoralists
nor for the most part, farmers either nor do they intend to be. Traditional Somali stereotypes are not helpful to
describe, target or assist the most vulnerable who were interviewed.

Emerging from this research are additional reflections which may be of value when considering the notion of
vulnerability.

 Despite the fundamental role that to identify the locations and types of people to be assisted,
humanitarian notions of vulnerability are not well understood, confusing, or not practical so much so
that those who actually do the targeting default to local, Somali notions of vulnerability.

 Humanitarian notions of vulnerability were not credible and a source of friction with authorities and
leaders. They serve to distance programme intent from the local community

 A technical framing of vulnerability can be useful to capture the forms and categories that SomRep and
STREAM seek to serve. We found that the taxonomy of 2 forms of vulnerability and 3 causes was useful,
but other organising frameworks may be more appropriate.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 23

 For SomReP and STREAM, the most vulnerable might be drawn from: actual/occurrent vulnerable
(needy/poor), but with special emphasis on the needy/poor from marginalised clans as well as in
emerging forms as a result of processes of demographic, social and economic change. Given the
famines of 1991 and 2011, we might consider the poor and needy from pathogenically related
vulnerability, i.e. the invisible vulnerable, as the more vulnerable than the poor and needy from
dominant or minority clans.

The second aspect of the research considered the relationship between the vulnerable and the resilience
programmes and the mechanisms for inclusion and exclusion.

 Are resilience interventions implemented by SomReP and STREAM reaching the most vulnerable
Somali communities and households.

 To what extent do vulnerable communities and households participate in the programme cycle (i.e.
from needs identification, planning and design, implementation, to monitoring and evaluation)

 How effective are community engagement processes (including formal and informal agreements) to
reach/include the most vulnerable?

 What are the underlying factors that inhibit and foster inclusion and participation of the most
vulnerable households in the programme intervention?

 How effective are consortia targeting strategies to include the most vulnerable?
 Do programme activities offer enough benefit to assist or even attract the most vulnerable (noting

potential bias in selection of HHs for participation).

Targeting mechanisms, work and appear to include the most vulnerable (actual/occurrent; and predominantly
inherent or situational in nature) in SomReP and STREAM programmes. Those same mechanisms systematically
exclude pathogenic forms of vulnerability (marginalised and minority clans).

Communities and households, in our research, were seen to have very little role in the programme cycle. Where
they did, one must examine more closely if it was in fact a substantive involvement.

While community engagement processes – from location identification to beneficiary selection appear to

include some of the most vulnerable and exclude others, the role of clan in these processes has emerged as a

defining determinant of their performance both to include and exclude. Whether local authorities, leaders or

committees their performance must be understood with a clan lens and operating within a wider Somali

political, economic and social context. They do not operate as public or civil servants to society per se but to

serve the clan firstly and foremostly. As such, it may not be
accurate or fair to consider them mechanisms of exclusion, Box 4 Including the Bajuni in Kismayo

but simply as a mechanism designed to serve a specific The Bajuni community is an indigenous and
group of people. By embedding the programme within marginalised community in Kismayo. They rarely
these processes, through staffing, location selection or receive humanitarian assistance. STREAM was
community-based targeting, the outcome observed is what nonetheless able to include them in their
might be expected – inclusion of some and exclusion of programme while maintaining positive relations
others. These challenges can however be managed (see Box with the dominant clans in government. The result
4). was encouraging. A member of the fishing group
commented, “We don’t always get humanitarian and
Reconsidering consortia targeting processes, one might say development support but when we do, we use it fairly and
that they are effective at targeting certain of the most for the intended purpose. We are happy for the business
vulnerable. However, they have a geographic, livelihood support”.
and ethnic bias, which systematically excludes very
vulnerable populations. The food security, agro-pastoral, The Bajuni were helped to develop small-scale fish
pastoral and farming livelihood-based humanitarian notions marketing businesses. They were reported to be
of vulnerability used for geographic targeting no doubt one of the programme’s most successful groups
identify very vulnerable people. It is not however, an and had doubled their savings to USD 3,500. They
appropriate instrument to capture the many other forms or reinvested the savings in a USD 5,000 boat and
causes of vulnerability of importance to SomReP and fishing gear. The Bajuni businesspeople worked
with STREAM and sourced the additional
financing from another project in Kismayo.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 24

STREAM. Moreover, those notions of vulnerability are not actually used to identify beneficiaries. Lastly, the basis

of geographic targeting does not capture those most at risk to famine and in fact systematically excludes them

from the programme. If SomReP and STREAM feel that social protection, ethnic and emergent forms of

vulnerability constitute some of the most vulnerable, SomReP and STREAM may need to identify alternate

geographic targeting mechanisms?

To the limited degree that the research can comment on the relevance of programming to the most vulnerable,

it would appear that the programmes emphasis on economic inclusion and growth is very well aligned with the

priorities of the most vulnerable. In the case of the invisible vulnerable, we might also argue that it is

fundamental to transform the structural factors underpinning their vulnerability. Equally, the welfare-oriented

activities seeking stabilisation in the most need/poor homes or temporary income (i.e. the cash-based activities)

are equally well aligned to individuals in those conditions. It is important to recognise that the programme has

conflated these two fundamentally different aims, which serve different cohorts of the most vulnerable. The

former is relevant to situational and pathogenic forms of vulnerability and the latter to inherent forms of

vulnerability. The priority in terms of better serving the most vulnerable, may not be the need for different

programming, but simply to include others in it and secondly, to align the cohorts of the most vulnerable to the

appropriate aim and activity, separating welfare aims from inclusive economic growth (see the table in Annex 5

– forms of vulnerability and types of social protection actions).

7 Recommendations

Bridge Understandings of Vulnerability

 Bridge disconnect between Somali and Humanitarians understandings on vulnerability linking the
Somali way of defining vulnerability with the rationale and methodology of the NGOs selection process

 Recognise and organisational processes that bias targeting i.e. FSNAU, organisational mandate or
programmatic priority

 Develop mechanisms to identify vulnerability of and in marginalized communities (invisible groups) or
where emerging vulnerability occurs.

Modalities

 Identify beneficiaries to activities actually being implemented: welfare or economic inclusion
 Recognise how clan bias’s assistance to certain locations and develop alternate mechanisms to reach

other locations including locations where the invisible or emerging vulnerable live
 Include decisions of the most vulnerable in programme design, location selection, beneficiary selection,

monitoring and evaluation processes
 Recognise the bias of community targeting mechanisms and develop options to include the most

vulnerable outside of dominant clans.

Programmatic Choices

 Continue to design programmes to reflect actual priorities and aims of the most vulnerable – not based
on traditional Somali stereotypes

 Balance programme components by recognising the demand, need for cash in the entire community
with the need for others to become self-reliant. In that equation, balance the political interests to see
cash disbursed in certain segment of these communities.

 Recognise the scale of extreme poverty vs potential coverage of a programme and design accordingly
i.e. design for the inclusion of the most vulnerable in systems, not NGO programmes

 Influence community committees by requiring them to have a certain percentage of members from
minority and marginalized communities as well as youth representation. Explore payments to
committee members to undertake work on behalf of the programme.

 Improve contextual understanding and coordination with local actors
 Include local authority, state and federal ministries in program design, and implementation process to

co-create mechanisms to include the most vulnerable outside of the dominant clans
 Look for opportunities for Somali led solutions to clan-based exclusion

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 25

8 References

ACTED. (2019, August). EU and STREAM consortium supporting resilience building in Jubaland through efficient
livelihoods interventions. Retrieved from ACTED: In the Field: https://www.acted.org/en/eu-and-
stream-consortium-supporting-resilience-building-in-jubaland-through-efficient-livelihoods-
interventions/

Chechi, F., & Robinson, C. (2013). Somalia Famine Mortality Estimates. Rome, Washington: FSNAU &
FEWSNET.

Durocher, E., Chung, R., Rochon, C., & Hung, M. (2016). Understanding and Addressing Vulnerability Following
the 2010 Haiti Earthquake: Applying a Feminist Lens to Examine Perspectives of Haitian and Expatriate
Health Care Providers and Decision-Makers. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 8, pp. 219–238.
doi:0.1093/jhuman/huw007

European Union. (2018). TAF Annex II: Terms of Reference. Nairobi: European Union.

Hillbruner, C., & Moloney, G. (2012). When early warning is not enough—Lessons learned from the 2011.
Global Food Security. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.08.001

IPC. (2019). Technical Manual Version 3.0. Rome: IPC.

Kajaga, R. (2016). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) of community vulnerability, risk and capacity in Afgoye
and Baidoa districts, Somalia. Nairobi: SomReP.

Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W., & Dodds, S. (2014). Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Majid, N., & McDowell, S. (2012). Hidden Dimensions of the Somalia Famine. Global Food Security, 1(1), pp 38-
34. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.07.003

Maxwell, D., Majid, N., Adan, G., Abdirahman, K., & Kim, J. (2015). Facing Famine: Somali Experiences in the
Famine of 2011. Feinstein International Centre. Boston: Tufts University.

McDowell, S. G. (2013). Change in the Arid Lands: The expanding Rangeland. Nairobi: Save the Children, Oxfam
& British Red Cross.

Miller, J., Foley, K., & Russel, M. (2014, May). Current Challenges in Health Economic Modeling of Cancer
Therapies A Research Inquiry. American Health & Drug Benefits, 7(3), 153-162. Retrieved from
www.AHDBonline.com

Monier, E., & etal. (2018). Toward a consistent modeling framework to assess multi-sectoral climate impacts.
Nature Communications, 9. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-02984-9

Nyborg, I., & Nawab, B. (2017). Social Vulnerability and Local Adaptation in Humanitarian Response: The Case
of Pakistan. (S. Eriksen, L. Naess, R. Haug, A. Bhonagiri, & L. Laenarts, Eds.) IDS Bulletin, 48(4: Courting
Catastrophe? Humanitarian Policy and Practice in a Changing Climate). doi:10.19088/1968-2017.153

Pindyck, R. (2013). Climate Change Policy: What do the Models Tell Us? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(3),
860–872. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.3.860

Scott, A., Solórzano, J., Moyer, J., & Hughes, B. (2017). Modeling Artificial Intelligence and Exploring its Impact.
University of Colorado, Josef Korbel School of International Studies. Denver: Pardee Centre for
International Futures.

SIDRA. (2019). Towards an improved understanding of vulnerabilty and resilience in Somalia. Nairobi:
Development Initiatives.

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 26

Smith, G. (2014). Designing Social Protection Frameworks for Somalia: Findings and Ways Forward in SCS.
Nairobi: UNICEF Somalia.

Somalia Food Security Cluster. (2018). Annex 4: FSC Partners Eligibility Criteria in Somalia. Nairobi: Somalia
Food Security Cluster. Retrieved from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WvKoScfmWPTjtkvJjoLO00GYVFkK4I7n/view

Somalia Food Security Cluster. (2018). Annex 5: Vulnerability Key Concepts and Analysis Tool. Nairobi: Somalia
Food Security Cluster. Retrieved from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F7iNzoXzM1TG1xkguEu3pqzJc-9PAdqE/view

Somalia Food Security Cluster. (2018). Community Based Targeting Guidelines for Somalia. Nairobi: Somalia
Food Security Cluster.

SomReP. (2018). SomReP Strategy Phase II: 2018 to 2023. Nairobi: SomReP.

SomReP. (2019, July 16). About. Retrieved from SomReP: https://somrep.org/about/

UNCU; UNOCHA. (2002). Internally displaced persons: Combined report on Somalia. Nairobi: UNCU & UNOCHA.
Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/internally-displaced-persons-combined-report-
somalia

UNFPA. (2014). Population Estimation Survey 2014. Nairobi: UNFPA.

UNISDR. (2019, July 02). Vulnerability. Retrieved from Preventionweb:
https://www.preventionweb.net/risk/vulnerability

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 27

9 Annexes

Annex 1: Vulnerability Research Matrix

Research Question 1: 1. Who are the most vulnerable in SomReP and STREAM c

Verification activities:
Aims of Research Questions:
1) Verify – evolve theory of vulnerability
2) Aspirations and strategies of vulnerable – in their own voice?
3) Indications of the prevalence of different types of vulnerability?
4) Community level perceptions of vulnerability

Sub-questions Field Questions Main So
Data/In

What are local perceptions and  Who do you think is vulnerable? Why?  Progra
understanding of vulnerability?  How do you identify a vulnerable from
 Individ
a non-vulnerable? (vuln
 Are there vulnerable people you “do
 local le
not see”?  Comm
 Do you consider yourself as

vulnerable?

What is the likely prevalence of  In your community what are the most  Individ
different types of locally  local le
common types of vulnerability?  progra
defined vulnerabilities?  What proportion are those people of  Comm
 Local a
your community?

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion

ommunities and what are their developmental priorities and goals?

ources of Data Collection Data Analysis Evidence
nformation Methods Methods/Triangulation availability/reliability

amme staff  Key Informant  Compare against  Commonly available
hypotheses Perceptions and
dual interviews understandings – should be
nerable)  Researcher  Include interviewees reasonably reliable
eader from major and minor
mittee members Observation clans  Bias – clan perspectives may
not capture conditions for
other clans

 Bias – NGO staff may
reflect agency priorities not
their own

dual  Key Informant  Compare against  Prevalence – low reliability
eader experience elsewhere (subject to personal bias)
amme staff interviews (prevalence)
mittee members  Researcher
authority  Include interviewees
Observation from major and minor
 Proportional piling clans

(if necessary)

28

What are their goals and  What is your vision 5 years from now?  Vulner
priorities for different  How are you going to achieve that Indiv
categories of vulnerability?
goal?  Individ
How effective are government  local le
and community (formal and  What is the role of  Comm
informal) institutions in government/community in provision of  progra
promoting inclusive zakat? Or providing developmental  Local a
participation and decision- support?  Releva
making of the most vulnerable
households.  Whose decisions are the most influential?

Are resilience interventions  Who do you think is excluded?
implemented by consortia
(SomReP, STREAM, and BRCiS)  Do you think people identified to receive
reaching the most vulnerable zakat are the ones who do participate in
Somali communities and NGO programmes? Should they?
households.

Research Question 2: Are the most vulnerable excluded from SomReP and STREA

Verification activities:
Aims of Research Questions:
1) What are the relations between zakat recipients and resilience programmes? Ar
2) How do programme mechanics and processes influence activities towards or aw
3) Within programme mechanics, what is the role of clan, political or personal int
programme?

Sub-questions Field Questions

To what extent do vulnerable
communities and households

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion

rable  Key Informant  Verify practicality of  Aspirations may be reliable,
viduals interviews plans with local but may t reflect probable
individuals pathways of development

dual  Key Informant  Gain perspectives from  Commonly available
eader interviews  Perceptions and
mittee Member different clans, NGO  understandings – should
amme staff  Review selection be reasonably reliable
authority norms and interests vs non-NGO Bias – clan perspectives
ant ministries interests may not capture
protocols  Perspectives of zakat conditions for other clans
recipient vs
Bias – NGO staff may
Beneficiaries reflect agency priorities
 Ground truth allegations not their own

emerging in interviews
(bias, corruption)

AM programmes? If so, why?

re resilience programme beneficiaries the same as zakat recipients?
way from zakat recipients?
terests a determinant of whether or not zakat recipients are involved in the

Main Sources of Data Collection Data Analysis Evidence availability/
Data/Information reliability
Methods Methods/

Triangulation

29

participate in the programme cycle  How are decisions made about the
(i.e. from needs identification,
planning and design, implementation, location and types of NGO activities?
to monitoring and evaluation)  How and who makes decisions on who is

How effective are community a beneficiary?
engagement processes (including  Are zakat recipients the same as NGO
formal and informal agreements) to
reach/include the most vulnerable? beneficiaries? Are NGO beneficiaries

How effective are consortia targeting vulnerable?
strategies to include the most  Do NGO staff or leaders try to align zakat
vulnerable?
beneficiaries to programme
Do programme activities offer enough
benefit to assist or even attract the participation? Why? Why not? Would
most vulnerable (noting potential bias
in selection of HHs for participation). it help?
 What would need to be done to have
What are the underlying factors that
inhibit and foster inclusion and zakat beneficiaries involved in NGO
participation of the most vulnerable
households in the programme activities?
intervention?  How does the community assess the

Analytical considerations: utility of an NGO project? How does

the NGO assess the utility of their

project?
 Of the different categories of vulnerable

identified, how common at they in

your community?

Research Question 3: If SomReP and STREAM programming aligns with the priori
programmes?

Verification activities:

Aims of Research Questions:

1) These are questions to be addressed in the of the field results to research questions 1 and 2

Sub-questions Field Tools Main Sources of
Data/Informatio

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion

 Individual  Key Informant  Mechanics that  Perceptions and
 local leader interviews determine understandings – should
 Committee Member where be reasonably reliable
 Programme staff  Review activities are
 Local authority selection based?  Prevalence – low
 Cluster reliability (subject to
norms and  Individuals personal bias)
coordinators/OCHA protocols within
 Joint needs processes
assessment determining
where
reports; activities are
based
Cluster
priorities  Include
 Third part interviewees
monitoring from major
and minor
reports clans
 Evaluation
 Commonly
reports available

ities and goals of the most vulnerable, how could they be better engaged by the

Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Evidence

on Methods/Triangulation availability/reliability

30

Are SomReP & STREAM programme 
relevant to the goals, strategies and 
priorities of the most vulnerable?

Beyond SomReP and STREAM
interventions, what are
opportunities to support the
development and safety of the most
vulnerable?

Analytical considerations:

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion

 


31

Annex 2: Key informant Interviews Guide by categor

A. KII guide for beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and committee/leaders

Categories Status Clan Gender

# location Target Non- Beneficiaries Clan Clan F M Ad
Number Beneficiaries 1 2 ult

Committee (20%) Vulneranle Group (70%) Baidoa 17 12 5 x x 12 5 12
24 83
Dollow 12 8 4 x x 84 8
Leaders(informed Kismayo 13 9 4 x x 94 9
individual Afgoye 17 12 5 x x 12 5 12
Belethawa 12 8 4 x x 84 8
-cuqaal) -10% Dhobley 13 9 4 x x 94 9
12
Baidoa 5 NA NA x x 2 3 NA

Dollow 4 NA NA x x 2 2 NA
Kismayo 4 NA NA x x 2 2 NA
Afgoye 5 NA NA x x 2 3 NA
Belethawa 4 NA NA x x 2 2 NA
Dhobley 4 NA NA x x 2 2 NA
Baidoa 2 NA NA x x 1 1 NA
Dollow 2 NA NA x x 1 1 NA
Kismayo 2 NA NA x x 1 1 NA
Afgoye 2 NA NA x x 1 1 NA
Belethawa 2 NA NA x x 1 1 NA

Dhobley 2 NA NA x x 1 1 NA

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion

ry and location

Age Zakat Disability Status

Elder Recipient Non- Physically Not
recipient disabled disabled

5x x x x

4x x x x
4x x x x
5x x x x
4x x x x
4x x x x

NA x x x x

NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x
NA x x x x

NA x x x x

32

B. KII selection guide for other stakeholders

Category

Location Target Program Local Committee Ch
Number staff/Cluster Authority Pr
Nairobi FP
Baidoa 6 22
Dollow 9 6 12
Kismayo 6 3 12
Afgoye 6 2 22
Belethawa 9 2 12
Dhobley 6 3 12
6 2
2

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion

harity
roviders

2
1
1
2
1
1

33

Annex 3: Clan Composition in Research Locations

A. Summary table of the Clans composition of the Interviewed beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries,
committee and leaders

Locations Dominant Clans Minority Clans Marginalized Clans
Afgoye
Geladi, Jiido Elay, Asharaf, Galjecel, Karanle, Eeyli
Baidoa Hiraab, Abjiile
Gare Maro, Gabaweyn
Dollow Leysan, Elay, Asharaf, Jilibli
Belethawa Hadamo, Boon
Dhobley Borana, Bajun, Wardey,
Kismayo Marihan Sharmoge, Gelidle, Hawiye Jareer/Somali Bantu,
Mushunguli
Marihaan

Ogaden Jiwaaq, Harti, Gelimeys, Weiteen

Oganden, Biyamaal, Ajuran, Bartire, Tuni,
Dhulbahante, Harti- Awrmale, Rahweyn, Shiqaal,
Majeerteen, Galjecel,
Marihan

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 34

B. Detailed Clan composition in the research location

Location Dominant clans (Clan, sub- Minority clans Marginalized clans
clan, lineages)  Bantu – Jareer
Kismayo – Darood:  Digil and Mirifle (Geligle,  Bajuni
Cosmopolitan Leysan, Tuni, Hubeer)
 Ogaden  Boonn
Dhobley-  Marihan  Hawiye  Wardey
Predominantly  Harti - Majeerteen  Dir – Biyamaal  Bantu
–Ogadeen  Somali Bantu – Jareer  Mixed IDP clans
Baidoa – Darood: Ogaden  Owrmale  Eyle
Predominantly  Mahamed Zubeyr,  Ajuran  Jareer
Rahweyn Owlihan, Bahgeri,  Jidwaq  Riibi
Maqaabul  Bartire
Dolow  Derisame – Galjecel  Gare maro
Predominantly Rahweyn - Mirifle  Bartire  Gabaweyne
– Marihaan  Hariin  Jidwaaq
Bula-Hawa  Leysan - Howrarsame
Predominantly  Hathame  Asharaaf * - Habar
Marihan  Elaay  Reer dumaal
Afgoye  Boqol Hore  Haraw yaqqub
Predominantly  Gelidle  Wanjeel Both Marihaan
Digil – but  Lawai  Jilible Jareer – Somali Bantu
controlled by  Hubeer  Jiroon
Hawiye  Yantaar  Macalin Wayne
 Garwaale  Debare
 Arab – origins and light
Darood: Marihan
Reer Ahmed, Howrarsame, skinned communities
Ali dhere, Reer Hassan  Hawiye
Darood: Marihan  Dir – Faqi – Mohamed
Ali dhere, Habar Yaqub,  Rahweyn – IDPs
Hawrarsame, Reer Ahmed,
Reer Hassan, Other Marihan sub-cans such as
Geladi Wegerdhac, Reer ugas sharmake
Bogodi etc
Gare
Jiido Wacadaan and Wacdalaan –
Hawiye – Habargedir# Hawiye – Hiraab
Rahweyn – Elaay/Naasiye-2
leysan etc
Tuni – Digil
Asharaaf

Final Report Vulnerability, Inclusion & Exclusion 35