Drought Needs Assessment Somaliland PDF

Drought Needs Assessment, Somaliland
November 23 – December 2, 2015

November 23–30, 2015
ActionAid Somaliland
DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 1

ACRONYMS
CHF Common Humanitarian Fund

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FSNAU Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit- Somalia
FGD Focus Group Discussions
KII Key informant Interview
HRP Humanitarian Respoose Plan
IHART International Humanitarian Action and Resilience Team (of ActionAid)
KII Key Informant interview
LRP Local Rights Programme (of ActionAid)
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
NERAD National Environmental Research and Disaster Management Authority
OIC-HCO Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Humanitarian Coordination Office
SWALIM Somalia Water and Land Information Management - Somalia
UTI Urinary Track Infection
VDC Village Development Committee
WC Women Coalition
HH Household

Contents
Chapters Particulars Page
Acknowledgement 4
Key findings and recommendations 5
Chapter I : Background and Overall Context 7
Chapter II : The Drought Need Assessment 9
Chapter III : Assessment Findings - Profile of the respondents 12
Chapter IV : Assessment Findings - Impact of Drought on Affected 15

Communities:
1) Water availability, (2) Farming, 3) Food security, (4) Livestock

keeping, (5) Children, (6) Women and (7) Elderly people
Chapter V : Relief Interventions, Coordination, Immediate and Long term 30

needs and Challenges during assessment
Chapter VI: Conclusion 34
Some Photographs 36
Endnote

Acknowledgement
I express my deepest appreciation to IHART, ActionAid Somaliland Team, my managers and colleagues in
ActionAid India for giving me this opportunity to conduct Drought Need Assessment in Somaliland. I am
grateful to Mustafa Ahmed of ActionAid Somaliland for his all-round support from during the period of
assignment and till the completion of the report. I thank Ahmed Adan, Head of Policy and Programme, AA
Somaliland for his support freedack and support finalising the report.
I would like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role played by Vibek Murya of ActionAid
Somaliland, who have guided and supported me in developing data collection system (ODK Collect), without
which data entry and analysis might have taken longer time. I would also like to appreciate the support given
by other ActionAid staff - Ndenyele Wilson, Marinela Marquez, Ahmed Daud and Hoodo and data
enumerators -Umulkhayr Abdillahi and Abdiqadir Ahmed. Without their help and support during the
assignment, the study could not have completed in such a short duration. I thank finance, admin and logistic
staff for their support.
Many thanks goes to Mr. Musa Awale, Director of NERAD, Mr. Abdirashid Omar Osman, Ministry of
Agriculture, Mr. Dario Cipolia and Mohamed Warsame of FAO, Faisal Ahmed Jama, Oxfam and others for
giving their valuable time to share information and suggestions, contributing to assess the situation.
Last but not least, many thanks go to the villagers, village leaders and women leaders for giving their valuable
time and information during the assignment.
Ashangbam Swapan Kr. Singha

Key Findings and Recommendations
Key Findings:
 12300 persons of 2015 HHs(5% HH and 5% population) in the LRP villages are affected in worst form and
108133 persons (of 18021 HHs) (40% population) affected severely;
 35-40% families are facing acute water crisis for human and livestock consumption. Additional 50% families
will no longer have access water from sources in respective village in next 15 days;
 Available water in water sources is not suitable for human consumption. But, people’s awareness on
quality/safety of water is limited, so water is explained by availability in quantity, not quality.
 As on date, the food security situation is grim. 89% families do not have food stock. Among the families
who do have food stock, 74% are coping by buying food from the markets and others families are receiving
support from the community. While most of them do not have income to buy food, price of staple food has
almost doubled.
 Poorest families has reduced food intake by reducing number of times and items of food (milk, meat,
vegetables), they normally consume. 10% families suffered hunger (suffered without food) during the week
before the assessment.
 35% families take food once a day and 55% families take food twice a day. It has contributed to
malnutrition of children, women and elderly persons;
 Starvation and malnutrition have affected more than 50% of children, women and elderly persons;
 35-40% of livestock died due to scarcity of fodder, pastures and water. The livestock is also facing drought
health problems like diarrhoea;
 78% of the families do not have fodder stock. More than 40% (part family members) have migrated along
with their livestock to coastal area in search of water and pastures;
 High incidence of water and personal hygiene and sanitation related diseases is widespread like diarrhoea,
urinary tract infection (UTI). The incidence among children and women are even higher.
 Work pressure on children has increased. 48% of children are malnourished and 46% of them are exposed
to various health risks;
 Work pressure on women has increased. 50% women are exposed to various health risks;
 Elderly persons have also exposed to health risk;
 Communities coping mechanisms has almost exhausted;
 Government is poorly resourced to address the impact of the disaster and unable to mobilise resources;
 Though the international Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for whole Somalia was only 36 percent
funded, there was no allocation of the Somalia Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF), 2015 in drought hit
Maroodi-Jeh and Gabiley regions of Somaliland.
 Though there are plans for intervention, aid agencies are yet come up with clear intervention plan; and
 Coordination among Government and Aid agencies has been weak.
As forecasted, if the impact of El - Nino get extended till 2016 and if the Gu rain fails in next season the
situation will deteriorate further to an extreme situation. It will be a massive disaster for the nation, which
will call for major relief operation.
Recommendations on immediate needs:

The situation calls for urgent relief intervention to reach out to 30-40% of worst affected and most
marginalised population till next harvest season. By the end of next two months of remaining population, at
least additional 20-25% will require relief support. The interventions will require coordination with
Government and other aid agencies for effectiveness, cooperation and technical mutual support.
 The relief requirement includes food, water, fodder, cash and health care (both for human and livestock);
 Awareness programme and trainings on water purification and personal hygiene and increase availability
of water treatment chemicals and filtration systems;
 30-35% most vulnerable families (women headed households, families with elderly persons) desperately
need relief support at the earliest to avoid further suffering till next harvest season;
 Preparation for more relief support to new entrants of communities in difficult circumstances (20-25%),
who will exhaust their food, water, fodder in next two months;
 Cash for work and support for livelihoods activities in Gu season and infrastructure development for water
conservation;
 Advocacy engagements and effective coordination with the Ministries and aid agencies for resource
mobilisation and relief delivery to avoid further suffering.
Recommendations on long term needs:
 The recommendations on long term needs are in the last chapter. The recommendations given are
suggestive and will require further deliberations as time was too short for detail recommendation.

Chapter I: Background and Overall Context
Somaliland is experiencing Map 1 a severe

drought affecting more
than 240,000 people
(40,000 households) 1 due to
harsh climatic conditions
triggered by El-Nino
phenomenon. The post-Gu
(April-May) season analysis by
the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO)/Food
Security and Nutrition
Analysis Unit (FSNAU),
Somalia, published in
October 2015, indicated dry
conditions in north western
parts of Somaliland and has
classified these regions as
being in “crisis” and
“emergency” 2 . The “areas that
may experience dry
condition”, predicted
(Somalia Water and Land
Information Management) by
FAO/SWALIM (published in
October, 2015), shown in
Map 1, have been
experiencing drought. The
situation is triggered by
shortfall of rains in Gu
seasons in 2014 and 2015. In
2014, Gu rain was delayed and was erratic, leaving community vulnerable, grazing land dried up and failure of
agriculture production in the regions. In 2015, Gu rain was received only in the eastern regions of Somaliland.
However, the western regions and coastal areas from Zaila to Sahil didn't have any rains other than spotted
rains in coastal areas of Sanaag region. The north western parts of Somaliland did not have any rain. As
forecasted, Woqooyi Galbeed and Awdal regions (also known as Maroodi-Jeh and Gabiley region) did not
receive Dyer (September-December) rainfall till date, worsening the situation further. The people also
experienced high temperatures especially in the coastal area. According to the Rapid Assessment of
Somaliland Drought, conducted by Organisation of Islamic Cooperation- Humanitarian Coordination Office
(OIC-HCO), the drought has affected six regions namely Awdal, Salal, Maroodijeeh, Gebiley, Hawd and Sahil3.
Concerns loom large as there is likely El Nino phenomenon for months in 2016 and predicted severe impact.
1
Drought in Somaliland- Somalia NGO consortium report, http://somaliangoconsortium.org/docs/key/17/2015/1442426615.pdf
2
Humanitarian Bulletin, Somalia, October 2015, OCHA, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/pdf_bulletin_today.pdf
3
Rapid Assessment of Somaliland Drought, OIC-HCO, 23-26 August, 2016, http://somaliangoconsortium.org/docs/key/4/2015/1441597710.pdf

The communities in the most affected regions - Maroodi-Jeh Map 2
and Gabileyare agro-pastoralists and pastoralist. These regions
are also considered as the food basket of the country. Failure of
rainfall in two consecutive Gu seasons resulted acute shortage
of water for farming, livestock and human consumption. These
triggered shortage of food, fodder, rapidly drying pasture and
water. Consequently, malnutrition has increased among the
infants, children, elderly persons, women- especially pregnant
and lactating mothers. According to Save the Children,
“malnutrition rates – especially among the children under the
age of five – are currently at alarming rates and are likely to
increase further”. Map 2, prepared by FAO/SWALIM (published
in October 2015) shows nutrition situation. It indicated
Maroodi-Jeh and Gabiley regions are critical. The OIC-HCO
reported death of 13 children and elderly people, which is
associated with drought related complications. The report also
highlighted 35-40% death of livestock – camel, goats, sheep
and cattle due to shortage of water and fodder/grass. It has
also observed cross-regional migration seeking assistance for food, water and grass. Many villages are
vacated by inhabitants due to the drought. The Somalia NGO consortium reported that affected communities
have been taking desperate steps to cope with the situation that include skipping meals due to shortage of
food and consuming contaminated water.
Map 3
The Government of Somaliland declared drought on August 10,

2015 and appealed to Governments and organisations to support with
food items, water and health services to cater for the affected
people. So far Government provided relief materials to the tune of
US$ 150,000. The intervention could support (food items and
water) only 3200 households of the 40,000 affected households in
the country. This indicates lack of resources with the Government to
address the impact and its inability to mobilise resources.
Aljazeera reported in October4 that “aid group have distributed
rations of flour, sugar, rice and cooking oil and are treating rising
malnutrition in the region but support so far is insufficient to meet the
needs of the affected people”. As per the report of Aljazeera, the
international Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for whole
Somalia was only 36 percent funded. As per the Somalia:
Humanitarian Funding Snapshot (30 November 2015)5 published by
OCHA, 31 million US$ was allocated in Somalia. However, the
2015 Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) Allocation, shown in Map 3, indicate that there was no allocation in
drought hit Maroodi-Jeh and Gabileyregions of Somaliland.
Chapter II: The Drought Need Assessment

4
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/somaliland-parched-earth-151130112224968.html
5
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Humanitarian%20Funding%20Snapshot%2C%2030%20November%202015.pdf

With the background and context described in Chapter I, ActionAid Somaliland conducted the Need
Assessment of drought affected communities in 3 Local Rights Programme (LRPs) areas of ActionAid, in
Marood-jeh and Gabiley regions.
Three LRPs cover 30 communities, shown in Map 4 below, in Marood-jeh and Gabiley regions. As per the
baseline survey conducted by ActionAid Somaliland in 2012, the total population in 30 communities was
estimated 269797 persons (44968 household)i. These communities are agro-pastoralist. A study conducted
by ActionAid Somaliland (AAS) in December 2014 quoted, settlements were established along the dry rivers
in the two regions Marood-jeh and Gabiley- and farmers began growing sorghum and maize as subsistence
crops. Even today, sorghum and maize remain the principal rain-fed crops grown in this area with very limited
inputs mainly in the form of labour and seed. The study also reported that on an average, each household in
the area owns 15 sheep, 16 goats, 3 cattle and 1.5 camels. While the minimum may be 0, the maximum
number livestock a household own is 130 sheep, 111 goat, 22 cattle, 70 camel, 50 poultry and 4 donkeys6.
Map 4: ActionAid Somaliland LRP locations
The objectives of the LRPs are to ensure (i) food security and promote endogenous development through the
improvement of agricultural production, the development of new commercialization channels and the
promotion of women’s entrepreneurship and (ii) that women break the cycle of exclusion, access to justice,
control and own productive resources. These projects have also taken up programmes for disaster risks
reduction through livelihoods and water conservation efforts. Since March 2013, ActionAid have constructed
74 shallow wells, 13 sand dams, 14 earth dams and rehabilitated 85 berkads for conservation of water. They
have also trained farmers on water management, and have planted 1200 square meter elephant grass for
retaining fertility of the soil; 2400 metre contour lines were constructed. They have also supported 72 water
pumps and 7200 metre pipe to communities for irrigating farms. Further 9,000 tillage (tractor hours)
supports were provided to 10,970 household to plough their farm lands. The farm support went along with
6
Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Production in Maroodijeeh and Gabiley Regions (Somaliland), ActionAid Somaliland, page 12, 24

training of 3,300 farmers on agriculture techniques. 54 grassroots women’s coalition was part of the
development activities and DRR carried out.
The objectives of the assessment are:
 To gather more detailed information on the overall context and situation of affected communities
and on the extent and type of the most critical humanitarian needs, both in the immediate and
longer term,
 To assess the impact and effectiveness of the emergency response efforts to date through
consultations with stakeholders,
 To work with the affected communities to understand the true nature of the disaster, its impact on
the communities and its underlying causes; and to understand the needs and biggest concerns of the
affected communities in order to develop an appropriate immediate and longer term program
response linked to country programme longer term development plans,
 To assess the likelihood of additional future problems or needs,
 To increase coordination and experience sharing between drought/disaster management actors like
NERAD and Oxfam in order to ensure coordination and avoid overlap of activities.
The scopes of the assessment are:
i. Validation of areas with extensive risks and vulnerabilities

ii. Perceptions on drought , appreciation for drought preparedness – technical and experiential
iii. Situation and Adaptation strategies
a) Availability of water for the communities affected
b) The general condition of livestock and crop production after the Karan and Deyr rains failed.
c) Food security, nutrition and livelihood, (and health) of the affected communities
d) Children, women, boys, disabled persons, elderly, and other vulnerable groups how it affected
e) Education
iv. Current drought strategies / actions and plans–communities, stakeholders (CSOs and duty-bearers)
v. Institutionalization and mainstreaming efforts – in policies, programs, budget, organizational
structures , plans (land use, etc)
vi. Early Warning Systems
vii. Cross-cutting issues – gender, protection
viii. Potentials for capacities

Methodology:
We have used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies of research. Quantitative data was collected
through structured questionnaire and qualitative data was generated through Focus Group Discussions
(FGDs) and Key informant interviews (KIIs).
For quantitative data, 5 villages from among 30 LRP covered villages are identified as sample, based on the
prevalence of drought situation (ranging from high to lower impacts). We drew 96 respondents, representing
respective householdsii, as random samples from selected 5 villages for the assessment. To complete data
collection and entry simultaneously in 3 days, we used mobile data collection system (ODK Collect) on tablets
running Android Operating System. The system generated first round of analysis, which was further analysed
through using MS Excel.
To collect qualitative information, FGDs and KIIs are conducted to understand overall situations of in the
sampled villages. 4 FGDs (2 with members of women’s coalition and 2 with men group) and 4 community KIIs
(2 leaders of women’s coalition and 2 Village Leaders of Village Development Committee are conducted.
To develop understanding of overall context and impacts of the affected communities, secondary
information are collected and analysed based on various reports, bulletins prepared by various Government
and non-government organisations, especially – OCHA, Somalia NGO Consortium, OIC-HCO and FAO. It was
validated by KIIs interview with few key stakeholders that include Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), Somaliland,
the National Environment Research and Disaster Management Authority (NERAD), Somaliland, Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Oxfam, Somaliland.
The data and information collected are triangulated and analyzed to generate a critical analysis of the
situation and assess immediate and long term needs of the affected communities in the 3 LRPs. We also
captured the risks in the most vulnerable sections communities – women, children, elderly and their specific
needs.
Timeline of the study:
23-27 Nov 28-30 Nov 30 Nov -2 Dec 3 Dec 4 Dec 7 Dec 10

Dec
- Secondary research Training - Data analysis De- Report Sub Submi
- Preparation of assessment of - Preparation briefing writing missi ssion
tools enumerat of de- with AA on of of
- Pilot test of assessment tools ors and briefing on Somalilan draft Final
- Finalization of tools data finding d team Repo Report
- Setting up mobile data collection rt
collection system

Chapter III: Assessment Findings - Profile of the respondents:
1. Demographic Profile: The sample for the assessment comprises of 96 respondents, out of which 52% are
female and 48% are male. Sample captures the age diversity - 31% are 15-35 years, 60% are between 35-65
years, and 9% are above 65.88% are married, 7 % are widowed, 3 % are separated, and 2% are unmarried. A
majority of 82% belongs to male headed households, 16% female headed households and 2% children
headed household.
2. Livelihoods profile: The communities living in the assessment area are agro-pastoralist.They have multiple
livelihoods that include farming, livestock keeping and petty trade. 96% of respondents have farms. The
following table shows percentage of households with area of land owned by them.
Area of land (5 qoodi = 1 hectare) <=5 >5=<10 qoodi >10=<15 >15=<20 >20 qoodi
qoodi qoodi
% of households 22% 31% 20% 11% 16%
Source: survey data
The respondents said all their farmlands are rain fed land. However, during FGD in Gogolwanag village,
though insufficient, especially in such a spell of drought, communities acknowledged having water ponds
with plastic sheets to irrigate their farms.
Analysis of the data collected shows that 86% of the respondents/households do both farming and livestock
keeping. 11% of the households had all three activities mentioned as their livelihoods. Only 3% of the
households are fully dependent on petty trade. The petty trades include qaad7 stall, tea stall, milk vending,
grocery shop, vegetable vending etc. The Graph 1 in the below shows combinations of the livelihood
activities of the respondents/households in the area.
Graph 1: Percentage of HH with combination of livelihoods
100% 86%
80%
60%
40%
11% 13% 7%
20% 3%
0%
Dependent on Dependent on Dependent on Solely dependent Solely dependent
farming, livestock farming and livestock and petty on farming on petty trade
keeping and petty livestock keeping trade
trade Source: Survey data
7
Qaad, also known as Khat, is a plant whose leaves and stem tips are chewed for their stimulating effect. The after effects are usually insomnia,
numbness and lack of concentration.

The farming households cultivate staple foods like sorghum and maize for their own consumption. They store
foods in granaries as preparation for difficult times, and sell their food products if and only if they have a
surplus, after keeping stock for feeding their livestock during fodder crisis. Only in Gogolwanag village, the
farmers also produce cash crops like oranges, guava, papaya, sesame and vegetables like – onion, pepper,
tomatoes, cabbage etc.
Among the petty traders, qaad retailers in the villages are doing good business even in the distress situation.
During FGDs, communities mentioned that consumption of qaad has not reduced, so the situation has not
affected the qaad retailers. Since most of the qaad retailers also runs tea stalls, their business and income
has not suffered. As majority of livestock has been transferred/migrated to coastal region seeking pastures
and water, availability of milk reduced. The remaining livestock in the village become weak and produce less
milk. So milk vendors are one of the worst affected retail traders. Even in case of grocery shops and vegetable
shops the sale has decreased drastically due to reduction of purchasing power of the communities and
increased price of most of the food items, including staple foods.
A 70 years old lady from Gogolwanag village has been trading milk for the last 30
years. She used to trade 300 litres of milk per day in Hargesia till 2013, earning 8
US$ a day. After onset of the drought, her trade suffered and she sells 20-20 liters
(4 jerrycans) of milk a day, which earn her 1 US$ or even less. She said, “The
production of milk has reduced as the livestock are weak, most of livestock
migrated. It has been very difficult for my family to survive with 1 US$ a day. If the
situation worsens and more livestock dies, I do not know how I will survive! Those
families who supply milk to me are equally suffering as milk used to give daily
cash, though small amount. We all need immediate food, water relief for human and livestock”.
3. Income profile: The major sources of income of the community are farming and livestock. The income of
the communities has reduced due to crop failure, death of livestock and weak health of livestock. ‘’Even
those livestock, which are surviving are weak and malnourished. There is no buyer for such livestock. We
desperately need water and fodder to save our livestock - the core source of income”, said by Abdulrahman,
Village Head of Ijara village. During the FGDs and KII in villages, communities expressed similar opinion on
reduction in income. They said drought has not only affected income farmers and livestock keepers, but also
of the petty traders as purchasing power of the communities have reduced drastically. The following Graph 2
shows a trend of falling income of the respondents in 2013-2015. The percentage of respondents in income
category of below 100 US$ increased from 1 to 60 respondents, while respondents in income category of
above 500 US$ reduced from 42 to 6 respondents. However, it is pertinent to mention that question on how
income was calculated was raised during a de-briefing meeting with AA Somaliland team. Though it was
difficult for the enumerators to assess income of respondents from all sources, the enumerators made best
effort to cross check. This is an area to explore to deepen our understanding on income by developing tools
for family calculating income of the communities. However, the assessment gives indication of income trend
of the affected communities.

Graph 2: Percentage of HH in income brackets during 2013-2014
70%
60%
60%
50% 41%
40% 33% 2013
30% 2014
17% 19% 18%15%
20% 12% 14% 14% 13% 14%
10% 2015
10% 6% 5% 6%
1% 2%
0%
<100$ >100=<200$ >200=<300$ >300=<400$ >400=<500$ >500$
Source: Survey Data
4. Any other source of income
When asked about additional sources of income, 34% respondents replied having additional sources of
money. Of the respondents, who had other source of money, 36% received remittances from family
members working outside the village, 64% received cash relief from NGOs. However, frequency and amount
of the money was not asked during household interview. The above mentioned study conducted by AAS
reported that “contrary to the assumption that remittances from relatives as source of income was rated
insignificant”8. During the FGDs, community members told that since there is no social security programme,
they do not receive any monetary support, except very limited food and water support as a relief. It is worth
mentioning that the Government has to come up with a Relief Manual.
5. Affected population and severity of impact (endnote ‘i’for details)
An analysis within ActionAid, Somaliland team indicates that 5% is worst affected in 4 LRP villages, 40% of the
population are severely affected in 8 villages. Remaining 55% of the population in 18 villages also partly
affected. However, their coping capacity will dwindle in the next few months and deteriorate the situation.
Table 1: Affected population and severity of impact
Population Households % of affected population % of affected Households

12300 2050 5 5
108133 18021 40 40
149364 24897 55 55
269797 44968 100 100
Source: survey data
Chapter IV: Assessment Findings - Impact of Drought on Affected Communities
8
Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Production in Maroodijeeh and Gabiley Regions (Somaliland), ActionAid Somaliland

The drought has impacted lives and livelihoods of the communities. The assessment looked in sectors of
extreme importance for lives and livelihoods of the communities. It emphasises on the impacts on (1) water
availability, (2) farming, (3)food security and (4) livestock keeping. We have also assessed impact on the most
vulnerable like children, women and elderly people, and have captured how communities are coping in the
distress situation. We have assessed if Gu rain fails in 2016 due to impact of El – Nino or land Nino,if extends
till 2016, as forecasted.
1. Sources of water and impact on availability of water at the sources:
Sources of water, ownership and management: Human and livestock use the same sources of water in
normal times, which include earth dam, sand dams, berkads (underground cistern), shallow well and pond
with rubber sheets. In normal times, 48% respondents have to travel less than 2 km; 27% travel 2 to less than
4 km; 12% travel 4 to less than 6 km; and 13% travel 6 Km or more to fetch water. During FGDs we are told
that while earth dam, sand dam, shallow well are owned communally, majority of the berkads and pond with
rubber sheets are owned by individual households. NGOs, including Concern World Wide, ActionAid and FAO
supported communities to construct earth dams, sand dams, shallow wells, berkads and pond with rubber
sheets for the communities. Though there is no water committee in the villages for management of water
sources and uses, the Village Development Committee (VDC) assume the role whenever required. But
women are hardly given opportunity to take part in discussions and management of the water sources as told
by Abdulrahman, Village Head of Ijara village.
The drought has created an acute shortage of water in the area. During group discussion, communities
expressed that they use multiple sources as coping mechanism as water scarcity has been a recurrent issue.
Analysis of the data collected from household survey shows that 46% respondents access water from earth
dams, 25% from berkads, 12% from pond with rubber sheets, 10% from shallow wells and 7% from sand
dams. During field visits shallow well was found only in Gogolwanag village. Mr. Abdul-Rashid Arab Jama, the
Village Head said that shallow well is a reliable source of water for the village. However, he was not sure -
how long communities can access water from the source?
Availability of water at the sources for human consumption:
79% of the respondents said water is currently available at sources in respective villages. Our observation is
that only about 30-35% HH are accessing water from the existing sources and the water available are
contaminated and not suitable for human consumption. This is also confirms by the Graph 3, in which 34%
respondents commented that there is no water that they can access from sources for human consumption. It
implies though water is available, water may not be safe for consumption.
About the quality of water at the sources in respective villages, 54% of the respondent thinks the water is
safe for drinking. We are told during sharing meeting in ActionAid Somaliland that people’s awareness on
quality/safety of water is limited, so water is explained by availability in quantity, not quality. But those who
feel water is not safe, 33% said the water is contaminated as it is being used by human and livestock. It has
bad odour (25%), muddy coloured (23%) and bad taste (29%) (Add on is more than 100% as the respondent
might have choice more than one reason). It contradicts with the outcomes of the FGDs and KIIs conducted
and observations during the field visit as water in all sources seems contaminated and not fit for human
consumption, except in very few berkads.
Only those who cannot afford to buy water continue to consume water available at the sources, except in
case of Gogolwanag village, where communities are still accessing water from a shallow well, which seems

safe. During FGDs and KIIs, communities briefed about the available sources of water and status of water
availability as shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2:Information collected through FGD and KII on water source and water availability at sources
Village Drinking water Shallow Earth Berkads Remarks
sources/water well dam
availability
Hidhinta Number 10 50 - Available water in the berkads is
Water 0 10 contaminated and stinks. The colour of
availability as on water was green. Poorest families continue
date to consume this water
- Families who can afford buy water supplied
by tankers from Arabsiyo, 15 km. from the
village, at 70 US$ per tanker.
Abaarso Number 4 6 - 2 berkads are privately owned and water is
available in those 2 berkads
Water 0 2
availability as on
date
Ijara Number 15 80 - Water are bought and supplied by tankers
Water 0 8 from Gabiley at 80 US$ per tanker
availability as on - Available water in the village can hardly
date sustain for 2/3 weeks for those who are
using water from berkads.
Bodhlay Number 11 No - Available water in the earth dam is
informati contaminated and muddy. It is consumed
on by both human and livestock. Poorest
Water 2 No families continue to consume the water.
availability as on informati - Better off families store water in ponds
date on with rubber sheets by carrying water from
the earth dams by a tanker.
- Water available can sustain hardly for a
week, for whoever is using.
- Get water from Borehole located in Boqor
village or Gabiley, 8 km. from the village,
the transported by water tanker at 80 US$.
Gogolwa Number 1 No No - Currently, water for human consumption
nag informa informati and livestock is available at the source.
tion on However, not sure of how long the source
Water 1 No No will sustain.
availability as on informa informati
date tion on
Source: Survey data
When it comes to water availability in the source, the respondents shared their concerns and expressed that
water at the source will not last for long. Graph 3 below shows percentage of households which can access
water from their respective village sources. 34% respondents do not have water at the source. 32%
respondents can access water from the source for 5 days, 19% can access for less than 10 days but less than 5
days and 12% can access for less than 20 days but more than 10 days.

Graph 3: Access to Water for human in the affected villages
Percentage of HHs and number of days that they can access water from
the water source fro human consumption
34% 32%
19%
12%
0 days <5 days >5=<10 days >10=<20 days

Source: Survey Data
Availability of water for livestock:
Currently, 31% respondents said that the water at sources has exhausted for feeding livestock and 69%
expressed there are water available at the sources in the respective villages. Among those who responded,
water is available in the villages, 23% respondents had opined that the stock of water in the village can
sustain less than 5 days, 10% said it will last for 10 days, 7% said it will last for 20 days. The Graph 4 below
shows percentage of households that can avail water from various village sources for range of number of
days.
Graph 4: Acess to Water for livestock in the affected villages
Percentage of HHs and number of days that they can access water for livestock from the water
sources in respective village
31%
23% 23%
10%
7% 5%
0 day <5 days >5-<10 days >10-<20 days >20-<30 days >30-<60 days
Source: Survey data
Coping mechanisms to access water for human consumption and livestock:
66% respondents buy water from within or outside the village both for human and livestock
consumption.The data also show that 3% respondents, who do not own livestock and dependent on petty
trade, do not buy water for livestock.
Coping water requirements for human consumption: Respondents who cannot access water from within the
villages due to water shortage are coping through multiple means. 24% buy water supplied by water tanker,
41% fetch water from neighbouring villages and 35% fetch it from any other sources. During FGDS and KII in
the villages, the respondents expressed that the consumption of water has reduced and women in the family

take additional role of rationing water. 100% respondents said they are compromising with drinking and
cooking needs, 76% reduced water use on washing and cleaning, 59% on hygiene needs because of water
scarcity (add on is more than 100% as the respondent might have reduced consumption of water in more than
one uses). Women Coalition members in FGDs in Hidhinta and Abaarso expressed that reduction in water
consumption has impacted on hygiene and sanitation practices of the affected people, especially women and
children. It has contributed to water and sanitation related health problems like diarrhoea, skin diseases,
urinary tract infection (UTI).
Ms. Zeinab Ahmed, a 43 years old widow, lives with 6 children in Hidhinta
village. She is an active member of village women coalition. Currently, she
owns 15 goat/sheep and 2 cattle as 10 goat/sheep and 3 cattle died in 2015.
Investing 108 US$ on tractor hours, she sow seeds in her 5 qoodi farmland in
2015, but the crop did not grow due to water deficit. Her family has been
surviving on community support. She buy water from berkads at 500 SSh
(0.07 US$) per jerrican of 20 litres and family members continue to consume
contaminated water. She said, ‘’the available water in the village will last for
another week. I know that the quality of water is not good as it is green and smells badly. I have no option but
to use the water as I cannot afford to buy a safe water supplied by water tanker”.
Coping water requirements for livestock: 21% respondents buy water supplied by water tanker, 38% fetches
water from neighbouring village and 41% hunt water from any other sources. This is indicated during FGDs
and KII that communities are migrating from villages to coastal areas in search of water and pasture. During
FGDs and KII, communities in Hidhinta Village, 40% of HHs from Gogolwanag village and 40% households
(part of the household members, mostly men and some boys) migrated to the coastal area (Guben). During
discussion, communities said since the coastal region had rainfall this year, water is available and there were
regeneration of pastures. As the situation now is getting worse, everyday new households are migrating to
the coastal region.
Currently, the weekly water consumption of the respondents for human and livestock are as shown in the
Graph 5 (a barrel contains 200 litres of water). While asked about per person consumption of water, we
could not access specific answer. However, in normal times, the basic water requirements may be below 4-6
litres per day9 in Somaliland. General guess is that current per person consumption of water less than 3 litres
per day.
9
Rural Water Supply Assessment report, 2007, Somalia Water and Land Information Management/Fao, http://www.mbali.info/doc464.htm

Graph 5: weekly water consumption in the assessed area
Percentage of HH and per week consumption of water for human and livestock (in
barrel)
32%
25%
19%
12%
7% 6%
<2 barrel >2-<5 barrel >5-<10 barrel >10-<20 barrel >20-<30 barrel >30 barrel
Source: Survey data
Shortage of water has resulted in price increases of water at the villages. During FGDs and KIIs, it was
revealed that the current rate of water per tanker (50 barrel =10,000 litres) ranged from 70-80 US$. So, the
average price of per jerrycan (containing 20 litres) is 0.15 US$. 10-12 families share the cost of water supplied
by tankers, an individual family cannot afford. Depending on nearness to the sources, the affected villages
buy water from Gabiley, Boqor and Abarsiyo etc. However, the minimum distance from villages is around 10
km.
2. Impact on Farming:
The failure of Gu season rainfall in 2014 and 2015 has impacted on crop production in its worst form. Though
farmer could harvest some farm products in 2014, there was no production or very nominal production in
2015. 90% respondents said there was zero grains/cereals harvested in 2015 due to shortage of rains in the
area. Mere 10% said they have done farming with the support of aid from the NGOs as evident in
Gogolwanag village. By ‘aid’ community indicated the support provided for construction of pond with plastic
sheets for water conservation. However, since water was too less in those ponds, it was not sufficient for the
farms. During FGDs and interviews with key informants, the farmers narrated that they prepared land for
farming in 2015 but the seeds failed to germinate for lack of water.
Mr. Abdul-Rashid Arab Jama, Village Head and a member of VDC in

Gogolwanag village, described,“the staple crops like sorghum and maize
failed and cash crops like orange, vegetables could not mature due to water
deficit. The standing cash crops like orange, vegetables are not matured
and drying in my village. More than 100 families are living in starvation and
children are suffering malnutrition”.
Production trend Graph 6: Trend of farm production in the last 3 years

2013-15:

74% respondents of household survey said there has been reduction of production in last 3 years. Analysis of
the data of the household survey shows that there was a reduction of production of all crops – staple crops
like sorghum (in
sack), millet (in
sacks), maize (in
sack), pulses (in
sack), groundnuts
(in sacks), sesame
(in sacks) and cash
crops like cabbage
(in kg), tomato (in
kg.), watermelon (in
pieces), orange (in
sacks). The Graph 6
on the right hand
side shows
reduction in total
production in three
consecutive years
(2013, 2014 and
2015) of some
major crops in the Source: Survey data
area.
Causes of the reduction in production: The major causes of the reduction in production cited by the
respondents include deficiency of rainfall in 2014 and 2015 and consequent water scarcity for farming, pest
attack, lack of money and lack of man power. The principal reason identified by 70% of respondents is
inadequate rainfall and consequent water deficit for farming. 17% of the respondents said pest attack is
another cause of crop failure. 39% and 23% of the respondents said lack of money and lack of person power
are also responsible for low productivity. Mr. Ahmed Abdi, a farmer of Gogolwanag village said, “Failure of
rains for two consecutive years is solely responsible for this desperate situation, while other reasons are
supplementary”.
Cost of farming: The respondents also are of the view that the cost of farming has increased over last 3 years.
The kind of inputs on which expenditures are increasing include - tillage (tractor hour), seeds, labour cost,
fertilisers, and irrigation. 54% of respondents expressed that the maximum expenditure incurred is on tillage
(tractor hour). 30% and 20% of the respondent have shared opinion that expenditures on seeds and
fertilisers and pesticides respectively are increasing. 21% and 5% respondent acknowledged that
expenditures on the labour and irrigation has also drastically increased. During FGDs and KII, the
communities validated the fact that there is increased cost of tillage (tractor hours) from 9 US$ in 2013 to 12
US$ 2015. They also expressed concern about non-availability of seeds. Since they could not harvest this year
and even their stocks of seed are consumed, communities do not have seeds for the next farming season.
3. Impact on Food security:
The failure of crops has severely impacted on the food and income security of the affected families.
Generally, sources of food of the respondents are multiple. 65% respondents shared that their source of
food is own production and 68% procure food from the market. Other sources of food include - gifts from

extended family, support from community members and food aid. Only 5-8% respondents access food from
these sources.
Analysis of data shows that the percentage of households which had stock of food for more than 10 months
was 48% in 2013, which declined to 12% in 2014 and none in 2015. The following Graph 7 and Graph 8 shows
food stocks in last 3 consecutive years and break up of food stock situation in 2015. The majority of
respondents could sustain till date due to food stocks of 2014 with very minimal products in 2015.
Graph 7: Trend of food stocks at households in the affected area in 2013-2015
Percentage of HHs with range of food stocks in 2013-2105 (in months)
2013 2014 2015
86%
45%
38%
31%
16% 19% 20% 16%
13% 12%
1% 0% 3% 0% 0%
<=1month >1-<=5months >5-<=10months >10-<=15months >15months

Source: Survey Data
The Graphs 8 show that 63% respondents did not have food stock in 2015 due to crop failure. During FGDs
and KII, communities said more than 90% of families did not harvest, so they do not have food reserve. They
said, those who had stocks are left over of 2014 storage, could sustain till date and even supported food
deficit families in respective community. In Hidhinta village, the communities said more than 100 households
do not have any food and are dependent on community contribution and by December, more than 80% of
the families will not have any more food stock. As per the household survey, currently 89% of the
respondents said they have exhausted stocks.
Graph 8: Access to Food in the drought affected area
Percentage of HHs with range of food stocks in 2015 (in months)

80%
63%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0month >0-<=1month >1-<=2months >2-<=3months >3-<=4months >4months
Source: Survey Data

Coping mechanisms to access food: Households which do not have food stock are coping through multiple
means. 74% respondents buy food from markets, 15% get support from community members, 7% received
food/money from relatives, 1% respondent received food aid from NGOs and 1% respondent received food
aid from Government.
The crop failure and food scarcity have led to increase prices of staple food. 71% respondents said there has
been increase in prices of food products. It is also evident from discussion during FGDs/KIIs that communities
have reported trend of price rise of staple food items as shown below in Table 3. The most important
concern is that 75% respondents said they do not have savings or source of income to sustain their families as
income from milk and livestock has reduced.
Table 3: Trend of Price Rise of staple food (2013-15)
Items Price in 2013 (in US$) Price in 2014 (in US$) Price in 2015 (in US$)
Sorghum per kg. 0.20 0.24 0.40
Maize per kg. 0.27 0.33 0.53
Source: Survey data
The food insecurity and starvation situation is also reflected in results of a household survey. 90% of the
respondents said that the food intake of their family members has reduced. 35% of the respondents take
food once a day and 55% take food twice a day, while only 10% better off family consume food thrice a day,
like normal years.
It is important to note that 10% respondents suffered hunger (suffered without food) during the week before
the day of assessment. Most of the families are also compromising with type of food they usually consume.
The following Graph 9 shows percentage of household compromising with different types of food they
usually consume. More than 66% of the respondents are compromising with milk, meat, vegetables and
staple food. It has affected and has severe nutritional implications of the affected communities, especially
among children, lactating and pregnant women, and elderly persons.
Graph 9: Daily Food consumption in the drought affected area
Percentage of HH compromising on type of food community usually consume
82%
69% 72%
66%
Milk Staple food Meat Vegetables

Source: Survey Data
4. Impact on livestock keeping:

Graph 10: Drought effects on the livestock
As mentioned in
Graph 10: number of livestock lost over the years - Source: Survey data
section on
livelihoods of
communities, livestock
keeping go along with
farming. 86% of the
respondents
acknowledged that they
have both activities as
their livelihoods. During
FGDs and KIIs,
communities expressed
that livestock are the
most important assets
Graph 11: number of livestock lost over the years - Source: Survey data
and source of income of
the families and livestock
function as insurance in
needs and distress. The
community made
observation that
the drought has
Source: Survey Data
impacted
severely on their
livestock as there
has been a
drastic reduction
in livestock
population in the
area. The Graph
10 shows drastic
reduction of
livestock
populations (in
total) in the area.
On the other
hand, there was
no reported case
of camel death
during the household survey, during an interview with KII and transect walk conducted during the field visit,
we came across and reported carcass of camel in Ijara village.
However, it is very negligible compared to the number of deaths in sheep and goat. More than 1000 and 700
livestock died in Ijara and Gogolwanag villages respectively in 2015. According to the village heads of
respective villages, the population of livestock has reduced almost by half as indicated in Graph 11 on the
right side of this page.

Source: Survey data
Ms.Raho Abdi, 30 years, lives with her husband and 8 children in

Hidhinta village. In 2015, her family did not have any harvest. Her family
survived with food stock from 2014 production, which lasted for 4
months in 2015. Her family had 70 goat and 10 cattle in 2014. More than
half of them died and currently her family has 20 goats and 5 cattle. She
told that all the livestock are malnourished and weak and her husband
has migrated to Guben with remaining livestock. We do not have money
to buy food and fodder. Nobody is willing to buy emaciated livestock. She
said, “I do not know how to feed my children! Where will I get water as I do not have money to buy it
from Arabsiyo. My family is in dire need of food and water relief”.
Causes of death of the livestock: The respondents have given cause of death of the livestock. 69% and 36%
respondents mentioned deficits of fodder and lack of pastures for grazing respectively, are two major
reasons, along with 48% respondents highlighting water deficit as major cause. 24% respondents mentioned
that disease attack caused death of livestock, while 2% said there are cases of natural death. During the FGDs
and KII, community members have deliberations confirmed that deficits of fodder and pastures and water
deficit are the sole causes of high death rate of livestock, while diseases are outcomes of drought. The
communities identified PPR (Peste Des Petits Ruminants), tickborne, respiratory, helminthiasis and dysentery
diseases among the livestock. They also expressed concerns about no or limited access to veterinary care.
Currently, 78% of the respondents did not have fodder stock. They are coping through multiple means. 61%
respondents said they buy fodder and 28% travel long distance for herding. Remaining 10% receive fodder
support from relatives and community members. Due to failure of crops and failure of regeneration of
pastures the price has increased and the total expenditure in 2015 on fodder has increased. The Graph 12
shows percentage of HHs with range of expenditure in 2015. It shows 40% respondents spent between 150
to 300 US Dollar on fodder and 37% spent more than 300 US Dollar.

Graph12: Costs on fodder in 2015 for livestock survival
45
40 40
35
30
25
20 19
18
15
10 9 9
5 5
0
<50$ >50=<100$ >100=<150$ >150=<300$ >200=<400$ >500$
Source: Survey Data
Coping mechanism to access fodder: While majority of livestock keepers purchase fodder, many livestock
keepers are travelling long distance for herding. 61% respondents said that they have been buying fodder.
28% respondents travel/migrate to long distance for herding. As mentioned above, the affected families,
mostly the poorest and vulnerable are migrating to coastal areas for pasture and water. According to the
communities, during FGDs/KIIs conducted, they have to pay to the landowners, who own the pasture land.
Cost of livestock keeping: While the communities suffered major losses due to high number of livestock
death, they are equally experiencing pressure of increased expenditure on livestock keeping in last 3 years.
73% respondents acknowledged increased expenditure on livestock keeping. The type of expenditure
includes cost for purchasing fodder, water and animal health care. 65% respondents indicated higher
expenditure on purchasing fodder, 43% pointed out higher expenditure on water and 33% on animal health
care. It was confirmed by community during FGDs and KIIs and described that there is no or limited facility for
animal health care and cost is comparatively less. But the cost on fodder and water has increased due to
drought. During the FGD conducted in Hidhinta and information shared by KII in Gogolwanag and Ijara, they
shared the price of fodder per camel load increased from US$ 20 in 2014 to US$ 50 in 2015. In addition,
communities are currently incurring US$ 15 to transport from Arabsiyo. In Gogolwanag, the farmers had
surplus fodder in 2013. The Graph 13 below shows trend of expenditure on livestock keeping. It shows 44%
respondents spend more than 300 US$ in 2015 (as on November 2015).

Graph 13:Trend of Expenditure on Livestock keeping 2013-14
2013 2014 2015
26% 25%
20%19% 21%
16% 16% 16%
14% 13% 13% 14% 13%
10% 11%11% 10% 10%
8% 8%
6%
<50 $ >50-<100 $ >100-<150 $ >150-<200 $ >200-<300 $ >300-<500$ >500$

Source: Survey Data
5. Impact on children:
Work pressure on Children: The current situation has impacted children in multiple fronts. During FGDs and
KIIs conducted in the villages, community expressed in agreement that work pressure on children has
increased. They said that children spend more hours than normal time to fetch water, spend more hours than
normal time to herd the livestock and spend more hours than normal time in household chore works. While
boy child spends more time in taking care of the livestock in herding, girl children take more time fetching
water and other household chores. During FGDs communities said childen spend on an average 3 hours more
in the above mentioned activities than the normal years.
Education of children: It has impacted education of children - 5% of boy and 6% of girl children of the
respondent’s family dropped out or not attending classes regularly. In most of villages, community members
during FGDs have expressed that while family members are migrating along with the livestock, it is generally
the male members, leaving behind women and children at home. The children who dropped out of school are
those who migrated with parents in search of pastures and water or those who are spending more time in
the works mentioned above. In Gogolwanag village, the community members said there must be no/less
number of dropped out children as WFP runs feeding programme in the school.
Conceived risks to children: 48% and 46% of the respondents have identified malnutrition and health risks
respectively. 20% respondents and 11% respondents identified starvation and migration respectively.
Starvation being contributing factor to malnutrition, the major concern is food insecurity and its health
consequences on the children. Child labour is considered as risks to children by 9%.

Graph 14:Percentage of respondents with identified risks of children
Percentage of respondents with identified risks of children
46% 48%
20% 11% 9%
health risk malnutrition starvation migration child labour

Source: Survey Data
Health issues of children: 33% of the respondent observed that children health is deteriorating. 68% of them
indicated multiple health problems among their children. 36% of the respondents observed skin diseases
among their children, 20% respondents observed diarrhoea, 7% measles, 4% observed urinary tract
infections (UTI), and 34% informed others ailments. During FGDs in Hidhinta and Abaarso, community also
mentioned cold and coughs among children. Community in Hidhinta mentioned that more than 10
infants/children died in 2015- this requires further probing. They said this may be due to malnutrition of
mother and infants. They also said absence of health care facilities is a major cause of such death. The
nearest health centre is Gabiley town, which is also not fully equipped to handle a critical health case and
falls short of medicine. Communities have to buy medicine as there is no enough medicines available in
health centre. Poor families cannot afford to buy medicine. Hidhinta village does not even have a trained
traditional birth attendant (TBA). In Gogolwanag village, community informed having a trained traditional
birth attendant. In Abaarso, community in FGDs expressed that there are more than 50% children with
symptoms of malnutrition- swollen abdomen, dry skin, etc.
6. Impact on women:
Work Pressure: During FGDs and KIIs conducted in the villages, community expressed that work pressure on
women has increased in the drought situation. 79% of the respondents have also observed in agreement of
this fact. Women have to spend more time in search of water and have to travel long distance for grazing
livestock and searching fodder. During FGD in Hidhinta, members of Women Coalition, said 30% of women –
who are the poorest have to travel 2-3 hours to fetch water on donkey (which can carry 4/6 jerrycans, one
jarrycan containing 20 litres) - 3 times a week. Women also have to do additional work as men (10%) have
migrated to cities/towns for work and nearly 40% of male members have travelled to coastal area in search
of pastures and water. Communities also expressed that water rationing in the family become additional
responsibility of women in the families.
Ms. Shamis Samatar Ahmed, Chairman of Abaarso Women

Coalition said, “Women suffer in this distress. They are overloaded
with work as they take maximum burden of managing the family.
We are always worried about what to feed our children and other
family members. Only a mother knows the pain that a mother
goes through when they see their children in hunger and
starvation. So we overwork to perform our responsibilities. But, we
are exhausted. We need immidaite relief support from
Government and aid agencies”.

Psychological impact: During FGDs conducted with women groups in Abaarso and Hidhinta villages, women
expressed that women are also psychologically burdened. While family income has drastically reduced and
there is no stock of food to feed family members, women share more burdens to run the family. Tension
within family emerges on sharing of work and responsibilities and distribution of available money among
different uses. Chewing qaad by male members of the family and high expenditure on qaad is one of the
major sources of tension in the family.
Conceived risks to women: Respondent informed that women face multiple risks in the situation shown in
Graph 15 below. 50% respondents and 43% respondents have identified health risks and malnutrition
respectively. 19% and 18% respondents identified starvation and migration respectively. Starvation being
contributing factor to malnutrition, the major concern is starvation and its health consequences on women
too. During FGDs, the members of Women Coalition in Abaarso and Hidhinta villages said, though the case of
domestic violence has not increased, due to patriarchal norms of the society women continue to suffer,
especially in such distress situation. They said while there is less number of domestic violence and formal
divorce, cases of neglect by husbands and separation are very high in the villages.
Graph 15: Identified risks for women in the drought affected area
percentage
50%
43%
19% 18%
8%
2%
health risks malnutrition starvation migration domestic violece Others
Source: Survey data
Health concerns: Regarding health condition of women, 39% of the respondents also feel that women’s
health is deteriorating due to drought situation. Among those who identified health problems have said
women have been facing multiple problems. 27% respondents observed urinary tract infection (UTI), 9%
observed skin diseases, 6% and 5% observed diarrhoea and measles respectively. In Hidhinta and Abaarso,
members of women’s coalition said that maternal health is also a concern as the male members got migrated
to care livestock, leaving no cash in the family. They also said that 50% women are malnutrition. In Abaarso,
members of Women’s Coalition said at least 6/7 out of 10 women (60-70%) has UTI and 50% of women are
malnourished. Women Coalition and members of community during FGDs have expressed that the nearest
health centres are at Gabiley and Hargesia. On an average, the closest health centre is at a distance of 20 km.
Villager in Bodhley expressed that the health centre at Gabiley, which are near to their villages does not have
adequate medicine. In most cases, we have to buy from private pharmacies. The poorest in the community
cannot afford such medicine.
7. Impact on elderly people
There were discussions carried out during the FGDs on issues pertaining to the elderly people among the
affected communities. Some of the concerns raised in Hidhinta and Abaarso are deterioration of health due
insufficient food intake and reduced number of persons to care. Since 40% able members of the family have

migrated for caring livestock, care of the elderly has reduced. Non-accessibility to health care has worsened
the situation of the elderly and ailing persons.
If Gu rain fails in 2016
As forecasted if the impact of El - Nino get extended till 2016, and the Gu rain fails, the situation will get
worst. In such a case 48% respondents said that they have to migrate to cope, 31% responded that they look
forward support from the government and 21% responded that they do not know how they will cope with
projected situation!

Chapter V: Relief Interventions, Coordination, Immediate and Long term needs and Challenges during
Assessment
Relief intervention so far:
Though the situation started worsening from early quarter of 2015, the Government declared drought in
August 2015. There has been very little support delivered in the assessed villages. Only 13% respondents/
households had received some relief materials. However, most of the relief materials were provided by the
village community (36% of the respondents) and extended families (46% of the respondents). 15%
respondents have also acknowledged receiving some relief materials from NGOs. During FGDs in Ijara village,
Village Development Committee informed that OIC supported the village with 100 sacks of food comprising
of rice, sugar, oil in May 2015. Communities in Ijara and Gogolwanag also acknowledged that they have
received food relief from the Government in August 2015. They informed that the amount of relief was too
little compared to needs. The VDC and Women Coalition could hardly distribute around 30 and 10 most
vulnerable families in Ijara and Gogolwanag villages respectively.
During the meeting with Mr. Musa Awale, Director of NERAD, he confirmed that Government distributed
food aid to 3,200 families in August 2015. The amount spent during the relief operation was 150,000 US$. He
agreed to the fact that need on the ground is much more than what has been done. This indicates lack of
resources of the Government to address the precarious condition of the affected peoples and its inability to
mobilise resources.
Coordination:
All stakeholders, consulted during the assessment period, have admitted that the coordination has been
weak. There is very little effort of aid agencies to coordinate among themselves, except in occasional cases.
So, aid agencies don’t know each other’s area of operation and the kind of work in detail. In such case there
are possibilities of duplicating the effort. The aid agencies look forward at relevant Ministries and NERAD to
take the role of coordination. But, coordination even among the different Ministries like Ministry of
Agriculture, Ministry of Livestock and NERAD seems weak. This was reflected during our conversation with
Mr. Abdirashid Omar Osman at the Ministry of Agriculture and Director of NERAD.
NERAD organised a coordination meeting in which aid agencies were invited. Those aid agencies which
attended were requested to inform respective intervention plans. The Director of NERAD said, “So far no
agency has informed any concrete plan and could not organise follow up meeting yet”. Though the Ministry
of Agriculture invited aid agencies for a coordination meeting twice in the month of November 2015, no
agency turned up to the meeting. According to Dario Cipolia of FAO, “I agree that there has been weak
coordination between Government and aid agencies. We need an effective coordination mechanism for
effective relief and development interventions. However, to be more effective, it is the role of the line Ministry.
So we look forward to the Ministry”.
Immediate needs:
The situation calls for immediate emergency intervention. The requirement includes food, water, fodder and
health care – both for human and livestock and cash. 97% of the respondents have sought food and water
and 69% sought fodder for livestock. 64% and 46% respondents sought human and animal health care
support. During FGDs and KII conducted,all the participants and key informants sought support from

Government and aid agencies to provide the affected communities with water, food and fodder. There is also
need for special intervention for nutrition support for children, lactating and pregnant mothers. From the
discussions, there is a need to promote safe personal hygiene practices to reduce UTI and skin diseases. Raho
Saeed-Chairman of Women Coalition in Hidhinta Village, said, “on behalf of the villagers we are sending
appeals to the Government and aid agencies to provide immediate food, water and fodder support to save
human and livestock”.
Graph 16:Percentage of respondents on immediate needs
97% 99%
69% 64%
46% 51%
water for drinking food fodder for health support animal health cash
and other human animals support
consumption
Source: Survey Data
During interviews with other different stakeholders like Oxfam, NERAD, Ministry of Agriculture, they shared
similar view that this situation yells immediate intervention, especially in Gabiley region on the sectors that
are highlighted above by the communities. But, the Authority and aid agencies seem more focused on food,
water, fodder and cash. Though the stakeholders are concerned about death of livestock and increasing
weakness of the livestock, no plan of intervention was highlighted by any of the agencies met. (This may be
due to the fact that we could not access plan of Ministry of Livestock). It is interesting to note that Oxfam has
been implementing a multi-country programme in Somaliland and Ethiopia in the border areas of Maroodi-
Jeh region. The programme advocates for providing ‘Green Card’ to pastoralist of the both counties to enable
to access pastures to both sides when livestock are in distress due to drought. However, this has been the
practice of pastoralist communities in the porous border for ages.
The aid Agencies are preparing for some intervention. FAO is proposing for cash for work intervention.
According to Dario Cipolia of FAO, “Cash for work intervention will give the affected communities space to buy
their basic needs and through the activities the communities will create earth dam and other water storage
infrastructure for water conservation in future”.
Long term needs:
The long term needs of the affected communities were discussed with during FGDs and KII. The key areas of
long term intervention, which can be integrated into AA Somaliland’s long term work:
Reflection and learning:

 Reflection and learning from the current drought situation to prepare comprehensive DRR plans in
consultations with all stakeholders. This will require learning from communities’ experiences and
technical and non-technical collaboration with the Ministries and other aid agencies.
Water sector:
 According to available data, the annual rainfall is around 500 millimetres in Somaliland. According to the
FAO, this amount of rainfall sufficient for the country, if conserved proprely. However, Somaliland lacks
watershed-management plan. Communities could be encouraged for developing watershed management
plan under a Government led comprehensive watershed management plan of the area/region. It has to go
along with environment and forest protection and promotion plan as rain contributes to high soil erosion,
including top fertile soil erosion.
 We can consider advocating for an effective Water Policy to execute water conservation programmes and
management of water resources under the Ministry of Water and Mineral Resources.
 There is little information available on Hydrogeology to identify the best locations for the establishment of
boreholes and shallow hole. There is a need for establishment for boreholes and shallow well to address
frequent water shortages during the dry season10. But in the long run the emphasis should be more on
watershed management and rainwater harvesting, considering the fact that there are reports revealing
many of the shallow wells drying up.
 It calls for promotion of rainwater harvesting and conservation of water for all uses. Existing water sources
like berkads, earth dam, sad dam and ponds with plastic sheets need de-silting. Construction of more such
sources needs to be encouraged. We should advocate for water as rights of the communities.
 Advocate to introduce governmental programs geared towards climate change adaptation.
Agriculture sector and food security and livestock sector:

 Somaliland imports 90% of its food requirements. While we need to work on food security, we are also
required to look forward the question of food sovereignty. This calls for increasing production capacity
and diversification of indigenous crops. It calls for infrastructure developments like irrigation facilities;
multiple cropping in 2 seasons, seed conservation and production of drought resistance seeds, support
with tractor hours, organic manures and incorporation of legumes into the cropping system etc.
 Promotion of community food bank and individual granaries as part of DRR programme
 Promote the cultivation of drought tolerant fodder species for improved livestock feeding and productivity
and advocate for a comprehensive plan for grazing area development and veterinary care.
 Long term nutrition programme for children, women, especially pregnant and lactating mother and
advocate for Government policies towards nutrition security.
Health sector:
 Advocate for establishment more Health Centres, appointment of more health workers, increase
availability of low cost medicine and Health outreach programmes.
10
http://www.mbali.info/doc464.htm

Challenges during the assessment:
The assessment was conducted from the November 23 to December 2, 2015. In developing understanding
overall scenario, tools for the assessment and data entry and analysis systems, it took 5 days. The actual field
work in the sample villages was carried out on November 28-30. We could conduct only 2 hours training for
the enumerators on November 28. We could interact with other stakeholders on the December 1-2. Within
this time constraints, it was challenging for me and the team to accomplish tasks without errors. Since the
time taken to train for the enumerators, errors might have caused due to conceptual un-clarity e.g. income of
the family. We also found inconsistency or missing data in some cases. There were also cases of data entry
error in the field. However, the information collected through FGDs was of much help in filling the gaps and
putting forward quality aspects the data and information collected.
Data collection and entry was done simultaneously through ODK Collect. While it helped us in collecting and
analysing the data in such a short time frame, it also had its own limitations. We could not create provision
for open ended answers or more options to reply due to time frame. So there was less chance to further
probing the answers given by respondents and lack quality aspects of the data collected.
Last but not least, the consultant’s own understanding about the communities and the area was limited. He
learnt along as the exercises that were carried out during the assessment.

Chapter VI: Conclusion
 12300 persons of 2015 HHs(5% HH and 5% population) in the LRP villages are affected in worst form and
108133 persons (of 18021 HHs) (40% population) affected severely;
 Water has become very scarce and costlier. 35-40% families are facing acute water crisis for human and
livestock consumption as water at sources dried. Additional 50% families will exhaust water available in
respective villages in next 15 days;
 Available water in water sources is not suitable for human consumption. But, people’s awareness on
quality/safety of water is limited, so water is explained by availability in quantity, not quality;
 25-30% families, who can afford are buying water from outside the village like Gabiley, Arabsiyo, Boqor
and other sources. 41% families travel around 20 km thrice a week to fetch water on Donkey;
 The food security situation is grim. 89% families do not have food stock. Among the families who do have
food stock, 74% are coping by buying food from the markets and others are receiving support from the
community. While most of them do not have income for buying food, price of staple foods has almost
doubled;
 Poorest families have reduced food intake by reducing number of times and items of food (milk, meat,
vegetables) they usually consume. 10% families suffered hunger (suffered without food) during the week
before the assessment. It has increased malnutrition among children, women and elderly persons;
 35-40% of livestock died due to scarcity of fodder, pastures and water. The livestock is also facing drought
health problems like diarrhoea;
 78% of the families do not have fodder stock. More than 40% (partly family members) have migrated
along with their livestock to coastal area in search of water and pastures;
 High incidence of water and personal hygiene and sanitation related diseases is widespread like diarrhoea,
urinary tract infection (UTI). The incidence among children and women are even higher;
 Starvation and malnutrition and health problems have affected more than 50% of children, women and
elderly persons;
 Work pressure on children has increased. 48% of children are malnourished and 46% of them are exposed
to various health risks;
 Work pressure on women has increased. 50% women are exposed to various health risks.
 Communities coping mechanisms have almost exhausted.
 Government is poorly resourced to address the impact of the disaster and unable to mobilise resources;
 There was no allocation of the Somalia Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF), 2015 in drought hit Maroodi-
Jeh and Gabiley regions of Somaliland.
 Though there are plans for intervention, aid agencies are yet to come up with a clear intervention plan; and
 Coordination among Government and Aid agencies has been weak.
The situation calls for immediate relief intervention to reach out to 30-40% of worst affected and most
marginalised population till next harvest season. By the end of the next two months remaining population,
means at least additional 20-25%%, will require relief support. The intervention require for coordination with
Government and other aid agencies for effectiveness, cooperation and technical mutual support.
As forecasted if the impact of El - Nino get extended till 2016 and if the Gu rain fails in next season, the
situation will deteriorate further to the extreme situation. It will be a massive disaster for the nation, which
calls for major preparation.
The long run intervention has to be integrated with LRP work. The recommendations on long term needs
mentioned above in Chapter V. The recommendations given are suggestive and would require further
deliberations as time was too short for detail recommendation.

**************

Some Photographs:
Dried Earth Dam in Ijara Village A man standing in a dried Berkads in Hidhinta
village
A women showing carcass of her livestock in Ijara Dried Tomato plants in Gogolwanag village
village
>>

Dried pond with plastic sheets in Gogolwanag Availbable water in berkads in Ijara village
village
******************
i
Demography, categorisation and severity of the drought in the affected villages using ActionAid Disaster alert levels.
No Villages Impact of drought LRP Populat Female Male House
. ion Holds
1 Abaarso Chronic condition-dire for food & LRP2 3200 1760 1440 533
(Sampled) water
Haraf Chronic condition-dire for food & LRP2 2500 1375 1125 417
2 water
Teysa Emergency situation LRP2 3600 1375 1125 3600
3
Hidhnta Emergency situation LRP2 3000 1800 1200 500
4 (Sampled)
Dhabolaq Chronic condition- in dire need of LRP2 951 523 428 158
food & water. However the village
5 has water in the shallow wells.
Allaybaday Slightly better than Hidhinta LRP2 36000 19800 16200 6000
6
Ijara Slightly better than Hidhinta LRP2 1200 660 540 200
7 (Sampled)
Wajale Shares same condition with Ijara LRP1 50000 27500 22500 8333
8
Kalabaydh Shares Same condition with Ijara LRP1 18000 9900 8100 3000
9
Gogolwanag This is one of the drought affected LRP3 431 237 194 72
(Sampled) villages. No food and fodder are
available for human and livestock,
irrigation crops shrunk. But there is
10 water for livestock and human.
Beeyo-liban Shares similar situation with LRP3 451 248 203 75
11 Gogolwang
Gogeysa Shares similar situation with LRP3 1100 605 495 183
12 gogolwang

Bodhlay They have some sort of water and LRP2 1800 990 810 300
13 (Sampled) food
Boqor This village is ok as they have LRP2 0 - - -
Borehole and harvested some
grains in 2015 similar status with
14 Bodhlay
Arro-tulka Shares Similar status with Boqor LRP1 351 193 158 58
15
Gabiley Gabiley is ok, because there is LRP1 110540 49,743 60797 18,423
water and food as they harvested
good amount of grains in 2015 and
16 comparatively better off.
Elbahay There is water and food as they LRP1 351 193 158 58
17 harvested some grains in 2015
Galoolay Farmers harvested good in 2015 as LRP1 450 248 202 75
18 received more rains
Agamsaha This is an irrigated farmland, so that LRP1 400 220 180 67
they have water from shallow wells
and generate income from cash
crops such as Salad, Tomato,
19 Onion, Cabbage extra.
Arabsiyo Shares Similar with Agamsaha LRP1 30000 16500 13500 5000
20
Huluuq Shares Similar situation with LRP1 480 264 216 80
21 Agamsa and Arabsiyo
Biyo-Ma'an Is an irrigated farming land, share LRP3 351 193 158 58
similar status with
22 Agamsa&Arabsiyo
Udan Is an irrigated farmland - less LRP3 460 253 207 77
23 affected
Elginiseed Completely irrigation farmland -no LRP3 350 193 157 58
24 stress
Dhalada Irrigated farmland -no stress LRP3 420 231 189 70
25
Horuhadlay Irrigated farmland -no stress LRP3 650 358 292 108
26
Malugta Irrigated farmland -no stress LRP3 0 - - -
27
Cada Irrigated farmland -no stress LRP3 431 237 194 72
28
Darasalam Irrigated farmland -no stress LRP3 330 114 216 60
29
Agabar Irrigated farmland -no stress LRP3 2000 1100 900 333
30
Total 269797 136813 131884 44968
1. Green means the situation is normal. 2. Yellow -the situation is not that severe and the response is delivered by a member/country
programme alone with support from IHART. 3. Orange-Means the disaster/drought is impactful and therefore, IHART provides significant
support to the country programme. 4. Red- The situation gets severe and the emergence response becomes the number one priority for the
entire ogranisation and IHART plays a coordination level.
ii
Villages Wise number of Household (HH):

Sample Villages Total HH Men Women Population Sample HH
Abaarso 533 1440 1760 3200 16
Bodhlay 300 810 990 1800 16
Ijara 200 540 660 1200 30
Hidhnta 500 1200 1800 3000 16
Gogolwanag 72 194 237 431 18
Total 1605 4184 5447 9631 96
The HH and population data of Hidhnta is from FGD, while other data is from LRP base line survey 2012, AA
Somaliland

Drought Needs Assessment Somaliland PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drought Needs Assessment Somaliland PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drought Needs Assessment Somaliland PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drought Needs Assessment, Somaliland

November 23 – December 2, 2015

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 1

CHF Common Humanitarian Fund

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 2

Chapters Particulars Page

Key findings and recommendations 5

Chapter I : Background and Overall Context 7

Chapter II : The Drought Need Assessment 9

Chapter III : Assessment Findings - Profile of the respondents 12

Chapter IV : Assessment Findings - Impact of Drought on Affected 15

1) Water availability, (2) Farming, 3) Food security, (4) Livestock

Chapter V : Relief Interventions, Coordination, Immediate and Long term 30

Chapter VI: Conclusion 34

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 3

Ashangbam Swapan Kr. Singha

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 4

Recommendations on immediate needs:

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 5

Recommendations on long term needs:

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 6

Somaliland is experiencing Map 1 a severe

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 7

The Government of Somaliland declared drought on August 10,

Chapter II: The Drought Need Assessment

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 8

Map 4: ActionAid Somaliland LRP locations

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 9

The objectives of the assessment are:

The scopes of the assessment are:

i. Validation of areas with extensive risks and vulnerabilities

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 10

Timeline of the study:

23-27 Nov 28-30 Nov 30 Nov -2 Dec 3 Dec 4 Dec 7 Dec 10

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 11

Graph 1: Percentage of HH with combination of livelihoods

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 12

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 13

Source: Survey Data

4. Any other source of income

5. Affected population and severity of impact (endnote ‘i’for details)

Table 1: Affected population and severity of impact

Population Households % of affected population % of affected Households

Chapter IV: Assessment Findings - Impact of Drought on Affected Communities

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 14

1. Sources of water and impact on availability of water at the sources:

Availability of water at the sources for human consumption:

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 15

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 16

0 days <5 days >5=<10 days >10=<20 days

Availability of water for livestock:

Graph 4: Acess to Water for livestock in the affected villages

Coping mechanisms to access water for human consumption and livestock:

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 17

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 18

Source: Survey data

Mr. Abdul-Rashid Arab Jama, Village Head and a member of VDC in

Production trend Graph 6: Trend of farm production in the last 3 years

DNA, Somaliland, ActionAid Somaliland 19