2020 Annual Resilience Measurement Study Report

and marketability of the fruit in Somalia, and most farmers do it commercially for incomes. This also
applies to vegetable like onions and cereals- maize.

Table 15: Choice of crops and mean acreage farmed during dry season (Hagga)

Crop First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

Sorghum N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha)
Sesame Seed 41 6.20 42 7.88 88 13.26
5 2.07 25 17.25 32 2.75

Pigeon Pease 1 3 31 7.42 38 5.5
Vegetables 25 3.36 34 3.3 35 4.49

Onion 24 14.21 78 10.33 80 3.14
Melon 44 17.52 94 4.54 50 1.90

Maize 201 10.52 44 5.39 28 4.04
Tobacco 0
2 2.0 3 1.3 0

Rice 00140 0

Source: Assessment Survey

Crop Production during GU

This is the main cropping seasons (between April and June), and the farmers increase their potential
crop diversity due to reliable rains. However, maize still becomes the first priority crops, with reduced
priority for sorghum, while sesame and vegetable increase as first priority crops. The sorghum is widely
known as a dry season crops and this is why it declines in priority during Gu by most households, even
though it still becomes a second priority, something that is attributed to its high uses in household
diets from the community culture, as well as the long history of it being a preferred crop by the
community. Maize, Sorghum, melon and sesame are still most produced crops from the increase in
acreage farmed (Table 16).

Table 16: Choice of crops and mean acreage farmed during main cropping seasons (Gu)

Crop First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha)

Sorghum 110 7.01 105 14.93 126 4.27

Sesame Seed 14 9.93 29 6.28 68 7.85

Pigeon Pease 3 0.67 43 2.51 67 5.16

Vegetables 41 6.51 52 1.96 96 4.89

Onion 82 9.27 104 5.69 101 7.51

Melon 42 10.43 159 6.00 85 9.44

Maize 310 10.60 107 6.32 53 3.55

Tobacco 0 0 2 1.50 6 1.33

Rice 0 0 1 1.00 0 0

Source: Assessment Survey

Crop Production during Deyr

Page | 34

Deyr (short rains of October–November) is another very important cropping season for Somalia which
is in many occasions known to be the effective rain periods in the drylands of the Horn of Africa. The
communities reported the seasons to have sorghum and maize as the very important first choice crops.
The second choice crops are maize, melon and onions. Interestingly, Melon in this season is also highly
prioritized in terms of land acreage grown (26 ha), for the same reasons of markets, high productivity
and high demand in the country (Table 17).

Table 17: Choice of crops and mean acreage farmed during short rain cropping seasons (Deyr)

Crop First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha)

Sorghum 144 8.73 54 8.30 73 5.37

Sesame Seed 19 2.95 28 3.50 50 9.80

Pigeon Pease 0 0 41 3.46 62 4.90

Vegetables 38 11.32 60 5.38 65 7.14

Onion 57 7.14 78 10.09 60 7.38

Melon 41 26.54 90 6.60 93 3.52

Maize 153 6.39 98 6.52 34 5.29

Tobacco 0 0 1 2 2 22.50

Rice 0 0 2 5.50 0 0

Source: Assessment Survey

Crop Production during Jilal

The main dry seasons known as Jilaal (January and March), is the season with very few farming
activities by households in terms of farmer’s choices of crops and acreage under cropping. For the
farmers who do cropping, sorghum is prioritized in size of lands, while maize, onions and melon done
in relatively small acreage (Table 18). Jilal is the season of food insecurity to most households that are
not resilient, and if prolonged, then humanitarian assistance increases for the vulnerable households.

Table 18: Choice of crops and mean acreage farmed during the dry seasons (Jilal)

Crop First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

Sorghum N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha) N Land (Ha)
Sesame Seed 6 27.00
Pigeon Pease 2 5.50 19 1.00 9 15.22
Vegetables 1 3.00 4 2.00 9 18.22
Onion 11 1.45 7 3.00 2 1.00
Melon 25 1.48 18 4.00 33 0.97
Maize 11 2.09 20 5.00 0
Tobacco 33 6.15 15 6.00 19 0
Rice 0 0 7 4.00 9 0.84
0 0 0 1 12.56
0 0 1
9.00 0
0

Source: Assessment Survey

Page | 35

The study respondents (53.5%) reported to have seen an increase in farm yields, while only 35.2%
reported a decline in the yields (Table 19). When segregated by gender, Male 31.3%, Female 23.7%
reported an increase in yields among the respondents. Those who cited increase in crop production
mentioned using improved Crop husbandry practices after being trained on GAP, increased land under
cultivation, increased use of inputs and Soil management practices as the main reason for increase in
crop production. Those who cited decrease gave reasons such as lack of inputs, land degradation,
reduced land cultivation and climatic shocks that lead to low productivity or crop failures.

Table 19: Perceived yield improvement by Households Percentage
Source
35.2
Decreased 53.5
Increased 11.3
Remained the same
Source: Assessment Survey

Page | 36

FARMING SUCCESS STORY FROM DOLLOW DISTRICT

Major achievements of SomReP interventions in farming support

During the project period, the land under cultivation in the riverine farmlands has increased by
more than 571.94 hectares through CFW and own efforts by farmers under the SomReP
programme, who have been trained on GAP. The project has rehabilitated 354 earthen canals
improve irrigation systems and a total of 20 concrete lined canals constructed. In Dayah village
alone, the number of farms increased from 8 farms to 21 productive farms with functional
irrigation pumps. The total area of land cultivated by the beneficiaries during the project period
was 659.75 hectares with crops such as Maize, cowpeas, onions, lemon, watermelon and fodder
crops. Furthermore, 75% of the farmers observed that there was an estimated increase of 400
KG/HA in Maize yield while 60% respondents observed estimated increase of 300KG/Ha in cow
peas yield as a result of project efforts. 55% farmers indicated that they earn estimated 1000 to
1500 USD by selling their produce during the 2018-2019 agriculture seasons after fulfilling their
own HH needs. Farmers who grew fodder said that there was a significant increase in fodder
production because of using new varieties of seed. Most of them were off the view that adoption
of GAP and canal construction to bring more water to their field was the key contributing factor
to enhance crop yield. Assessment of the quantity of seeds used by farmers per Tacab (1/8 of
1Ha) indicated that seeds per Tacab reduced by 55% for Cow peas and 47% for Maize from
Deyr 2017 to Deyr 2018 season. This was attributed by the beneficiaries to the improved GAP
practices adopted due to the sustained GAP trainings provided. Taking an average of one USD
per kg of seed for the 2 crops, a farmer would have saved an average of 24 USD on cow peas
seeds and 22.4 USD on Maize seeds per hectare between the two seasons.

As a result of continued project interventions, there has been improvement in yield where the
farmers in the last 2 year reported good harvests. Using the activity tracking sheet for agro-
pastoral farming, a total of 353 (M 223, F 130) farmers harvested, 171,713 kg of maize, 108,765
kg cowpeas, 569,225kg of onions, 16,310 pieces of watermelon and 28,163 fodder bales during
the Deyr 2018 season in the targeted villages.

Box 2: Success story from Dollow District

5.2.5.2 Good Agricultural Practices
The study noted household that have received training on Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) to be
40% of the respondents. The main trainings received were on crop production practices (33.9%), post-
harvest management 15.6% and soil and water conservation practices 17.7% (Figure 10). The farmers
also reported to have been trained on Crop production modules which include; Early land preparation
(before rain starts), Correct ridge spacing, making compost manure, applying compost manure,
applying animal manure. In addition, to early planting (with first rain or before rain starts), correct

Page | 37

plant spacing, application of inorganic/chemical fertilizer, Improved crop seed varieties, drought
tolerant crop varieties and management, timely and proper weeding, Crop rotation, making biological
pesticides (plant extracts), kitchen gardening, and inter cropping Was also provided. ARM of 2019 ARM
reported that 2,880 farmers were trained in GAPs although not indicated is the numbers are from the
survey or from the secondary project data.

Soil and water
conservation

26%

Crop production
51%

Post-harvest
23%

Crop production Post-harvest Soil and water conservation

Figure 10: Trainings provided on Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs)

Source: Assessment Survey

The soil and water conservation modules provided include; Gulley reclamation, Semi Circular bunds,
Check dams, Hole planting or Pit Lines or Zai pits, Mulching, Mixed cropping, Irrigation management
practices, Conservation farming and Contour ridges/bunds. Post-harvesting modules provided
included; Right harvesting time, Seed selection, harvesting & proper storage, Proper storage
structures, Storage pest control, Standard marketing practice, Value addition and processing.

Among the trained households, 81.9% reported to have adopted appropriate crop production
practices, with 38.2 and 39.6% to adopt post-harvest management and soil and water conservation
respectively. Male-headed households are slightly more in terms of adoption of GAP techniques as
compared to their female-headed household’s counterpart (Table 20). We note that the adoption
rates are still very low, less than 50%, however it is worth noting that farming is a new livelihood among
many pastoral households and learning process is gradual and takes time.

Table 20: Households who have adopted GAP techniques in the project areas

Source Overall (%) Male-headed HH (%) Female-headed HH (%)

Crop production 81.9 67.9 32.1
Post-harvest 38.2 69.3 30.7
Soil and water conservation 39.6 68.8 31.1

Source: Assessment Survey

Page | 38

Crop production techniques were higher in the district of Afgooy, Baidoa, Belet Xaawo, Burao, Dollow
and Laas Caanood with 71.2%, 42.9%, 42.7%, 39.1%, 44.1%, 50.5% and 35.4% respectively. On the
other hand the post-harvest techniques adoption rate was higher in Afgooye (73.7%), Laas Caanood
(36.9%) and Owdweyne (26.3%). Soil and water conservation were only higher in Afgooye (48.3%) and
Belet Xaawo (21.4%)25.

The programme has contributed much to the many gaps that affect new farming communities in
pastoral areas, especially in areas of poor agronomic practices, post-harvest management and soil and
water management. As much as the findings are encouraging, the field observation also noted that
the communities are still in need of trainings with GAP interventions, with a few farms visited showing
still there are some gaps in agronomic practice like choice of crops, crop spacing, irrigation types and
times among others. This was more evident in Oodweyne district and Arapsio area in Somaliland. Also,
many of the farming activities are still being done at group level, which may not yield much benefit at
individual household level, and thus future interventions should focus on supporting individual
households, of course this will only be possible if the water access and availability challenges will be
addressed. Some efforts were noted towards this within the community garden farms in Ceelsame,
where individual farmers among the IDPs are supported, however, the level of production was still
very low due to water supply to farms challenges as well as access to quality seeds and application of
good agronomic practices. As much as the communities in this village reported to have been trained
on GAP, the full implementation seems to be slow and lacking due to the limited follow up support. In
all the districts, the study notes a week and lack of structured extension service by the governments,
and hence this role has been done by NGOs, through programmes, and in most cases with limited
budgetary lines to fully provide continuous support and follow-ups. Farmers in Baidoa have also
benefitted a lot from the expansion and lining of the canals, rehabilitation of well with draw pipes. The
community have also been trained on Good Agricultural practices including efficient use of fertilizer,
seed management and own saved seeds. To increase profitability of the farming practices, Baidoa
farmers have also been trained on commercial crops production with proper timing being a
consideration. However, they reported challenges of ready access to market especially for perishable
crops like tomatoes and green pepper. The farmers reported millet and maize as their priority crops
being their stable food sources and thus every farmer has a portion for the crops. They requested for
support to access better quality seeds for the two crops for increased yields. The farmers in the region
reported high potential fort crops, the only limiting factor is access to reliable water, which SomReP
has tried to address but there is much to be done with water provision to allow expansion of farms
and even reach to other potential farming areas. The communities also requested to be supported
with water efficient irrigation technologies like drip irrigation, sprinkler systems, currently they are
relying on manual irrigation methods that wastes much water through seepage and
evapotranspiration since not all canals have been lined up by the project.

25 For district-based analysis refer to annex 2

Page | 39

Plate 2: Good agricultural practices with drip irrigation and use of manure for fertilizer and
intercropping

Dollow has also benefitted from the project where the land under cultivation within the riverine
farmlands reported to have increased by more than 571.94 hectares through CFW and own efforts by
farmers as indicated during FGDs and KII with program coordinator. The has seen rehabilitation of 354
earthen canals that has contributed to improve irrigation systems with a total of 20 concrete lined
canals constructed. This infrastructural support has increased food production. Fort example, In Dayah
village, the number of farms increased from 8 farms to 21 productive farms with functional irrigation
pumps. The total area of land cultivated by the beneficiaries during the project period was 659.75
hectares with crops such as Maize, cowpeas, onions, lemon, watermelon and fodder crops.
Furthermore, 75% of the farmers observed that there was an estimated increase of 400 kgs/ha in
Maize yield while 60% respondents observed estimated increase of 300kg/ha in cow peas yield as a
result of project efforts. This increase was attributed to the continuous and persistent trainings on
GAP, with the efforts by the programme to link the farmers to input supplies and market outlets as
reported during the FGDs.

The main source of farming input across the SomReP areas was from the local market (33%) with NGOs
supply still noted as an important source by 23%. The study noted that help from relative and from
own farmer saved seeds accompanied 13% of the input sources. For successful farming activities,
access to quality inputs, timely supplies and assured sources are critical considerations. Still, access to
the right crop varieties and the accompanying agronomic information is needed for better
productivity. The study has noted that SomReP programme has addresses these nodes, including
proper agronomic activities trainings, as well as seed processing at farmers level. However, this is only
a small support to few groups and areas, amidst the many producers who need the support in the vast
areas of Somalia.

5.2.5.3 Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR)

The survey notes that 22.7% (638) of the respondents have been trained on Farmer Managed Natural
Regeneration (FMNR). Among the trained, 22.8% are male-headed households while their female
counterpart were 19.9%. Training on FMNR across the districts revealed that district such as Afgooy,

Page | 40

Eyl and Luuq had the highest percentage of household training on the same with 53.4%, 61.5% and
45.3% respectively. On the other hand, district with fewer households trained on FMRN include
Lughaye (4.8%), Ceel Afweyne (6.8%), Badhan (11.5%) and Burao (13.3%)26.

FMNR activities implemented on the farm include, construction of firebreaks, tree nursery
establishment, pruning and protection of trees from animals, regenerate of tree stamps, rotational
grazing and tree planting activities. The FMNR practices assures low cost land rehabilitation,
capitalizing on providing favorable conditions that promote natural process that increase regeneration
of vegetation. Proper land management is critical for increase productivity and assured sustainability
of the production systems. There is also need to re-greening Africa and address the climate change
impacts in the African rangelands. The implemented activities by SomReP activities contribute to these
efforts in addressing communities to climate change impacts adaptation. The FMNR training has also
reached out to the entire livelihoods zones in the project areas, with clear understanding that
environmental conservation activities are important from both rural and urban environments. The
average land sizes allocated to FMNR activities in fullow lands, Tree nursery establishment and tree
planting is 2.8, 2.4 and 4.95 ha respectively at household level (Table 21).

Table 21: Average land size allocated to FMNR

Source Average land size (hectare) Std. Deviation

Tree regeneration/ fullow 2.88 3.486
Tree nursery establishment 2.46 5.075
Tree planting 4.95 10.190

Source: Assessment Survey

This has conferred much benefits to the communities where household reported to include; clean air,
better shade, Charcoal source, Firewood for domestic use, Increase in forest food production e.g.
fruits, mushroom, honey etc., Increased soil productivity, Sale of products e.g. seedling, fodder, wood
and Timber. These activities have contributed to provision of alternative livelihood activities and thus
diversification of the incomes as earlier observed. We note the land allocated to tree planting and
hence the increase in tree cover for the country contributing to the global afforestation process in
quest to address climate change impacts, especially for the most hit African ecosystems.

26 For district-based analysis refer to annex 2

Page | 41

SUCCESS STORY
FMNR activity in Oodwayne district, Beerato Village

A well planned managed and working model farm was observed in Beerato village in
Somaliland. This area is fenced and well managed by communities whom have
developed their own management plans with community bylaws. Mr. Hassan a village
elder reported that before the site was established, it was an open field, full of eroded
and denuded land, with sandstorms being a common occurrence. Thanks to the
investment and trainings done by world vision team in supporting the regeneration of the
land using FMNR principles. The whole village is now happy that it is evident land
regeneration can be achieved by community if FMNR principles are adopted. Training
by SomReP on FMNR has seen the area fully regenerated, with increased biodiversity
of plants, high grass productivity, reduced soil erosion as well as assured feed supply
for use during the dry seasons. During the ARM visit, being a dry period with most areas
being depleted of grasses, FMNR site still provided fodder for lactating animals that
remained with community during livestock migration, and thus assured milk supply at
households. Ahmed, a member of the FMNR community, said, were it not for the site,
many children and women could now be more vulnerable, including vulnerable camels
that could not move with migrating herds. He thanked World vision for the support.
An observation on the sustainability of the site is that already after benefits being
realized, the community is already setting up an expansion area within the site, with
plans for reseeding and fencing being done. The only challenge at the present is water
supply to allow tree nursery on site and also this will support the initiated bee keeping
activities that has seen the group sell honey. Sahra, a woman member, thanked the
programme for making women have easy access to feed within the village and thus able
to feed their lactating animals that provide the much needed milk for children

Box 3: Success story from Beerato - Owdwayne District

Plate 3: Farmer trainings centre and FMNR site with Moringa oleifera tree under good management

Page | 42

5.2.5.4 Village Development Committee (VDC)

The study notes that a few of the project beneficiaries do not know of the existence of village
development committees (25.8%), while most respondents (62.6%) are aware of the VDCs (Table 22).
Awareness about the VDC were more than 50% across all the districts with exception of Baidoa and
Bossaso where 55.6% and 51% reported that they are not aware of the same27. Village development
committees are critical in shaping the development agenda with assurance of community needs
prioritization for maximum benefits. It is commendable that SomReP has contributed to the
establishment, strengthening of VDC within the project areas, and hence assured community
engagement in the development of their locality. The VCD are responsible for the development of
Community Adaptation Action Plans (CAAPs), which are very critical for ensuring sustainable
development and prioritized interventions.

Table 22: Awareness of the existence of community VDC Percentage

Source 62.6
25.8
Yes 11.3
No 0.3
Don't know
Refused
Source: Assessment Survey

Most of the respondent 57.3%) are also aware that their villages have developed village development
plans. Village development plans are critical in prioritization, resource mobilization and support to
sustainable development plans for the benefit of the residents. Among the respondents, 47.6% are
aware of the contents of the village development plans, where 44.6% indicated that local authorities
including government staff were heavily involved in the development of CAAPs. Notably also, 42.6%
indicated that local authorities including government staff are involved in the Implementation of
CAAPs with 42.9% knowing that local authorities including government staff are involved in the
monitoring and review of CAAPs. This is confirmed during the FGDs in all the visited locations where
the participant indicated that there are indeed CAAPs and that local authority are involved all through
from inception of the plan to monitor them.

The assessment applauds the SomReP programme for supporting the VDC and the support accorded
to the CAAPs among the community members. This approach will in the future help in easy address of
community needs by development partners as well as the government. Community led participatory
process of identifying their needs enhances success of interventions and hence contribute more to
community resilience. The only weakness noted is that the process has been supported by the
programme and to some extend the developed CAAPs appears to be tagged on the programmes
activities rather than community initiatives that the government should recognize and be in the
forefront in determining the future interventions. If this can be done for most of the areas, then in
future there would be no need for needs assessments by programmes since the community needs
would be readily available. To this end, we recommend the ministry of planning within the local

27 For district-based analysis refer to annex 2

Page | 43

authorities to lead in this initiatives and the future planning process would be smooth with assured
community’s needs are being addressed.

5.3 Absorptive Capacity of the Communities Livelihoods

5.3.1 Common Hazards in the Project Areas

The study noted that 43.8% of the entire respondents are faced with hazards that affect their
productivity. Among the male-headed households, 50% reported to have faced hazard while only
36.9% of their female-headed household counterpart reported the same. Exposure level varied across
the project districts, those with high level of exposure include Bossaso (86.5%), Luuq (85.4%), Afgooy
(83.9%), Xudur (80.2%), Laas Caanood (69.7%), Dollow (60.6%) and Belet Xaawo (60.5%). On the other
hand districts with low level of exposure include Lughaye, Eyl and Baidoa, with 4.8%, 8.8% and 15.7%
respectively28. Interestingly, the respondents noted COVID 19 as the major hazards during the survey
with 20% of the respondents. Notably, droughts (17.1%) and desert locust (15.3%) were also noted by
the communities (Table 23). COVID 19 is highly reported being the present challenges affecting
productivity at global scale. The communities being agro-pastoralists and farmers also identified most
with droughts and locusts as they were the major hazards that affect their livelihoods.

Table 23: Type of hazard/shocks faced across the project districts

Source Sample size (n) Percentage

Conflict 110 3.9
Conflict violence 56 2
COVID-19 563 20
Crime/theft or high levels of insecurity 20 0.7
Crop disease 144 5.1
Death of household member 37 1.3
Desert locusts 431 15.3
Displacement 45 1.6
Drought 482 17.1
Flash floods 146 5.2
High food prices 113 4
Livestock Disease Outbreak 42 1.5
Loss of employment 118 4.2
Riverine floods 93 3.3
Sickness or health expenditures 34 1.2
No answer 383 13.6

Table 24: Type of hazard/shocks faced across the livelihood zones Agro-Pastoral

Hazard Sample size (n) Peri-Urban/ Pastoral IDP 69.8
Urban 77.6
Conflict 1347 17.2 0.9 50.3
Conflict violence 1347 12.1 6.9 0.0
COVID 1347 15.5 22.2 1.0
26.5

28 For district-based analysis refer to annex 2

Page | 44

Crime/theft or high 1347 10.0 00 10.0 80.0
levels of insecurity
Crop disease 1347 4.4 3.1 0.6 91.2
Death of household 1347
member 31.6 21.1 2.6 44.7
Displacement 1347
Drought 1347 30.6 8.2 6.1 55.1
Flash floods 1347
High food prices 1347 22.0 32.1 2.4 43.3
Livestock Disease 1347
Desert locusts 1347 7.4 5.4 2.0 85.2
Loss of employment 1347
Riverine floods 1347 30.6 33.6 0.0 35.8
Sickness or health 1347
expenditures 20.5 38.6 2.3 38.6
Tropical cyclones 1347
17.8 23.9 0.7 57.7
Source: Assessment Survey
40.7 16.3 0.8 42.3

2.2 6.5 0.0 91.4

35.1 21.6 5.4 37.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

The most common hazards across all the livelihood zones include COVID 19, droughts, and livestock
diseases (Table 24 above). The communities also noted critical shock that affect all livelihood zones as
death of household member, displacement, high food prices, sickness and loss of employment. COVID
19 as a hazard was dominant across several districts include, AFgooy, Badhan, Dollow, Laas Caanood,
Luuq and Xudur. On the other hand, drought was dominant across various districts as well. These
districts are Baidoa, Belet Xaawo, Burao, Eyl and Lughaye. Other type of hazard that are also dominat
but in fewer district is flash flood in Bossaso, high food prices in Ceel Barde, displacement in Salahley
and desert locusts in Owdweyne29.

The communities also reported to receive (26.1% of respondents) early warning information alerts
prior to the occurrence of the shock or hazard. The EWS most common received were desert locust
and droughts (Table 25). For community preparedness, effective mechanism of EWS is critical and this
increases the communities’ resilience. SomReP has contributed to strengthening of this important
service in the project areas and an establishment of community Early Warning Committees (EWC) was
a good step to increase communities’ awareness on the hazards and shocks, with follow-ups on
preparedness and action.

Table 25: Early warning information on hazard across the project districts

Source Sample Size Percentage

Conflict 93 3.3
Crop disease 79 2.8
Drought 279 9.9
Flash floods 149 5.3
High food prices 42 1.5
Livestock Disease Outbreak 59 2.1
Desert locusts 329 11.7
Riverine floods 79 2.8

29 For district-based analysis refer to annex 2

Page | 45

Did not answer 1706 60.6
Source: Assessment Survey

The main sources of information on hazards across the districts are presented in Table 26. EWC seems
to have contributed much to passing early warning information to communities, a great success from
the SomReP implemented activity. Notably, the use of Radio, phones and SomReP partners seem to
have played an important role in passing EWS to the communities. Agricultural advisory committee
have also been playing a role in this process. From this observation, it is worth noting that the more
diverse means of hazards communication, the better, since many members of the community can be
reached with information flow. This in turn increases the adaptive capacity and resilience of the
households to the hazards and shocks. Community Early warning Early Action (EWEA) within SomReP
programme areas reported the trainings to have greatly assisted in addressing the societal challenges
brought about by climate change impacts. The committees are well equipped with reporting
mechanism for any hazards, resource status, and emergencies and have seen benefits in terms of
response by government and development partners.

Table 26: Percentage of HH using various source of information on hazard across the project districts

Hazard Agric EW MAL MoHAD NADIFOR Phone Radio SomRep

advisory committees MA Partner

Conflict 2.4 4.8 1.7 0.1 0.4 2.1 4 3.7

Crop disease 3 3.8 1.8 0.1 6.5 2.2 3.6 3.9

Drought 3.2 11.6 1.9 0.1 0.4 10.5 13.6 7.2

Flash floods 1.8 5.4 2.3 0.1 0.3 5.1 6 6.2

High food 1.3 2 1.3 3.6 3.6 0.5 2.2 2.2
prices

Livestock 2.2 2.9 1.3 4.7 0.1 0.7 2.4 2.1
Disease
Outbreak

Desert locusts 2.7 17.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 13.4 17.4 5.9

Riverine floods 1.8 3.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 2.8 3.3 3.6

Page | 46

Source: Assessment Survey

Somehow, the respondents do agree that the information passed to them helped them navigate
through the hazard and support decision-making and preparedness 13.2% (Table 27). However, very
strongly agree that this information help them navigate the shocks or hazards, partly from the fact that
most of the hazards and shocks are natural like droughts, locusts and diseases which in many instances
the communities may not have the capacity to address unless with external support which has always
been limited.

Table 27: Use of info to navigate through the shock/hazard

Source Frequency Percentage

Agree somewhat 373 13.2
Agree strongly 151 5.4
Disagree somewhat 69 2.5
Disagree strongly 36 1.3
Not sure 105 3.7
I don’t know/did not receive info 2082 73.9

Source: Assessment Survey

The agro-pastoral livelihood communities do agree that early warning information has strongly
assisted them to navigate the hazards and shocks (Table 28). The IDPs and the Fisher folk have minimal
benefit from the EWS information provided. We noted that pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihoods need
more of accurate and timely information followed by appropriate support after accessing the early
warning information services.

Table 28: Use of info to navigate through the shock/hazard across livelihood zones

Hazard Peri-Urban/ Pastoral (%) IDP Agro-Pastoral Fisher-folk
Urban (%)
33.3
Agree somewhat 7.4 11.4 7.6 17.6 0.0
0.0
Agree strongly 3.8 3.1 0.0 8.0 0.0
0.0
Disagree somewhat 1.6 2 1.1 3.2 66.7

Disagree strongly 0.8 1.1 0.0 1.7

Not sure 1.1 4.4 0.0 4.8

I don’t know/did not 85.2 77.9 91.6 64.7

receive info

Source: Assessment Survey

Out of all the respondents 13% are somewhat prepared upon receiving the early warning information
about hazards/shocks (Table 29). This finding shows there is much need to provide support in terms
of applicable and working responses that the communities can use to prepare and be ready to absorb
the shocks. This may need structures in place with financial and technical support on the appropriate
strategies to be undertaken by the communities. This finding relates to the community feedback that
most information non-early warning is about droughts, floods, and locust invasion and in many cases
need external support due to financial needs needed to prepare and mitigate, which most households
do not have.

Page | 47

Table 29: Extent of preparedness upon receiving the information

Source Frequency Percentage

Somewhat Prepared 384 13.6
Somewhat unprepared 17 0.6
Very Prepared 240 8.5
Very unprepared 35 1.2
Not sure 58 2.1
I don’t know/did not receive info 2082 73.9

Source: Assessment Survey

When segregated per livelihood zones, we noted that the Agro-pastoral communities are more likely
to be prepared upon receiving information on hazards and shocks, followed by pastoral communities
(Table 30). These are the livelihood options that are in many times affected by climatic shocks, as well
as other disasters like locust, floods and diseases.

Table 30: Extent of preparedness upon receiving the information

Hazard Peri-Urban/ Pastoral IDP Agro-Pastoral Fisher-folk
Urban
2.7 0.0
Not sure 0.8 2.2 0.0 17.9 33.3
0.6 0.0
Somewhat 6.2 13.3 5.3 12.4 0.0
Prepared 1.6 0.0

Somewhat 1.1 0.2 0.0 64.7 66.7
unprepared

Very Prepared 6.1 5.2 2.1

Very 0.5 1.2 1.1
unprepared

I don’t

know/did not 85.2 77.9 91.6

receive info

Source: Assessment Survey

The respondents who reported to be using Early warning system was 22.1% of the respondents with
Peri-Urban/ Urban 12.3%, Pastoral 18.5%, IDP 7.4%, Agro-Pastoral 30.3%, Fisher-folk 33.3%. From the
data, 33.9% of the responded indicated that their primary livelihood has been affected as a result of
the hazards. Figure 11, show that agro-pastoral livelihood are most affected by hazards, followed by
pastoral and least affected being fisher folks.

Page | 48

120

100

80 55.2
60

40 25.5 50.5
25.6
17.6 Pastoral 13.6 00.1
20
IDP Agro-Pastoral Fisher-folk
21
0

Peri-Urban/ Urban

Not affected Affected

Figure 11: Primary livelihood affected by the hazard across livelihood zones

Source: Assessment Survey

The findings also show that the severity of the effects of hazards on primary livelihoods is moderate to
strong impacts (Table 31). Many of the times, hazards and shocks have negative impacts on
communities’ livelihoods, with some cases causing total loss to productivity and means of production.
The extent and severity depend on the type of hazard and shock and the duration this affects the
communities.

Table 31: Severity of effect of hazard on primary livelihood

Source Frequency Percentage

I don’t know/refuse to answer 1860 66.1
Moderate impact 382 13.6
Strong impact 366 13.0
Slight impact 148 5.3
Worst ever happened 43 1.5
No impact (none) 17 0.6

Source: Assessment Survey

Somewhat the communities are able to recover from the effects of hazards and shocks (Table 32), with
this depending on the level of support received after as well as the level preparedness that the
community had and the recovery strategies in place. Notably, very few respondents reported to
fully/completely recover from the hazards. This makes us know that there is still mush to be done for
the communities to reach the capacity of recovery from the hazards and shocks.

Table 32: Extent of community recovery from effects of the shocks/hazards

Source Frequency Percentage

Completely 84 3.0
Mostly 187 6.6
Somewhat 871 30.9

Page | 49

I don’t know/refuse to answer 1674 59.5
Source: Assessment Survey

The extent of community recovery varies among the livelihood zones, with peri-urban, pastoral, and
agro-pastoral having below 35% of the respondents completely recovering. Notably, Agro-pastoral are
able to recover at 58% of the respondents (Figure 12). This can be attributed to the ability to integrate
their livelihood options and hence diversified income and food sources that increase their adoption
capacity compared to the other livelihood options. Notably, from FGDs most of agro-pastoral had
moved to this livelihood option as a way of adapting to the climatic shocks, and thus become resilient
unlike when they only relied in Pastoralism.

120

100

19.2 25.7 20

80 2.1 40.8
9.5
5.3

60
6.5

40 66.3 66.1 77.9

50.5
20

0 5.1 2.9 0 2.3
Peri-Urban/ Urban Pastoral IDP Agro-Pastoral

Completely I prefer not to answer/ no answer Mostly Somewhat

Figure 12: Extent of recovery from effects of the shocks/hazards across livelihood zones

Source: Assessment Survey

The respondents (50.5%) who are beneficiaries of SomReP programme reported they are reasonably
likely to help others in the community, while 20% are unlikely (Table 44). The ones who are unlikely
are probably the group that are still struggling with making ends meet and therefore with limited
capacity to help. Few 165 are Likely to help form the total beneficiaries, with the fact that most
households are still not out of their livelihoods challenges and still need support from the government
and other partners in development. Most (55%) of the respondents are aware of early warning
committees in their areas, with 33.7% not aware of such committees. EWC are critical in coordinating
information flow for the communities in the villages as well as planning for response strategies to
hazards and shocks.

Page | 50

Agro-pastoral households are the most likely to provide support to the community followed by the
peri-urban and pastoral livelihood zones respondents (Table 33). This is obviously that agro-pastoral
household have diversified their income and activities and therefore are more likely to have a lending
hand to the needy, which still applies to the pastoral and peri-urban who could be having other
alternative livelihoods during the shocks and hazards.

Table 33: Likelihood of Beneficiary providing support or help to the community across livelihood

zones

Source Peri- Pastoral IDP Agro- Fisher-folk Mean %

Urban/ Pastoral

Urban

Reasonably 52.5 53.1 41.1 48.7 0.0 39.08
likely

Unlikely 14.6 23.6 12.6 21.3 33.3 21.08
(possible)

Could not help 16.4 9.4 31.6 12.5 33.3 20.64

Very likely 16.1 13.9 14.7 17.4 33.3 19.08

Source: Assessment Survey

There is reasonably likelihood that the community members can offer support to beneficiary
households during hazards and shocks (51.8%). This is possible due to the known pastoral
communities’ social capital that has been built over the years, with this being among their adaptation
strategy. Agro-pastoral beneficiaries are also more likely to offer support to beneficiaries among the
livelihoods zones (Table 34).

Table 34: Likelihood of community providing support or help to the Beneficiary across livelihood

zones

Source Peri- Pastoral IDP Agro- Fisher-folk Mean %

Urban/ Pastoral

Urban

Reasonably 52.8 57.7 44.2 48.3 0.0 40.6
likely

Unlikely 13.8 17.7 17.9 20.5 33.3 20.64
(possible)

Very likely 17.4 14.1 16.8 19.5 33.3 20.22

No help 16.1 10.6 21.1 11.8 33.3 18.58
available

Source: Assessment Survey

Most of the respondents (40.6) are not sure if there are honest people in the community who can
return lost items to owners. However, 29% somewhat agree that there are people who can return lost

Page | 51

items to owners. The Agro-pastoral livelihood communities are the most likely to return lost items as
observed in Table 35.

Table 35: If you lost something of value, most people in this village would be honest enough to

return it to you across livelihood

Source Peri-Urban/ Pastoral IDP Agro- Fisher- Mean %

Urban Pastoral folk

Not sure 36.4 48.2 32.6 38.2 0.0 31.08

Agree strongly 22.6 13 13.7 17.3 0.0 13.32

Disagree somewhat 4.4 5.9 10.5 7.3 33.3 12.28

Disagree strongly 8.2 4.6 9.5 6.9 33.3 12.5

Agree somewhat 28.4 28.4 33.7 30.3 33.3 30.82

Source: Assessment Survey

5.3.2 Household Contingency plans

From the respondents, 38.8% are aware of community contingency plans while 43.1% are not (Table
36). For the ones who were aware, 27.5% indicated that local authorities including government staff
involved in formulation of the contingency plans for the communities. Notably also, 27.7% indicated
that local authorities including government staff are involved in the monitoring and review of the
contingency plans for the communities. When looking at EWS and alerts, 58.9% have received early
warning information while 44.4% have shared/sent any early warning information to the community’s
committee to inform the contingency plans. The contingency plans are plans that adapt grazing
communities to drought shocks and hazards and help them adapt to the challenges.

About 38.3% percent of the respondents are aware of the contingency grazing reserves by the
community form the plans while 43.1% are unaware of such plans Table 38. In addition, 26.1% of the
respondents have contributed towards the community contingency reserves.

Table 36: Presence of contingency reserves at the community level

Source Frequency Percentage

No 1215 43.1
Yes 1092 38.8
Don't know 492 17.5
Refused (do not read) 12 0.4

Source: Assessment Survey

Only 32% of the respondents are aware of contingency plans at household level, while 49% were
unaware of such plans. Interestingly, 27.4% indicated that if they are requested they will contribute to
the community contingency reserves. The most contingency plans by the community were Finance at
25%, fodder conservation at 9.4% and grains stored at 4% (Figure 13). Contingency plans help
communities to shield themselves against the adverse effects of hazards and shocks. The proportion

Page | 52

of communities who are aware of community social affairs committee was 53.9%, while 31.7 were not
aware. On the other hand, only 33% of the respondents are aware of community bank account for
contingency funds, with 17% not aware at all of such funds.

4.2
9.4

25.2

Finance Fodder Grain

Figure 13: Type of contingency reserves at the community level

Source: Assessment Survey

Further, (39.6%) of the respondents were aware of community conducted hazard analysis, with 38.4%
being unaware of such mapped hazards in their villages. Mapping of the hazards is a critical stage that
helped to identify mitigation and adaptation strategies to be employed in support of preparedness.
Only 27.6 are aware that the government was involved in the community hazards mapping for their
localities. Only 20% of the respondents are also aware that is local authorities including government
staffs were involved in the monitoring and review of the hazard analysis mapping for the community
localities.

5.3.3 Savings and access to credit facilities
The survey reports 37.3% of the beneficiary households are members of Village Savings and Loan
Associations (VSLA). In addition, 36.4% of the households have access to financial services within their
locality. Access to credit is an important factor that determines communities’ investment and access
to cash needs during stressful moments. This also contributes immensely to household dietary
diversity and cushion households from severe hunger.

When disaggregated per livelihood sources, peri-urban and Agro-pastoral have higher access by above
65% of the households, followed by Pastoral and IDPs (Table 37). Peri-urban and urban livelihood
cluster have access to a number of financial institutions and could also be having the needed
requirements to access finances, while the rural pastoral communities could be relying on village
associations that offer credit services.

Table 37: Access to financial services by the beneficiary communities

Page | 53

Source Peri-Urban/ Pastoral IDP Agro- Fisher-folk Mean %
No-access Urban Pastoral
56.6 54.7 100.0 69.28
69.0 43.4 45.3 66.1 0.0 30.72

Access 31.0 33.9

Source: Assessment Survey

The main sources of finances are Mobile Banking at 27% of the households, followed by VSLAs at 15%
(Table 38). We note that the community religion does not allow financial access that has interest and
thus bank access may be limiting. Also, bank access to the rural poor may have led to the low bank
access. The programme supported VSLA by community groups and this must have increased the access
to finances by the beneficiary communities. Importantly also, 30.5% of the households reported to
have an account with financial services mostly mobile banking and VSLA and thus this may ease access
to credit whenever needed as well as enhancing their savings.

Table 38: Type of financial services Access (%) No-access (%)

Source 0.7 99.3
1.6 98.4
Bank 0.7 99.3
Hawala 27.4 72.6
Microfinance 15 85
Mobile banking
VSLA
Source: Assessment Survey

The respondents also reported it is easy to deposit and save money to their financial service provider
(20%) of the respondents. Having identified mobile money as one of their major sources of finances,
the structure allows for easy deposit at their local areas within the mobile money kiosks. This also may
be the reason why VSLAs has higher members due to easy deposit and access at the rural areas within
the community setups. The community also notes that it is easy (19.4%) to withdraw money from the
financial service providers, with the same reason of easy access within their locality.

Page | 54

SUCCESS STORY

SLAS -Muruqmal Framer Group -Beerato

This is a group that was formed one and half years ago as VSLA group by DFAT project. The
group has grown the VSLAs and has now diversified in farming as a source of income for the
group. The women group were donated the farmland by the VDC and are now members of the
VSLA and Farmer group. The strength that has seen them grow their groups was the seed grant
of USD 2500 by SomReP. This money allowed lending and starts up of business that has seen
the capital grow to this level where they can re-invest into farmland where they do commercial
cash crops of onions, tomatoes, green pepper, cabbage and chilies. In their recent sales, the
group was able to make USD 400 from the sale of tomatoes and Onions. The group is self-
sustaining with farm worker employed on full time basis to support with irrigation and farm
management paid 250 USD a month. The major challenge for the group is adequate water to
expand their farms. Currently they are using canal irrigation, but they believe if they move to drip
irrigation they will grow more and conserve the limited water. The group has also benefitted from
GAP trainings where they fully apply the training in land and water management, use of manure,
pest and disease management, agroforestry and post-harvest handling. The other greatest need
is to get solar water pumps to allow irrigation at low costs from the current high cost diesel
pumps. The group has benefitted from SomReP activities and is now able to access money for
food, health and clothing. The members are also able to get quality food from the farm at lower
costs ass member benefits and hence improved households’ diets and nutritional status.

Box 4: Success story from Beerato - Owdwayne District

5.3.4 Community Based Disaster Risk Management

Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) is a process, which leads to a locally
appropriate and locally "owned" strategy for disaster preparedness and risk reduction30. These
processes are critical in deal with localized risks and hazard using local resources and building
capacities of communities to better prepare and respond to various hazard and risks.

Most of the respondents were neutral (75.4%) on whether their leaders or institutions are working
towards addressing the challenges of risk and conflicts management within their locality (Table 39).
The same observed across the livelihood zones as most households are neutral on the same followed
by somewhat effective. The same was also indicated when the same was aggregated by districts31. This
could be explained due to the known political situation and the lack of adequate resources to support
most of the activities related to DRR by the public institutions. There is much need to continue

30 https://www.preventionweb.net/events/view/40211?id=40211
31 For districts and liveihood based analysis refer to annex 2.

Page | 55

supporting these interventions, with clear indications that the institutions are still not fully facilitated
in this line. Only 105 of the households are aware of their family members who are involved in decision
making regarding DRR and conflicts management in their locality. This could be due to the fact that
these decisions are made by selected a committee which has limited membership and therefore not
all members of the entire household were members. The majority of the responded (71.5%) reported
that them or any of their household member involved in local planning or the decision making process
in the community DRR, conflict management and natural resource management.

Table 39: Effectiveness of the leaders/institutions in addressing issues related to livelihoods/shock

risk reduction (DRR)/conflict management/NRM

Source Frequency Percentage

Neutral 2123 75.4
Somewhat effective 291 10.3
Somewhat ineffective 15 0.5
Very effective 368 13.1
Very ineffective 19 0.7

Source: Assessment Survey

5.4 Ecosystem Health and Natural Resource Management (NRM)

5.4.1 Natural Resource Management

Natural resource management is an integral part of SomReP and indeed critical to build resilience and
enhance community’s livelihood particularly in venerable environment. About 51.5% of the
households have Natural Resource management committees in their locality. All the livelihood zones
also have access to NRM committees. The NRM committees are critical in managing the resource base
that support communities’ livelihoods. Sustainability of natural resources at community level requires
a working system with decision-making process regarding use, access, control and management for
reduced degradation. Land is one of the main resources that support productivity in pastoral and agro-
pastoral livelihood zones, and thus having a working, NRM to oversee land use and plan for resources
is critical. SomReP has worked well in supporting the existing and forming new NRM committees to
address these needs, and thus communities are now in better place to manage their resources.

Across all the livelihood zones, NRM committees are recognized by the households (Figure14), this
applies also to IDP zones, where in most cases, resource conflicts are observed. We noted that both
pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihoods zones take NRM as an important aspect that determine their
productivity and the sustainability of their system.

Page | 56

100 55.9 18.9 55.6
90 66.7
80 42 32.7 70.5
70 11.2 29.4 33.3
60 Pastoral 10.5 14.7
50 IDP Agro-Pastoral 0
40 44.4 Fisher-folk
30
20
10 13.1
0
Peri-Urban/
Urban

Don't know No Refused Yes

Figure 14: Natural Resource Management (NRM)/Rangeland Committee across livelihood

Source: Assessment Survey

The communities are aware (42.5%) of the NRM committees’ plans on projects, and this is what they
support the committees in implementation for the sustainability of their production systems. It is also
noted that the committees are working in a participatory manner with the entire communities, with
engagements in decision making regarding projects, plans as well as with the expected support for
implementation of plans. The decision making process on NRM plans require both the participation of
the communities’ and the local authority and governments. The respondents reported 31.3 % of the
households were aware of this process and have an understanding that the development of NRM plans
has inputs and support of the authorities and government.

The implementation of NRM plans should always be a joint activity among all the stakeholders,
including the communities, governments and local authorities. However, we noted that much of the
success will always depend on the communities’ commitments and willingness to adhere by the
provided regulations. The finding shows 29.7% of the respondents know the government and local
authorities are engaged in the implementation of the NRM plans. Whereas, 30% of the respondents
are aware that the local authorities and the governments are involved in the monitoring and review of
the agreed NRM plans during implementations.

5.4.2 Water Resource Management
Water access by communities is very critical in supporting their livelihoods and well-being. The
drylands of Africa have been in crisis during the frequent seasonality coupled with droughts as a result
of climate change and variability. This has greatly impacted on access to adequate clean and safe water
for the communities. Most (77.5%) of the respondents in the project areas beneficiaries reported to
have access to water whole year round for their daily activities. Notably also, over 70% of the

Page | 57

respondents within all the livelihood zones reported to have access to adequate water throughout the
seasons and whole year round (Figure 15). These findings show that there are tremendous efforts to
increase water access to communities in the project areas, a role that SomReP has critically been
engaged.

100 0
90 20.2
80 25.5 18.9 22.1
70
60 100
50 74.5 81.1 77.9
40 79.8
30 Pastoral IDP Agro-Pastoral Fisher-folk
20
10
0
Peri-Urban/
Urban

Access No Access

Figure 15: Access to water all year round across livelihood zones

Source: Assessment Survey

The main source of water during the wet seasons has been rain water harvesting through Berkerds
(Underground tanks - 20%), followed by water kiosk19% and borehole 11.6%. This findings explains
the important roles individual households are involved in rain water harvesting, with the Berkerds
being low cost and affordable by most households and hence the increase in usage by many
beneficiaries. Also, it is also noted that the communities have diverse water source that are used in
the wet season, which mostly will depend on access and availability as shown be respondents in table
74. Water Kiosk and Berkerds still remain the most common water source during the dry season for
the beneficiaries of the project (Table 40). This is an indication that these are the reliable water points
for the communities that need to be considered in water support interventions. Borehole is also still
used by most households, and this water source tents to be somehow reliable though expensive to
provide and not at the disposal of individual households.

Table 40: household’s primary source of water during the Dry season

Source Frequency Percentage
10.7
Borehole 301 1.4
5.6
Dam 39 16.7
.4
Hand pump well 158 .5

Harvest rainwater (Berkad) 470

Harvest rainwater (earth pan) 11

Other 14

Page | 58

Piped household water in compound 79 2.8
Public tap or standpipe 158 5.6
Rain 28 1.0
River 68 2.4
Shallow well 141 5.0
Springs 14 .5
Unprotected spring 56 2.0
Unprotected surface water (river, pond) 20 0.7
Unprotected well 341 12.1
Water car or tanker 253 9.0
Water Kiosk 572 20.3
Water trucking 99 3.5

Source: Assessment Survey

Water access is critical for the households, and it takes an average of 17.67 minutes to water point in
wet seasons and this increase to 46.98 minutes during dry seasons within the project areas. Most of
the water access is one by adult males 70.2% and adult female 47.3% where access is not within the
households’ compound. The respondents report 59.2% to have water management committees, with
52.3 having an integrated water management plan. Having a water management committee and an
integrated water management plans is critical for effective use and management of water sources.
Water is a precious resource in the drylands and the prevailing seasonality demands a proper use plan
for the benefit of the communities.

Page | 59

SUCCESS STORY
WASH– Beeritir Village in Dollow

Mr. Mohamed Abdille Adan is a resident of BEERITIR village in Dollow district who
shared his success story about water scarcity before SomReP intervention in the region.
"Before SomReP Programme in the village, there was serious water scarcity and water
borne diseases was a common happening. He remembers in 2012, when he went to
river Dawa, 8 Km away, with his donkey cart to fetch water. He was alone and on
reaching the river, he filled the barrel on the cart using 20 liter Jerycans (plastic water
containers), of which after filling it, he decided to go back home but the donkey could go
up the steep slope due to the heaviness of the water. He tried to help it ascend but in
vain. The cart rolled down into the river, risking his and the donkeys’ life. Fortunately, the
donkey did not sink after rolling back, but stood on its feet and as he ran to the
neighboring farmers for help. With their help, they rescued the cart and the donkey out
and he went home after thanking the farmers. On his way home, one of the wheels of
the cart got off the axle and the cart lost balance, causing the water to pour off. A little
amount, about 40 litres was left in the barrel and he went home with the almost empty
barrel, after over 5 hours as a very disappointed man. This kind of challenges in
accessing water was addressed by the program where COOPI/SomRep constructed
multiuse water system, and as he speaks, he is a very happy man with tapped water
being available in the village and the past problems of water access is no longer there.
He lives to remember the past challenges but thanks SomReP for the support.

Box 5: Success story in Beeritir village - Dollow district

Sanitation is an important aspect of environmental conservation that increases the communities’
health and welfare. Access to safe water disposable is critical for wellbeing of the communities. Burning
is reported to be the most used (72%) waste disposal method in the project areas. This is followed by
Heap (6.7%), Pit (6.2%) and none action taken (5.9%). We noted that Somalia has been having
challenges of polythene bags disposal which have continued to contaminate the grazing lands with
adverse effects on grazing animals. This waste has been a big challenge to manage in the vast
rangelands. The use of other modern waste disposal like bins is lowly adopted by the beneficiaries.

5.4.3 Access to Land
Land is one of the major assets in any production system. Access to land within communal land is
critical in supporting the communities’ livelihoods. The study reports 30.7% of beneficiaries have

Page | 60

access to land where about 28.9 hectare is also under soil and water conservation measures. Notably,
among the households, only 67.7% of agro-pastoral livelihood reported to have access to land while
the other livelihood category has no access to land for individual household use. Across the districts
the majority of households have access to land for individual use with exception of Badhan, Ceel Barde,
Eyl, Hargeysa, Lughaye and Salahley where the majority indicated that they have no access to land32.

From secondary data, we noted that about 46 to 56% of Somalia country’s land mass is under
permanent pasture, while 20% is classified as forest. Approximately 13% is suitable for crop farming,
however, not currently in use due to lack of water and there is in need of water investments (UN-
HABITAT 2006). Past report also indicate that due to weak enforcement of the land laws in Somalia,
large disparities have appeared between customary tenure systems and statutory law, engendering
illicit appropriation on the part of those most powerful and exacerbating the clan divisions. As a
consequence of the prolonged absence of a clear central government authority and the subsequent
erosion of legal systems, land and property have been subject to illegal occupation and land grabbing;
this remains the main source of violent conflict (UN-HABITAT. 2006). It is also noted that rainfed
agricultural in the central and southern parts of the country is done under customary land tenure
system where the community elders and clan leaders have the authority to allocate plots of land to
individual households. This system was also reported to the one in effects during the FGDs in the
project areas.

The pastoral rangeland remains a commons area, where claims on water and grazing areas are seen
as very communal and are possessed by clans and not by individuals. However, in some pastoral areas,
private claims of land ownership are being made (Farah, 2005). This is common in Somaliland, Puntland
and in central parts of the country where the wealthier and more powerful pastoral households want
to reserve good grazing areas for the dry season for their exported livestock (Farah, 2005).

5.5 Accountability, Research, Learning and Innovation

The SomReP consortium developed an elaborate Monitoring and Evaluation Plan that was designed to
align the programme-level M&E for enhanced quality of project-level monitoring and evaluation. The
document was reported during project staff KII to have greatly guided SomReP's Quality Assurance
and Knowledge management which was one of the key components of the programmes strategy. The
M & E plan has been at center stage of delivery of service to the communities. The evaluations findings
show that most 64.8% agree and strongly agree that they are satisfied with the delivery of basic
services by the local governments. The local governments work closely with the development partners
in service delivery and thus, partnerships and collaborations established must have increased service
delivery to the communities. We also noted that, SomReP programme is reported to have contributed
to this service delivery to communities. The communities were well informed (84.6%) on the projects
duration and activities to be carried out by the programme. The main source of information about
SomReP by communities was from SomReP partners (54.1%), village development committees 34.9%.
Communities have also shared information amongst themselves 20.8%. Among the project

32 For district-base analysis refer to annex 2

Page | 61

beneficiaries, 76.9% were well informed on the projects beneficiaries and activities selection criteria
while 67.9% of the beneficiaries were also aware of the mechanism to report/complain about
concerns/issues regarding the SomReP programs.

The success of any project depend on how any issues/challenges by the communities are addressed
on time and resolved for smooth implementation of the activities. Community leaders played a very
critical role in resolving any complains or concerns from the community on the project, with 41.45%
of respondents using this mechanism. The other important mechanism was use of mobile phone in
addressing any concerns about the project where 32.2% of the respondents use the mechanism.
Overall, 37.6% of the respondents have used the complaint mechanisms to report/complain about
concerns/issues regarding the SomReP programs, mostly community leaders, Telephone and SomReP
offices was the preferred means. Notably, 36% received responses after using the mechanisms while
34.8% indicated that the response came on within reasonable time and they were satisfied. The
respondents reported the innovative complains and suggestions mobile number has been very useful
in addressing community challenges. It was noted that help has also been received when support is
asked, for example people with disabilities have received wheelchairs after request through the mobile
call. We also noted that this mechanism has also supported Early Warning and early Action
committee’s communication to the project and other partners within the villages.

The project implementation staffs were highly rated as respectful by over 80% of the project
beneficiaries (Table 41). The communities’ engagement process requires highly discipline staff for
effective implementation of activities. The staffs were noted to be very innovative in solving problems
during implementation and ensured all parties are satisfied with the processes as reported during the
FGDs, for example in Owdwayene, despite the communities demands being beyond the projects
provisions, project staff worked by linking them with other organizations and line ministries that could
address some of the needs. Thus, the high ranking of the project staff must have contributed to
increased benefits for the community from the implemented activities.

Table 41: Project staff from SomReP project respectful when working with beneficiaries

Methods Percentage

Respectful 40.8

Very respectful 42.1

Neutral 16.6

Disrespectful 0.5

Source: Assessment Survey

The beneficiaries were highly satisfied (88.5%) with the present conflicts resolution mechanisms
employed by SomReP programme. The same trend was observed when the data is disaggregated by
livelihood zones and districts where the dominant answer is highly satisfied. Timely conflicts
resolutions are critical for the success of any programme being implemented with the communities.
Thus, the programme performed better by ensuring any conflicts during implementation was well
addressed and hence this increased the benefits of activity implementation by the community. Most
of the beneficiaries (81.1%) also reported their opinions and voices raised through the CRM
mechanism were well accommodated by SomReP project team and thus were fully confident about
the projects commitment in addressing their needs.

Page | 62

5.6 Resilience and Poverty Index among SomReP beneficiaries

5.6.1 Resilience

The SomReP consortium defines resilience as the ability of people, households, communities and
systems to mitigate, adapt, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic
vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth. The study used three capacities to compute the resilience
index across various levels. These capacities include absorptive capacity index, Adaptive capacity index
and Transformative capacity index. As the resilience, indexes were computed key determinants for
each capacity were identified. The indexes for the cases above are calculated out of 100 and depending
on the determinants the index performance can be anywhere between 1 and 100.

Figure 16 show absorptive capacity results across livelihood zones. The absorptive capacity index was
highest among pastoral communities with an average of 23.7 followed by agro-pastoralists with 21.6.
The lowest was among peri-urban and urban population with 18. The average absorptive capacity
index was 21.4. On the other hand, the adaptive capacity index was higher among agro-pastoralists
followed by pastoralists while IDPs and peri-urban population had an average of 27. The overall
adaptive capacity index was 34 as shown in Figure 17. The average transformative capacity index was
29, highest among agro-pastoralists (31) and pastoralist (29) and lowest among IDPs (18). The average
resilience index was 30 and as with the three capacities indexes, the agro-pastoral have the highest
resilience index with 32, followed by pastoralists with 30. Peri-urban and IDPS had an average of 24
and 23 respectively as shown in figure 18.

25 23.7 21.4
20 18 21.6 All

15 Pastoral Agro-Pastoral 19
IDP
10

5

0
Peri-Urban/
Urban

Figure 16: Absorptive capacity across livelihood zones

Page | 63

40 38 34
30 All
35
30 27 Pastoral Agro-Pastoral 27
IDP
25

20

15

10

5

0
Peri-Urban/
Urban

Figure 17: Adaptive capacity across livelihood zones

Source: Assessment Survey

35 31 29
29 All
30 25
25 Pastoral Agro-Pastoral 18
IDP
20

15

10

5

0
Peri-Urban/
Urban

Figure 18: Transformative capacity across livelihood zones

Source: Assessment Survey

Page | 64

35 32 30
30 All
30
24 Pastoral Agro-Pastoral 23
IDP
25

20

15

10

5

0
Peri-Urban/
Urban

Figure 19: Resilience Index across livelihood zones

Source: Assessment Survey

Looking at the resilience analysis across the project districts, the study found that Dollow District had
the highest resilience index (45.1) as well as highest absorptive (45.6), adaptive (41.5) and
transformative (48.1) capacities indexes among all the districts. Other districts that have had a
relatively higher resilience indexes and capacities indexes include, Belet Xaawo, Laas Caanood and
Luuq as shown in Table (42). Lughaye District had the lowest resilience index with 12.3. Other districts
with comparatively lower resilience index include Badhan (15.2), Ceel Afweyne (15.5), Bossaso (16.9),
Salahley (18.4) and Xudur (19.4).

The absorptive capacity index was lower among most districts particularly in Bossaso (0.9), Afgooye
(2.2), Xudur (3.3), Badhan (3.4) and Ceel Afweyne (3.6). The same index was higher in district of Dollow
(45.6), Belet Xaawo (38.4), Lass Caanood (37.6) and Luuq (37.3). The highest adaptive capacity index
was in Afgooye (55.1), followed by Dollow (41.5), Belet Xaawo (37.3), Baidoa (33.3) and Luuq (32.2).
Transformative capacity was lowest in Lughaya (9.7) and highest in Baidoa and Belet Xaawo with 42.5.

Table 42: Resilience and capacities across districts

District Absorptive Adaptive Transformative Resilience
capacity capacity index
capacity
55.1 23.2 26.8
Afgooye 2.2 20.6 21.7 15.2
33.3 42.5 19.9
Badhan 3.4 37.3 42.5 39.4
28.4 21.2 16.9
Baidoa 14.2 26.9 18.5 21.4
24.0 18.7 15.5
Belet Xaawo 38.4 21.2 14.8 21.6
41.5 48.1 45.1
Bossaso 0.9 22.7 41.6 27.6
22.0 26.8 24.3
Burao 18.9

Ceel Afweyne 3.6

Ceel Barde 28.9

Dollow 45.6

Eyl 18.5

Hargeysa 24.0

Page | 65

Laas Caanood 37.6 25.8 27.6 30.3
Lughaye 12.3 14.7 9.7 12.3
Luuq 37.3 32.2 37.1 35.5
Owdweyne 23.6 22.8 18.2 21.5
Salahley 17.5 23.9 13.8 18.4
Xudur 3.3 28.9 26.0 19.4
All 21.4 28.5 25.9 25.3

Source: Assessment Survey

As mentioned in the methodology section, these indexes have key determinants that are critical to the
performance of each index. For absorptive capacity index Key determinants included, access to cash
savings index, access to safety nets, shock preparedness & mitigation index and access to humanitarian
assistance index. On the other hand, the adaptive capacity Key determinants are; social network index,
exposure to information index, adoption of improved practices index, education/training index as well
as livelihood diversification index. Transformative capacity determinants include social cohesion
index, governance index, access to formal safety net index, access to agricultural services index, and
access to livestock services index.

To further examine the relationship between SomReP interventions and the various indexes a
correlation was performed33. Key interventions include animal health, cash for work, Early Warning
Early Action, Natural Resource Management, Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET),
Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) and water projects. These key interventions were
correlated with the three capacities indexes as well as the resilience index. Generally, and across all
the four key indexes, there was significant small correlation for both positive and negative
relationships.

Absorptive capacity index was positively and significantly correlated with intervention on animals
health such as CAHWs (0.1408*34), cash for work (0.1063*), VSLAs (0.1111*), water projects (0.1429*).
The other intervention that corrected significantly and positively but with smaller coefficient include
Early Warning Early Action (0.0467*), Technical and Vocational Education and Training (0.0445*) and
crop production intervention (0.00331*). However, the correlation between Natural Resource
Management and absorptive capacity was positive but not significant. Adaptive capacity index on the
other hand, was moderately correlated with key interventions. NRM was positively and significantly
correlated with the adaptive capacity (0.5736*). The same was observed with crop production
(0.5065*). Furthermore, the adaptive capacity index was found to be positively and significantly relate
to TVET (0.4976*), Early Warning Early Action (0.4801*), VSLAs (0.4389*) and water projects (0.3196*)
although this correlation is of a low degree. A small, negative and significant correlation was found
between the adaptive capacity and cash for work (0.0845*).

Transformative capacity index had a low correlation with the interventions. The same was positively
and significantly correlated with animal health (0.3321*), water projects (0.2706*), TVET (0.2242*),
EWEA (0.2180*) and NRM (0.2046*). Other interventions that are positively and significantly
correlated with transformative capacity but with smaller coefficient include crop production and cash

33 For the correlation matrixes see annex 5
34 Sig star(0.05)

Page | 66

for work. In addition, the same low correlation was observed in relation to resilience index. Animal
health (0.3572*), water projects (0.2937*), NRM (0.2863*), TVET (0.2763*), crop production (0.2622*)
and VSLA (0.2048*) had a positive and significant low correlation with the resilience index. Cash for
work had a positive and significant correlation with small coefficient.

From the above analysis, there are strong indication all SomReP implemented activates are strongly
linked to the four indexes. This analysis suggests that under each index, they are key interventions.
Improvement in absorptive capacity for instance are directly linked to investment primarily in animal
health and water projects as well as VSLA and cash for work. On the other hand, any improvement in
adaptive capacity index should be based on investment on NRM, crop production as well as TVET,
VSLA, EWEA. Similar to absorptive capacity, transformative capacity index is highly depending on
animal health and water project, in addition to TVET, EWEA and NRM. The resilience index was linked
predominantly to animal health and water projects as well as NRM, TVET, crop production and VSLA.

Key intervention emerged across the indexes are mostly animal health and water projects among
others. This can be explained by the fact that the operational environment are largely arid and semi-
arid areas and the prevailing economic activities is livestock and livestock related sectors, thus, any
attempt to build resilience should focus on these two very critical sectors.

5.6.2 Poverty levels among beneficiaries

The poverty analysis was critical for ARM since it will provide evidence on how various households are
doing in regards to their well-begin and overall resilience. The poverty line used in this study is USD
$1.90 per day (World Bank 2015). Overall, the poverty level was very high according to the present
ARM. Generally, there are 97.6% poor people across the study area; of these there are 62.5% who are
structurally poor35 and 35.1% are stochastically poor36. Across the livelihood, structural poverty was
found to be high among IDPs with 74.2%, followed by peri-urban (69%), Agro-pastoral (62.1%) and
least was among pastoralist with 58.4%. On the other hand, the stochastic poverty was higher among
pastoralist with 39.7% followed by Agro-pastoralist (35.5%), while peri-urban and IDPs were 27.5% and
25.8% respectively. Collectively, the poverty level was higher among IDPs with 100% poor followed by
pastoral (98.1), Agro-pastoral (97.6) and peri-urban (96.5) as shown in Table 43.

Table 43: Poverty analysis across livelihood zones

Livelihood zone Structurally Stochastically non- Stochastically poor Structurally
non-poor
poor poor 27.5
39.7 3.5
Peri-Urban/ Urban 69.0 0.0 35.5 0.9
25.8 1.3
Pastoral 58.4 1.0 35.1 0.0
1.6
Agro-Pastoral 62.1 1.2

IDP 74.2 0.0

All 62.5 0.9

Source: Assessment Survey

35 Structurally poor are those who are both income and assets poor.
36 Stochastically poor are those who are income poor and asset rich.

Page | 67

Poverty across the district is no different from poverty across the livelihood. From the ARM results a
100% poverty was reported across six districts namely, Baidoa, Belet Xaawo, Hargeysa, Lughaye, Luuq
and Salahley. Other district had more than 90% of poverty rate. The non-poor both structurally and
stochastically are rather few. Burao District had the highest structurally non-poor with 5.3% while Ceel
Afweyne had the highest stochastically non-poor with 5.6% as shown in Table 44.

Table 44: Poverty analysis across districts

District Structurally poor Stochastically non- Stochastically poor Structurally non-
poor
poor 16.7
24.1 1.2
Afgooye 82.1 0.0 9.7 0.0
45.6 0.0
Badhan 75.2 0.7 32.3 0.0
36.1 2.5
Baidoa 90.3 0.0 11.24 5.3
55.6 0.0
Belet_Xaawo 54.4 0.0 38.4 0.0
52.1 1.4
Bossaso 63.2 2.9 0.0 0.0
55.0 0.0
Burao 58.6 0.0 32.7 2.3
8.3 0.0
Ceel Afweyne 83.1 5.62 45.5 0.0
0.0 1.4
Ceel Barde 44.4 0.0 54.6 0.0
35.1 0.0
Dollow 60.3 0.0 1.6

Eyl 46.9 0.0

Hargeysa 100.0 0.0

Laas_Caanood 41.2 1.5

Lughaye 67.3 0.0

Luuq 91.7 0.0

Owdweyne 51.1 2.1

Salahley 100.0 0.0

Xudur 45.4 0.0

All 62.5 .9

Source: Assessment Survey

The findings of this ARM correspond to those of World Bank where, 7 out of 10 people live in poverty
(201937). This high poverty rate is indeed an amalgamation of various factors which include; the recent
locust invention, COVID 19 and continued conflict and political upheaval. In addition, to the prolonged
drought and low rainfall in the high potential areas, there is also the disruption of agricultural
producing regions. This is critical as SomReP and other development intervention should address the
root causes particularly in supporting investments in water, animal health as well as building capacities
to utilize the available resources in a manner that is suitable, efficient and sustainable.

5.7 SomReP Project Implementation Strategy

The project implementation strategy for SomReP interventions was based on partnership among the
consortium members with a key focus on community participation in the implementation of activities;
farm training in the GAP, WASH, animal health and infrastructural development interventions. The
project beneficiaries reported to have actively participated in the project planning and

37 World Bank Group. 2019. Somali Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment: Findings from Wave 2 of the Somali
High Frequency Survey. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32323 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.

Page | 68

implementation, with consultation on the priority areas during the project-planning phase, this
included active engagement of the local leadership and community interest groups. The engagement
of partner institutions and the government together with the communities in the trainings,
technologies demonstrations and infrastructural development instilled a sense of ownership among
the beneficiaries. SomReP project has continued to support the community farms within the
community villages that’s were used for training and production under the GAP activities, which was
a very good approach to addressing increased food production. The FGDs reported the training on
animal health and the establishment of animal health centres as the best approach since the facilities
and the infrastructure support assured a long-term benefit to the communities. This was coupled with
the local capacity development among the animal health workers recruited from the communities.

SomReP project was well designed with field implementation by partners done by field staff who
coordinated all the activities. It is also noted that that there is an overall coordination with technical
backstopping form the WV SomReP team whom have been effective in supporting the partners and
ensured that all the planned activities were implemented on timely basis, with a feedback mechanism
to communicate achievements, community complains and needs as per the changes during the
implementation. Notably also, SomReP project has a very well structures Monitoring and Evaluation
plan, with monthly reporting, quarterly reporting and midterm reporting, hence all the activities were
well tracked, modifications documented, challenges addressed and hence increase in service delivery.
Importantly also, the synchronization of activities implementation among the different sectors
increased the efficiency of resource utilization during the implementation process. The most
interesting approach was the transparency in the project implementation, this allowed the
communities to directly register and communicate their challenges, grievances with project
management team through a direct call line, this was reported to be a very good strategy by the
communities during FGDs, and they reported timely response once they complained of any issue.

5.8 SomReP interventions Suitability and Relevance

The SomReP project interventions from the community perspective were most suitable and relevant
to their local conditions. The communities reported the interventions to have increased farm
productivity through GAP training and demonstration training within their farms. The communities
noted SomReP activities to be relevant, timely and responsive to the needs of the target beneficiaries.
Training was noted as the most important approaches that enabled them to adopt and increase on
their farming activities. They also reported the following activities as relevant; VSLA was one of the
most relevant activities and inculcate saving cultures, improved access to loan at village level and
formation of SMEs and businesses. At time, recurring shocks such as drought and floods eroded the
asset base for the target community, and thus access to funds to start up again was critical. The
programmes activities also came handy at a time when farmers were facing numerous challenges such
as floods, pests, low yield, poor knowledge of modern farming technique. Thus, SomReP helped in
capacity building of the farmers in tackling these challenges and improved their yield/ harvest. Cash
for Work was also noted as a critical component that improved land and cultivation by reclaiming
wasteland into productive land hence improving own food production thus improve food security. The
proceeds from CFW was also very important in providing incomes for savings by the VSLAs as reported

Page | 69

during the FGDs. This income was also critical in providing households with food and other domestic
needs.

Notably, livestock health intervention was also reported to be a suitable intervention where most
household own animals and diseases was one of their great threats to their productivity. SomReP
project was also praised for targeting the vulnerable households with re-stocking programmes, which
the community highly noted as the most suitable intervention in supporting the disabled, orphaned
and widowed families.

SomReP promoted cash crops that were highly appreciated during FGDs as suitable owing to the
consultations with the communities on the preferred crops of their choice, together with target of
high-value crops for the market and household consumption. The high demand for vegetables and
fruits that was promoted during the GAP trainings within the water provided areas by SomReP project.
The programme has increase water use efficiency through concrete lined canals, which has seen an
increase in farmland acreage and reduced wastage and this enhances sustainability, a good case is with
Dollow farmlands. Even though, most areas are still doing canal irrigation and there is need for support
with drip irrigation as well as reliable water supply for farming like dams, wells and boreholes.

5.9 Programme Reach/Intensity of activities across the districts

The SomReP programme was designed to build resilience across community and households. To
achieve this, it is important to keep track on activities spread among the programme participants in all
the target districts. Cash transfers was the most spread activities with 47.5% participating/benefiting
from it. This is followed by VSLA (38.1%), Water Project (17.9), Crop Production (16.5%), Animal Health
interventions (16.0%), Early Warning Action (13%). NRM and TVET and NRM intervention were only
benefiting 10% of the programme population. The lowest intervention in terms of spread is
Community Health Intervention with only 4.9%.

The process of layering and sequencing are critical for building resilience and empowering
communities to stimulate economic growth. Thus targeting the same communities with various
interventions and over a longer period of time might likely to build results. Table 45 shows the
participation in various multiple interventions. The Majority of the responded were only participating
in one intervention (68.7%). Those who participated in two interventions were 15.8%, three
intervention 6.1%, eight intervention 3%, four intervention 2.2% and seven intervention 2.1%. This is
clearly indicating that layering and sequencing is happening at a low level.

Table 45: SomReP participation in various multiple intervention Percentage

No. of intervention 68.7
15.8
One 6.1
Two 2.2
Three 0.9
Four 0.7
Five 2.1
Six
Seven 3
Eight

Page | 70

Nine 0.4
Source: Assessment Survey

Layering can further be explained by the program intensity across various districts and livelihood.
Tables 48 show the SomReP intervention intensity across the programme districts. Districts with high
programme intensity include Afgooye (73.7%) and Dollow (42.1%). The 15 districts generally have low
intensity with the lowest being Salahley (100%) followed Lughaye (98.9%), Ceel Afweyne (98.5), and
Luuq (97.3%). Burao, Ceel Barde, Eyl, Hargeysa, Xudur and Badan all have more that 80% low intensity.
Overally, SomReP programme fall under the low intensity as 69% is low intensity while 15.7% medium
intensity and 15.5% us high intensity38.

On other hand, the same trend was observed across the livelihood zones. Programme was majorly
falling under low intensity with peri-urban leading with 81.9%. This is followed closely with IDPs
(80.2%). Pastoral reported to have 74.6% under the low intensity and agro-pastoralists reported 58.6%
under low intensity of programming.

For SomReP to contribute greatly to building resilience is critical to factor in layering, sequencing and
integration of activates across the development target areas of the programme. This is critical as thin
spread activities will help cushion the wide range of beneficiaries from immediate exposure to shock
and hazard, but not build resilience this targeting the same groups with same intervention will help
build resilience.

5.9 Effectiveness of the Project Interventions

The expected project goal of the SomReP project was to adapt communities to the recurrent shocks,
improve their resilience and enhance their livelihoods. This is by increasing crop production for the
targeted households; improved households’ access to better income; increased livestock production
and productivity; increased access and coverage of safe drinking water, provide multipurpose water
sources, build community capacity on savings, resource use and management, risk mitigations among
other cross cutting activities. The findings show all the interventions were geared to achieving these
outcomes based on all the sectors targeted and the implementation strategies employed.

The SomReP activities are all designed and aligned to the communities’ development plans and
respective regions priorities. SomReP spearheaded the development of state Disaster Recovery and
Preparedness Plans with active participation of the state governments. This also informed designing
of SomReP projects. SomReP has continued to ensure relevant government line ministries were
involved in the implementation project activities. To ensure effectiveness of the programme, on
annual basis SomReP invites high-level ministerial delegations from all states to monitor and provide
feedback on the SomReP project activities; this is reported to have enhanced effectiveness of the
targeted interventions and progress in the implementation.

The investment by SomReP in the Village Savings and Loan Association Program (VSLA) was well
structured and allowed saving, borrowing and lending of money from established groups who were

38 For district-based analysis refer to annex 2

Page | 71

trained. This intervention is reported to have been designed in a simple way where all members of the
communities could understand the benefits including those members of the community with no
formal education, thereby giving the opportunity to all. The approaches applied by SomReP in capacity
development and creating investment ideas/start-ups investment ensured a self-sustaining entity to
benefit the communities. For example, the communities were fully aware that the money borrowed
from VSLAs was to be put into an income-generating activity with group financial decisions made to
borrowers to ensure repayment is assured. This proves an effective way to invest in community
structures that improve livelihoods and assured sustainability even beyond the project life.

The building capacity of the extension officers and the community showed an effective way to
implement a project with assured sustainability as depicted by all the interventions done by SomReP
project.

The other effectiveness of the project is on TVETS activities, which have shown some benefits in
empowering the project beneficiaries, whom have ended up enhancing their welfare and livelihoods.
Even though the activity was well planned and implemented in the target areas, there is need to have
efforts to document impacts for all trained, with follow up to all beneficiaries. This will inform future
similar activities in terms of challenges and opportunities. A good case study from this activity is
presented below.

The programme has also implemented CAHW trainings with support with health kits and drugs. This
intervention seems to have been well received in all the districts, with Dollow, Owdwayne providing
success story form the interventions. We Also noted that the local government has been actively
engaged and supports animal health interventions. They have been involved in awareness on animal
heath at district and village level through coordination with relevant NGOs that operate in the
localities. When there is an outbreak of disease, the local government shares the information to health
clusters at district, regional and national levels. In addition, the local government is in-charge of general
security of the areas and this helps the smooth running of animal health activities like vaccinations,
treatment, and awareness/ training animal health personnel.

Early warning committee has been very effective in supporting the communities’ preparedness. For
example, KII in Dollow reported the communities of and neighboring districts such as Balet hawa,
Mandera and Sufto has reported benefits from the EWC who have continues to do mobilization against
the hazards by preparing farmers in advance, such as early harvesting of mature crops and rescuing
irrigation pumps when floods are predicted. EWC and DRR has also continues to help in conflict
management by doing awareness prior to the conflict and if happens they use traditional conflict
management methods such as sending of delegates/elders to bring peace and stability. Notably also,
the program has enhanced the local government in early warning and their capacity to create
awareness prior to the hazards and support the community. The local government engagement has
also increased their ability to contribute in the efforts of mitigations, for example in the last flooding;
they supported few farmers in Dollow where Coopi supported 50 households with unconditional cash
transfers of 70 dollars for one round. While Dollow local Administration supported 14 farmers in Dayah
with 100 dollars for each farm. This is a case of good partnership with local governments by the
programme and hence results are achieved with increased sustainability.

Page | 72

SUCCESS STORY

Tailoring TVET graduate from Tulo-samakab village

Miss. Kaafiy Jama Mohamoud is an 18 years old trained as part of the TVET interventions on
tailoring. He was trained in April 2019 for five months. SomRep supported her further with the
tailoring machine, materials and the necessary threads on the graduation day. Her mother
helped her with small capital to buy more materials and open a small shop where she is now
doing her tailoring business and sale other household necessities. As we speak, she has made
a good name for herself across the village and mostly engage in repairing damaged clothes
and making new one. She has made a saving of 230 dollars. This is despite the fact that she
takes care of 12 family members with little help from her father who does cash for work when
it is available. Kaafiy notes that her life has improved so much after receiving the training and
equipment and the materials, and she is proud that she can now her struggling family and this
has enable here make sure they have food throughout the year).
The only challenge she notes is that big challenges in her business was the recent COVID 19
that reduced her business performance since little money was in the economy from slowed
activities by NGOs that forms part of her client’s income source like cash for work. During this
period, it was not easy to get market for my products.
Among her challenges in the process was that she made mistakes when starting and thus it
took time for people to trust her skills and give business to do, but with persistence and eager
to perfect, she managed to improve, and now doing better. She notes that if follow-up support
was available, the turnaround time in perfecting her skill would have been small. This was
further challenged that by the fact that out of the five people who did tailoring with her, she is
the only one that came back to the village and thus there was no one to run to from her class
in case she needed support or consultation.
She notes that the training has brought blessings ton her and that her business performs well
during ‘Eid when the demand is huge and she wish she can get support with materials and
second machine to expand her business. She requests for further training to be provided to
her on more specialized designs to perfect her skills. She has future plans to include training
of other people in the village and open a specialized tailoring factory that can employ the many
girls idling in the village. She hopes her business picks soon to allow her buy more machines
and materials to train and provide employments as she expand her business.

Box 6: Success story in Tulo-samakab village - Laas Caanood District

Page | 73

5.10 Efficiency of the Project Interventions

From the KII discussions on the efficiency of the SomReP programmes, it was reported that the design
was excellent and maximized the benefits to the targeted households by delivery of interventions in
the most efficient way. The assessment team noted from KIIs and FGDs that the project has been
efficient because its activities were cost effective, implemented in timely manner with active
community engagement and gave good value for money, a point that was also echoed by the FGD
meetings. The activities were also implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternative
implementation strategies, for example, the cash for work in Ceelfwein, Dollow, Arapsio and
Ooodwayne was reported not just to have increased household’s ability to access food and income,
but provided a long term benefit in environmental conservation and also expansion of farms and
conservation FMNR SITES that increase food production, and hence increased resilience of the
communities.

5.11 Sustainability of the Project Interventions

The SomReP project received much support from the local governments and states, communities. The
programme approach also ensured participatory approaches by all partners, beneficiaries and local
authorities, with activities design also factoring in community needs and interventions designed to
address the local context and priorities. Based on the sustainability analysis, we noted that the
following key areas contribute to SomReP interventions sustainability.

a) SomReP activities ownership: The SomReP Project used participatory approaches with much
focus on community participation as the main approach regarding project design, planning and
implementation. This approach seems to have enhanced the sustainability of the project as
reported by beneficiaries and the implementing partners. The beneficiary communities feel
they fully own the activities and the activities were meeting their needs, especially with the
design that addressed their immediate needs. However, they pointed out a lack of adequate
finances and technical capacity as the major challenges if the community has to continue on
their own in some aspects like animal health activities and irrigation infrastructure expansion.
The FGDs noted that GAP trainings had greatly strengthened the farming communities’ ability
to adopt new technologies and modern farming technologies that included pest and disease
management as well as water management.

b) Infrastructural support: SomReP has provided very important irrigation support infrastructure,
animal health management infrastructure and water sources (boreholes, tanks) and dams.
These are permanent structures that will ensure suitability of the production systems.
However, the beneficiaries noted that maintenance and use of some of this facilities like dam
and borehole pumping facility may face low sustainability due to lack of local capacity to
maintain them, a gap that should be filled by the project future interventions.

c) Communities’ contribution to SomReP activities: The communities have been able to provide
their land, time and local resource to the activities and reported to continue with the activities
on their own since they have already seen the benefits.

Page | 74

d) Scale of SomReP Implemented activities: The communities requested SomReP team to
continue supporting them in areas of water supply, agriculture and animal health, since what
has been provided is only a fraction of the much needs among the wider community. This will
ensure improved households income and capacity to continue with activities. It is noted that
the non-benefitting communities have always increased pressure during shocks when they
move to project beneficiary areas, and thus reducing the impacts achieved since the limited
resources are shared and this dilute the attained resilience by the host communities.

e) Partnerships by SomReP: The SomReP Project was built by strong partnership, and this is what
has allowed the vast coverage for the entire Somalia. The project implementation approach
used by the team has increased sustainability of the interventions where local partners and
government entities are continually and actively engaged in the implementation process,
including the participation of local organizations and government line ministries. Notably also,
SomReP Key project partners are community members, grassroots organizations such as
religious and community leaders within the project areas, who have fully embraced the
interventions. The ability of partners working with government line ministries and other
development organizations and sharing of information was reported as a good approach
during project implementation. This reduced overlap in activities within the same
districts/village’s and prioritized target areas for the various activities by SomReP. The
partnership also allowed working in areas of stronghold where long relationships had been
developed by partners, and thus able to deliver effectively for enhanced sustainability.

f) Transformed community relationships: SomReP has contributed greatly to the community
relationship through various activities. This include, the Village Saving and Loan Associations
(VSLA) where women are working together to achieve a common objective and share the
resources they have. Another example is cash for work where vulnerable households are
working together to achieve a common goal (farmland preparation, land rehabilitation,
reseeding activities). Through this work, community trust and togetherness is reported to have
been enhanced by the programme. During the field observation and FGDs, it is noticed that
communities’ members and household members are working together in harmony, evidenced
by participants who confirmed that there has been reduced conflict that was advanced by the
project activities at all levels.

g) Local and national advocacy: The project brought all stakeholders together to implement the
designed activities. During the KIIs, all government institutions were leading implementation
of activities relevant to their mandates in all the districts with the support of SomReP team.
For instance, Ministry of water at the district level are overseeing all water related activities
including the construction of Dams and Boreholes in the project site. On the other hand,
Ministry of Agriculture Office at Districts level was also actively engaged in GAP and agronomic
training activities. The same case was for the Ministry of Environment where the FMNR and
reseeding activities and other environmental activities were under their supervision. This
approach has brought government official closer to the communities and ensured continued
dialog between them and ensure proper service delivery and greater accountability.

h) Households Resilience: SomReP interventions contributed much to building household
resilience by supporting the dominant livelihoods options relevant to different districts and

Page | 75

villages. The project designed heavy agriculture related practices in agro-pastoral dominant
villages along the riverbanks and animal related interventions in the dominant pastoral areas.
This has ensured households enhanced livelihood activities that directly build on their
resilience. For example, the agro-pastoralists reported the GAP trainings and support with farm
inputs has increased their production practices and increased their yields and land
productivity. The trained CAHWs also reported to continue serving the population with the
acquired skills from the trainings, but there was still need to train more and provision of
adequate health kits and drugs.

6.0 Cross-cutting Issues

6.1 Gender Integration

The SomReP Project has been commitment to mainstream gender by ensuring that all gender groups
have been reached by different interventions. The KIIs notes that women, boys and girls were all
reached in different dialogues and trainings to meet their differential needs, as all of them have a role
to play in promoting sustainable livelihoods in their communities. The study team ascertain that there
was considerable effort to mainstream gender across the project activates. This includes encouraging
women to take part in project design, giving feedback and participate in activities to ensure their voice
is heard and their needs are addressed, as observed within the VSLAS groups. In the program activities
implementation, it is reported that in all the activities, there was priority for inclusion of women and
youth. The SomReP Project VSLA activities seem to have stimulated women potential in saving and
creation of capital that has seen women engagement in economic activities.

The project has also addressed women needs through development of water sources that has reduced
distance and time to water access among the beneficiary communities, and thus women are now
having more time to engage in other economic activities as reported during FGDs. The project also
targeted women in cash for work which enhanced their income that increased their purchasing power
and also allowed for investment into income generating activities. The SomReP project team also
considered gender balance in terms of technical training and provision of inputs as well as creation of
farmer groups, WASH, EWEA, CDC, Water and RMC Committees among others. This is evident during
the KIIs and FGDs where women explained that they have benefited from the SomReP programme and
are able to employ the knowledge in improving their farming activates and post-harvest processes.
SomReP has also supported women, men, and youth to gain skills and enhance their capacity to enter
local employment market, as evidenced by the TVETS trainings offered.

6.2 Environmental Conservation

SomReP project has made a tremendous contribution to environment conservation from the variety
of activities and practices that were implemented. SomReP has promoted good agricultural practices,
land and water management interventions that have reduce land degradation across the project
villages. The implementation of FMNR practices has increased land rehabilitation and increase feed
availability for livestock. The communities’ reported that FMNR has reclaimed bare land and increased
vegetation cover in areas that were totally degraded. Waste disposal and hygiene practices were also

Page | 76

reported as main activities geared towards promotion of environmental health within the villages. The
water and EWEA committees also confirmed to have benefitted from regular environmental safety
messages and have helped them to undertake activities that ensure planned activities have no
negative effects on the environment. Other studies have also showed involvement of communities in
decision regarding environmental conservation in Somalia to have contributed to better conservation
and protection of ecosystems (Jama et al. 2020), this is exactly what SomReP programme implemented
by engaging and forming environmental committees.

6.3 Human Welfare and Protection

SomReP has worked within an environment that provided protection to all the employees and the
communities especially during the period of the COVID 19 pandemic. The programme also contributed
to COVID 19 management and prevention for the communities. The project has engaged the
community on promoting the protection and wellbeing of the children to reduce their vulnerability in
fragile contexts as reported during the KII and FGDs within the IDP project areas. The communities are
aware that physical safety of the children is critical particularly when the project activities include
construction work hence they ensured that children are continuously monitored. The water points
are also constructed with a fence to prevent children from attempting to swim and risk drowning. In
addition, availability and access to clean water provided by the programme reduced risks and
increased safety associated by women and girls walking far distances to fetch water in secluded and
dangerous sites as highlighted by project beneficiaries. Studies have also shown communities where
human welfare is considered and respected are more likely to improve their welfare and livelihoods
(Sait 2013).

6.4 Peace and Conflict Resolution

SomReP Project design and implementation strategy very well considered conflicts mitigation and
contributed to peace building. The project activities consolidated local capacities for peace or
connectors so that implementation did not create any conflict, which was highly achieved through
participatory approaches and active community engagements in the whole project cycle. Given the
peacefulness nature of the project activities, this highly addressed resource management that has
been a source of conflicts among communities. The participants of the FDGs and KIIs mentioned that
the activities by SomReP that contributed to reduced land degradation was planned resource use and
support to resource governance. The project is also being implemented through proper community
participation/consultation throughout, and the beneficiaries reported to have actively participated in
the project planning and implementation, with consultation on the priority areas during the project
phases. This has ensured the promotion of the conflict-sensitive approach so that the project has not
exacerbated existing conflicts/tensions in the target areas. Resources within the project are also
shared in an equitable manner following consultations with relevant community representatives,
religious leaders, government agencies and other stakeholders. SomReP has also worked to support
local-level conflict management and making peace building as part of their project activities
interventions where committees managing resource have been well trained on peace aspect. Other
studies have also shown empowering people help to reduce conflicts and increase peaceful

Page | 77

coexistence among communities and thus better livelihoods (Colletta and Cullen, 2000). This is what
SomReP has also contributed to and hence the observed reduced conflict incidences.

Page | 78

7.0 CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED

7.1 Key Challenges and Constraints

Despite the measured ARM 2020 for SomReP project interventions on household agricultural
productivity, food security, livelihoods improvement, water and sanitation, livestock health and overall
welfare of the beneficiaries, a number of challenges were faced during the project implementation.
These challenges if addressed will improve future project deliverables and contribute towards
enhancing household resilience in the project areas. The key challenges and constraints faced as well
as the lessons learned from the project implementation are discussed below:

1. The project activities address the real community productivity and livelihood challenges,
however, there is a need to cover and reach more communities with resilience building
initiatives, since the states are vast and many among the communities are not reached. The
communities noted that during periods of shocks/stress, communities that are not covered by
SomReP interventions are severely affected, who in turn migrate to the SomReP target areas
and end up sharing their savings, grazing reserves and food stocks, thus putting strain on the
host communities.

2. Many of the SomReP projects have been consistently received recurrent shocks such as
drought, floods, insecurity, political tension in the region, emerging constraints from the COVID
19 pandemic and locust invasion. This has in a way reduced the gains that had been made by
SomReP activities.

3. The beneficiaries and implementing team also noted that there are other agencies intervening
in humanitarian interventions, which affected mindset change from humanitarian dependency
to self-reliance, with some still supporting handouts activities and direct cash or items support.

4. The lining of irrigation canals by SomReP project was a good and important water-saving
irrigation compared to unpaved canal; however, it has huge initial cost and present a serious
challenge to adopt them at individual farm level by willing households and individuals. This
makes the communities to still rely on donor support for the same.

5. Lack of adequate full time and well-trained extension personnel within the SomReP
districts/states ministry of agriculture in the project sites limit the abilities of farmers to access
support and hence need to support existing staff with training together with lead farmers on
modern farming technologies to assist with extension works.

6. The support with farming inputs by SomReP was a good intervention even though it was
challenged by the high demand by households while the project could only supply what was in
the plan, and hence communities still feel they needed more of the supplied inputs with
assured source for sustainability.

7. The communities reported to be relatively new to farming activities and most of communities
were pastoral dropouts turning from pure Pastoralism to farming as a result of climate change
resulting to frequent droughts, with most having zero knowledge on farming, and therefore
there is more needed for long term support in capacity development for benefits to be realized
within the project lifespan.

Page | 79

8. In the project area, lack of structured credit and lending facilities to farmers was missing, and
hence the farmer cooperatives should be initiated and be structured to fill up the gap,
presently, with the limited cash flow from community savings, the community cannot access
enough capital to invest in commercial farming. This is a challenge worth more support in the
future by supporting the farmer form farmer cooperatives strengthened with capital base to
expand on their operations.

9. Vastness of the project areas where SomReP interventions are being implemented led to many
households not being directly reached by interventions, many villages did not directly
participate since they were not targeted yet they are still needy communities and beneficiary
communities are asking for their future considerations.

10. There was a very high expectation by the target communities with regards to water
development interventions by SomReP projects that wasn’t fulfilled due to planned target
areas and budgetary constraints, however, the communities had even more expectation of
having more water points and building and rehabilitation of the many existing Berkards and
water pans.

11. SomReP has done good progress in training of CAHWs in project areas targeted, however,
many of the villages are still left out and they are livestock keepers who need animal health
support interventions. The communities also asked for support with animal health
inputs/drugs to support their communities well.

12. Some of the household reported to lack agricultural inputs and tools at the homes and hence
limiting their farming activities despite having the farming knowledge from the trainings. This
should be considered in the future interventions.

13. Timely procurement has given some challenges to support in agriculture and animal health
activities. Some veterinary drugs and cropping inputs are procured late into the seasons when
they are needed. Also, some veterinary drugs have been supplied at the wrong seasons and
end up not being used and expire. There is need to have timely procurement with strict
seasonal considerations, this may need close consultations with communities on the most
appropriate inputs for different seasons.

14. The programme intensity was low in most of the districts, thus there is need to enhance
sequencing and layering of the interventions in order to build resilience and sustainable
economic growth.

7.2 Lessons Learned and Way Forward

From the findings of the ARM study, Focus Group Discussion, Key Informant Interviews and
observation, the following are the lessons learned and opportunities for the way forward in the
targeted areas:

1. Challenges at the start of interventions: Initially, there were challenges occasioned by the fact
that the community was used to emergency assistance approach rather than in the active
involving processes as designed by SomReP to build resilience. However, the project has leaned
that persistence in working with the approach is changing communities’ perceptions and

Page | 80

establishing lead agents for change through the committees. This has resulted to significant
progress evident through community willingness, organization and ownership of the projects.
2. Culturally, it was difficult attaining gender balance with beneficiary communities, but with
advocacy and awareness, this is achievable especially with the gender roles of men and
women. The lesson is that with continuous mobilization and sensitization of the committees
and community elders, the perceptions can be easily changed positively. At the present,
women were reported to own livestock which wasn’t a common happening culturally.
3. Initially, based on the communities’ culture on lending and loaning, VSLAs was not ready
acceptable and adoption of the initiatives among the beneficiaries was slow and challenging.
As a result, this delayed implementation of the village saving and loan activities. However, the
initiative has finally been embraced following sustained efforts by the project to “sell” the
approach to the community, with many Women groups driving the changes and showing
positive progress.
4. There was a challenge of flooding of the riverbanks and rainwater from the upstream that
affected farmlands within the agro-pastoral communities. This was reported in Dollow,
Arapsio, Beerato and Gatililey areas. This has led to demoralization of farmers due to losses
and low agricultural produce. This lesson creates need for specialized structure for floods
control and proper timing of activity implementation in agriculture.
5. Most farmers are still doing canal irrigation despite the potential for introduction of drip
irrigation technologies to increase farmer’s productivity, save on water footprint and
competitiveness in the local market and therefore, improve their income. The future
interventions should consider water piping and use of irrigation for farming, example is
Beerato, Ceelsame and Arapsio villages in Somaliland.
6. Organizing farmers in groups has the potential in technology and knowledge transfers despite
many challenges that might hinder the improvement of farming efficiency to alleviate food
security and poverty. Provision of more training on group management and dynamic as well as
restructuring the groups should be considered as critical step for better performance and to
achieve the desired impact. Furthermore, the group members should be selected in a way that
facilitates carrying out their activities, including selecting members of the same interest as well
as the distance between their residential places and farm ownership. The local governments
should also be engaged in recognizing the established groups and support for their operations
including official registration and extension support.
7. There is need to enhance capacity development for many farmers with increasing need to
support farming inputs availability in the local markets. Communities reported only a
proportion of the farmers were trained within the target areas, many still have challenges of
controlling pest and disease, agronomy practices and need future support to benefit their
farms.
8. SomReP VSLAs support was a good intervention to increased credit access to the household of
the formed women groups. The groups reported to have benefitted much from VSLAs, where
business start-up had been seen by members of the groups. However, there was concern that
it was only implemented with varied packages for different groups with some not getting

Page | 81

startup funds given of USD 2500 in Beerato, while Arapsio villages are still yet to be supported
with this.
9. Support to marketing and value chain approach by SomReP was an excellent approach to
enhancing agriculture and food security sector. This approach should be further supported to
consider a holistic approach such as developing the whole value chain from production to
consumption. This should focus on developing an appropriate input supply system by
empowering the local suppliers to fully participate in technology transfer such as improved
seeds and irrigation kits, food-processing equipment among others.
10. Market linkages to Farmers: Most of the successful farming improvements in the world were
driven by the market; therefore, to improve the beneficiaries’ livelihoods, investment in
marketing linkages is critical for future interventions. These linkages can include investing in
innovative platforms, which will facilitate information sharing as well as educative interactions,
which will ultimately stimulate production at the farm level and use technology to market
farmers’ products with proper branding, e.g. need to explore online marketing platform with
traders in urban areas.
11. Working together with government and other development organizations: The ability of
SomReP to work with government line ministries and other development organizations and
sharing information was a good approach during project implementation. This reduced overlap
in activities within the same village and prioritized target areas for the various activities.
12. Local personnel/manpower in project implementation: The use of community members as
implementation partners for SomReP activities has increased the acceptance and won the
community goodwill of implemented activities and hence the great success of project.
13. Working with partners within their strong hold areas and sectors: SomReP did well by working
with consortium within their areas of strength in terms of presence. This should be maintained
while observing good working relations with the community.
14. Rain-fed agriculture: SomReP should support the already existing rain-fed agriculture by
training the farmers on simple on-site rain rainwater harvesting technologies such as; Zai pits,
range pits, semi-circular bands combined with proper agronomic practices. This gap was noted
during field visits where programmes focus was on irrigated farming and this can be enhanced
by strengthening the capacity of the communities on rainfed farming through training.
15. Rangeland Management: From the site visits, many of the grazing areas are denuded with a
lot of gulley erosion, and bare grounds. We recommend rangeland rehabilitation activities such
as holistic rangeland management (HRM) and reseeding to help rehabilitate these areas.
16. FMNR practices have benefitted the communities and should be upscale up within the entire
project areas.
17. There is much need to support CAAPs in all the project areas and this should be streamlined
and be transformed into government agenda to support future interventions for sustainability.
As it is now, the developed CAAPs are somehow referred to programmes activities, yet they
are community needs that need many stakeholders and governments to address within the
national development plans39.

39 Currently, the plans are ready but yet to be finance outside the SomReP.

Page | 82

18. EWEA interventions are critical in supporting resilience of the communities. However, the
present systems seem to be more of community information supply and feedbacks loop
system with little support on preparedness to the expected shocks support. The system should
be more robust with responsive feedback mechanism highly supported by the government and
development partners.

19. The communities were happy that the programme has always used experts in the provision of
trainings and infrastructural development and this strongly enhanced their confidence and
made them embraced the activities that have proven to be beneficial to them.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusion

The ARM study reveals that within the project implementation period, the project has introduced
highly suitable project interventions. The interventions have been adopted across the project districts.
The progress has been a direct result of a well thought out community participation approach. The
findings indicate the interventions are sustainable and effective with high potential to transform
targeted household livelihoods and increase in community and household’s resilience. The agriculture
and food security interventions enhanced the communities’ livelihoods, with the observed change in
yields and acreage under the cultivation. The GAP trainings conducted together with training in
marketing and savings has enabled increase in household incomes. Access to improved and diversified
income was achieved through investing in improved agricultural practices, animal health management
trainings, land rehabilitation, and Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLA). These interventions
were timely, effective, efficient and sustainable and have the potential to increase household
resilience. The implementation of these activities has a great impact on the livestock production and
productivity with many households accessing improved services and able to enhance livestock
production practices. The activities are reported to be suitable with high rate of sustainability. These
interventions have contributed greatly to poverty alleviation and have seen many vulnerable
households with enhanced ability to meet their daily needs.

7.1 Recommendations on SomReP ARM

Based on the interventions assessment, the following recommendations are provided:

1. The future interventions should consider setting up farmer learning Centre’s/demo-sites in all
targeted region to provide hands-on training within their localities with the support of the
ministry of agriculture to increase the extension support. This will allow more farmers to be
trained and reduce the costs of transportation and upkeep to model farms far away from the
villages.

2. Support with mechanization of farming activities. Most farmers are still doing small scale and
manual farming practices and request to be supported with mechanizations to increase
acreage. This creates need for commercialization of their production system and therefore
need for farm machinery and implements in future interventions to enhance the land
preparations and production practices.

Page | 83