i Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia”
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement v Executive summary 1 1. Introduction 2 1.1. Land issues in Somalia 2 1.2. Study overview and objectives 4 1.2. 1. Scope of the study 5 2. Methodology 12 2.1. Approach 6 2.2. Field phase 6 2.3. Study sites 6 2.4. Sampling procedures 6 2.4.1. Household survey 6 2.4.2. Key Informant Interviews 7 2.4.3. Focus Group Discussions 7 2.5. Sample size 7 2.5.1. Household survey 7 2.5.2. Key Informant Interviews 7 2.5.3. Focus Group Discussions 7 2.6. Data collection 8 2.6.1. Training of field teams 8 2.6.2. Household interviews 8 2.6.3. Focus Group Discussions 8 2.6.4. Key Informant Interviews 9 2.7. Data management and analysis 9 3. Characteristics of sampled households 10 3.1. Household characteristics 10 3.2. Household composition 10 3.3. Household food compositionby district, gender and livelihood 14 3.4. Social Safety Nets 15 3.5 Employment 16 3.6 Household Enterprise: Proportion of households owning private businesses 17 4. Land Indicators 18 4.1. Access to the land use 18 4.1.1. Crop farming 19 4.1.2. Livestock keeping 20 4.2. Land tenure 22 4.3. Land acquisition 24 4.4. Land rights 26 4.5. Land size 28 4.6. Land conflicts 29 4.7. Conflict actors 30 5. Observations and Findings 31 5.1. Land acquisition and distribution 31 5.2. Land ownership 31 5.3. Land laws and rights 32 5.4. Land conflict management 33 5.5. Comments and Suggestions 34 6. Conclusion 34 7. Recommendations 35 8. Annexes 35 9. References 35
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” iii List of Figures Figure 2‑1: Household Sampling Approach 6 Figure 2‑2: Focus Group Discussions 16 Figure 2‑3: Key Informant Interviews 17 Figure 3‑1: Average household dietary diversity score 22 Figure 3‑3: Social safety net indicators by district 24 Figure 3‑4: Social safety networks by livelihood 25 Figure 4‑2: land acquisition by land use activity 41 Figure 4‑4: Land conflicts experienced by households 52
List of Tables
Table 1‑1: Total species number and number of endemic species among plant, mammal and birds in Somalia and neighbouring countries 3 Table 2.1 Household survey Sample size7 Table 2‑2: Sample size for Key Informant Interviews 7 Table 2‑3: Sample size for the Focus Group Discussions 7 Table 3‑1: Household charecteristics by district 10 Table 3‑2: Household composition by district 11 Table 3‑3: Household composition by gender 12 Table 3‑4: Household composition by livelihood 13 Table 3‑5: Social safety net indicators by gender 15 Table 3‑6: Employment by district 16 Table 3‑7: Employment by gender 17 Table 3‑8: Employment by Livelihood 17 Table 4‑1: Access to land and land use activities by household head gender 18 Table 4‑2: Access to land and land use activities by district 18 Table 4‑3: Access to land and land use activities by livelihood group 19 Table 4‑4: Crops farmed by district 20 Table 4‑5: Crops farmed by livelihood groups 20 Table 4‑6: Livestock keeping by household head gender 21 Table 4‑7: Livestock keeping by district 21 Table 4‑8: Livestock keeping by livelihood 22 Table 4‑9: Land tenure by land use activity and household head gender 22 Table 4‑10: Land tenure by land use activity and district 23 Table 4‑11: Land tenure by land use activity and livelihood group 23 Table 4‑12: Land acquisition by land use activity and household head gender 24 Table 4‑13: Land acquisition by land use activity and district 25 Table 4‑14: Land acquisition by land use activity and livelihood group 25 Table 4‑15: Land rights by land use activity and district 26 Table 4‑16: Land rights by land use activity and livelihood group 27 Table 4‑17: Average land size (in Ha) by land use activity and household head gender 28 Table 4‑18: Average land size (in Ha) by land use activity and district 28 Table 4‑19: Average land size (in Ha) by land use activity and livelihood groups 28 Table 4‑20: Land conflict experienced in the past 12 months by household head gender 29 Table 4‑21: Land conflict experienced in the past 12 months by district 30 Table 4‑22: Land conflict experienced in the past 12 months by livelihood group 30 Table 4‑23: Trespassing conflict players by household head gender 30 Table 4‑24: Use of resources conflict by household gender 30
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” iv ACRONYMS
Acronyms
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FGD Focus Group Discussion IDPs Internally Displaced Persons KII Key Informant Interview NGO Non-Governmental Organization ODK Open Data Kit SCRS Savana Consultancy and Research Services Ltd
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was commissioned by FAO Somalia and the draft was prepared by Savana Consultancy and Research Services Ltd (SCRS). Special gratitude goes to the M&E and Land project teams of FAO Somalia in the Nairobi and Somalia offices for their input and support during preparation and implementation of the study. Similarly we express gratitude to the SCRS field teams that carried out the data collection meticulously despite the insecurity and difficult weather conditions.
Thanks go to the local authorities and the communities of the study area who welcomed the research team and cooperated in providing the information needed
Last but not least, we wish to acknowledge the European Union for generously funding the project, “Rebuilding confidence on land issues in Somalia” as well as this study.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” vi
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background: The land baseline study has been undertaken under the project, “Rebuilding confidence on land issues in Somalia” that has been generously funded by the European Union. The study was conducted between March and May 2016. The main objective of the study was collection of baseline data on access, use of land and land disputes in Somalia.
Sampling areas: The study was undertaken in Togdheer, Awdal, Marodijeh and Gabiley regions of Somaliland, and Gedo region of South Central Somalia. The sampling frame consisted of all beneficiary households in the districts of Hargeisa, Burao, Borama, Odweyne, Gabiley, Baki, and Sheikh in Somaliland, and Dolow in Gedo region.
Methodology: The Data was collected electronically using the Open Data Kit (ODK) mobile data collection system. Thereafter, the data was electronically transferred to the FAO Nairobi office daily after confirmation and validation of the data quality by the supervisors in the field. A total of 635 households were interviewed, together with 24 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and 25 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs).
Key Findings: The study findings showed there are apparent differences between regions and districts within each region. Gender differences in the number of animals kept, particularly cattle and camels were observed. In addition, few female-headed households cropped non-traditional crops more than male-headed households. According to the analysis, social safety networks were not predominant in the districts. The common form of land tenure was individual ownership according to the household interviews. Seventy five percent of the respondents have experienced a form of land conflict in the last 12 months. A breakdown by gender of the respondents showed that 74% of the male respondents and 77% of the female respondents reported having experienced some form of land conflict and this was apparent in Gabiley and Hargeisa areas. Trespassing and land enclosure were the most common forms of land conflicts experienced in the areas of these two districts. From the household data, it was reported that title deeds are the most common form of land ownership rights regardless of the land use activity and gender of household. Moreover, clan dispute played more prominent roles when it came to conflicts related to the use of resources. Although the results show similar pattern in terms of land use activities, male-headed households owned more land on average than female-headed households.
Recommendations a) There is need for interventions targeting land conflict resolutions in some of the areas where land disputes were reported such as Hargeisa and Gabiley area. Therefore, based on the analysis, it is recommended that the interventions on land access and use should be tailored to specific districts because there are distinct differences between districts. b) Farmers should be encouraged to diversify crops grown to increase food security and resilience, particularly in Baki, Burao and Odweyne. c) Social safety networks should be scaled up to build communities’ and households resilience. d) Households in Baki, Borama and Hargeisa should be trained and supported by the governmental institutions such as Ministry of Agriculture, and/or local and International Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in soil improvement and soil erosion control strategies. e) Appropriate policies should be developed and institutionalised to help solve land related conflicts.
Conclusion: Land conflict issues, particularly related to trespassing and encroachment can be mitigated by developing policies that makes it mandatory that sufficient space is allocated for access roads and road network during land demarcation . Proper demarcation will also address the conflicts association with encroachment into community.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 2 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Land issues in Somalia Sub-Saharan Africa is home to nearly half of world’s usable, uncultivated land yet the continent has not been able to use these tracks of land to reduce poverty, create jobs, and feed itself to address food security. Improving the land tenure system is vital for achieving economic growth and creating vital opportunities for Africans especially women who make up 70% of Africans farmers yet are marginalised in terms of land ownership as a result of customary laws and practices. Most of rural Africa has struggled to implement land legislation as most users gain access to land on basis of local land tenure systems. Management of land and natural resources is one of the most critical challenges facing developing countries today. It is important to strengthen land tenure in order to improve land management, agricultural productivity and household prosperity (Cotula, 2007).
Tenure is the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people as individuals or groups, with respect to land and associated natural resources while land tenure systems determine who can use what resources for how long, and under what conditions (FAO 2002). Land tenure is often categorised as private, communal, open access or state owned. Land access, control and management strategies are entrenched in social, political and economic structures which change over time (Dehérez, 2009). For example in Somalia, land has shifted from commercial ownership to private ownership over time (World Bank 2005). The Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Forestry and Fisheries in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) provides guiding principles for land governance and described the responsibilities of the states and Non-state actors towards the governance of tenure. Rights and responsibilities, policy, legal and organizational frameworks related to tenure and delivery of services were discussed in the guidelines as well as principles of implementation. These principles are very essential in contributing to responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests. The principles which should be respected by the actors of land tenure include:
1. Human dignity 2. Non discrimination 3. Equity and Justice 4. Gender equality 5. Holistic and sustainable approach 6. Consultation and participation 7. Rule of law 8. Transparency 9. Accountability and 10. Continuous improvement
It is therefore important that state and non-state actors in land tenure system acknowledge the social, cultural, spiritual, economic, environmental and political value of the indigenous people and other communities and their customary tenure systems (FAO, 2012).
Somalia is located at the Horn of Africa and borders the Gulf of Aden to the northeast and Indian Ocean to the east, Ethiopia in the west while in the North and South it is bordered by Djibouti and Kenya respectively. Somalia is a homogenous state made up of one ethnicity (broken into different clans, sub-clans), religion and culture (World Bank, 2005). Following the collapse of the former Somali government led by Mohamed Siad Barre, the country entered into a civil war which caused anarchy and chaos in most of the country though the South was the worst hit. During the period of this instability and lack of an effective government, the northern part of the country known as Somaliland self-declared independence from Somalia while Puntland and South central regions took to the federal system which gives each of the regional states to form their own autonomous states. Currently, there are four (4) regional states Puntland, Jubbaland,
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 3 Southwest and Galmudug and a regional state which is expected to be formed by Middle Shabelle and Hiraan regions together. Of these, Puntland enjoys very stable administration and security while others are yet to be politically and security stabilized. Moreover, the instability after the collapse of the former government, created a breeding ground for militant groups such as Al Shabab that has not only threatened the security of the country but also that of the region and beyond. In Somalia, the insecurity created by these militia groups has paralyzed the development of the economic, political and social sectors particularly in the areas where they have strongholds.
Somalia has richness in diversity including the Coastal strip (3025km) a long stretch with marine resources, the hinterland zone very good for livestock and rain-fed agriculture as well as the Riverine area rich in arable land and a key area for provision of agricultural products in the country. It is well documented that Somalia is a country endowed with unique biodiversity with a high number of endemic species, particularly floras (UNDP, 2004, UNEP 2006). (Table 1-1). Agriculture and livestock are the mainstay of the economy although Somali land is said to have huge oil and gas deposits which could drive the economy forward. Land and especially failed land policies of Siad Barre regime has been a source of opulence and conflict for Somalia and one of the contributing factors to the wars in the last two decades (Burman et al., 2014). There is therefore the need to understand the land tenure system for a prosperous Somalia.
Table 1‑1: Total species number and number of endemic species among plant, mammal and birds in Somalia and neighbouring countries
2 Country Area (Km ) Plants Mammals Birds % of land Endemic Total Endemic Total Endemic Total transformed Djibouti 23,200 6 826 0 61 1 126 1.0 Ethiopia 1,104,300 1000 6603 31 277 28 626 39.0 Kenya 580,370 265 6506 23 359 9 844 13.0 Somalia 637,660 500 3028 12 171 11 422 6.0 Source: Modified from UNEP 2006, Africa Environment Outlook
The changes in political and socio-economic systems over the last 120 years have affected land use and planning in Somalia and Somaliland (Venema et al., 2009). Land tenure system has been back and forth as a result of political turmoil. In pre-colonial time before 1887, Somalia had some traditional system governed by customary laws which had stipulated rules for sharing pastures and other resources by ensuring right of access. During the colonial period (1887-1960), a formal land tenure system was introduced where land was privately owned from previously community owned with introduction of land registration, title deeds and land taxation (Venema et al., 2009). Colonialism by British, French and Italians resulted in traditional economies being disrupted and the concept of land being sacred was annulled and replaced with propriety of ownership and production.
These (political and socio-economic) sudden changes had some drastic effects in terms of economic relationships between the agriculturalists of the south and the pastoralists of the north who depended on each other for crops and livestock. This situation was reversed during Said Barre’s regime between 1969- 1990 where the land tenure law declared all land as state owned and solely administered by the government (Venema et al., 2009). To also regulate the agricultural economy in Somalia, Barre introduced a new system of land registration which was meant to legalise inherited claims by registration process (Dehérez, 2009). Most local farmers especially those who had inherited land from their ancestors or given by local clan elders could not afford the expensive and bureaucratic process of registration hence making their rightful claims to the land with local authorities practically illegal. This kind of reform did not recognize legitimate land rights and made land tenures insecure, unjust and unfair (Dehérez, 2009). In Somalia, the civil war saw deaths of 25,000 people, 1.5 million people fleeing the country and 2 million internally displaced. As a result of inter-clan fighting, fertile lands, river and livestock lands were destroyed impacting negatively on people
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 4 and the country’s economy. This civil war has altered clan settlements in urban and arable areas as Lower Shabelle, Jubba-land and Mogadishu. Due to the continuing lack of effective government, for example in South Central Somalia, valuable agricultural land , urban real estate and seaports have been taken over by armed clan militia who were opposing Siad Barre’s regime for economic advances leading to displacement of farmer and native groups previously in the region (World Bank, 2005).
In other relatively resource endowed region (South-Central) and resource scarce (Somaliland and Puntland) regions, a series of recurring clashes has been experienced among and within pastoral, agro-pastoral and agricultural groups for access to and control of land for cultivation, grazing and use of water points. World Bank (2005) reports that traditional elders have attempted to resolve the disputes using customary laws but their efforts are limited by the fact that customary law is more effective for nomadic life and cannot be relied upon to effectively settle growing number of conflicts associated with less nomadic lifestyles. This has led to a final reversal of all gains in the land tenure system from pre-colonial period. However, these events tend to agree with various scholars who have made the assumption that land tenure systems are unlikely to change in the short term. This assumption is understandable in view of long historical processes through which land tenure structure have been formed (Takeuchi and Marara, 2009).
As Takeuchi and Marara (2009) postulate, in armed conflicts, victors of war sometimes occupy opponent’s land and at times expel them in the process. During civil war of ousting Said Barre, many fighters who came from destitute areas thought they should be rewarded by settling in places that belonged to state officials and in doing so took over private and government properties and transformed them to internally displaced persons (IDP) settlements or their own farms. Apart from the disputes caused by the civil war, many of the conflicts seen today in Somalia are rooted in internal disputes between neighbouring clans or sub clans over land, water and pasture; farmland or settlement areas. These disputes and their effects on land tenure have become more complex requiring careful observation and research.
In conclusion, Somalia perhaps needs to borrow much from Rwanda; a country that experienced civil war and genocide in the 1990’s where the death was higher than that of Somalia. In Somalia, land tenure experienced a drastic change after civil war and have followed a long historical trajectory (Takeuchi and Marara, 2009) while land tenure in Rwanda is now guaranteed by legitimacy of the winner of civil war and controller of government while government guidelines for land division for old case returnees have been followed. Previously huge ranches possessed by military officers have been divided and distributed to peasants who had previously had access only to small plots. This concept could be modified and adapted to the Somalia enough with special consideration to the cultural and ecological differences.
1.2. Study overview and objectives The current land project aims at rebuilding confidence in land issues in Somalia focusing particularly on Somaliland and South Somalia (Gedo region). The project was funded by the European Union (EU) and implemented by FAO. This baseline survey refers to the exercise of data collection for baseline information on land access, use, and disputes to fill in gaps identified in the report based on analysis of secondary data from the resilience baseline and midline surveys in South Central (2013) and Somaliland (2014). The study took place in representative districts of the South Central and Somaliland zones of the country where the land project is being implemented. The sampling frame consisted of all beneficiary households in Hargeisa, Gabiley, Burco, Odweyne, Sheikh, Borama and Baki in Somaliland and Doolow in Gedo region of South Central Somalia.
The main objectives of the project included:
1. Territorial diagnosis and conflict dynamics studied and negotiation tables established. 2. Land policy framework reviewed / developed. 3. Institutional and community capacity in policy dialogues built.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 5 The territorial diagnosis aims to identify current levels of land cover, land use and degradation in the community. Negotiation tables on the other hand seek to answer the questions; who are the key actors, their interests, mapping of natural resource? What are the issues they are facing? Land conflicts – dynamics, actors and trend and how to mitigate and prevent them and resolve existing conflicts? What are the feasible solutions? Who is to resolve the issues, what roles can the community play, what external assistance is required? These were partly achieved by conducting secondary data analysis from the Joint Resilience Strategy (JRS) studies to identify baseline characteristics on land and natural resources.
1.2.1. Scope of the study The scope of the study was specifically meant to address the following program indicators of interest: a) Land ownership (private, communal), land holding size for owned land. b) Land tenure (access, use, control/ownership) disaggregated by gender and livelihood system c) Community’s perception, participation and knowledge of land and natural resource management issues. d) Trends in land and natural resource disputes and mechanisms for their resolution. e) Perception of soil quality/fertility. f) Power asymmetries with regard to tenure rights in terms of gender and ethnicity. g) Changing rural population (forced migration/displacement, voluntary migration). h) Changing livelihood/production system including development of new farming method like irrigation, etc. i) Changing land use (land use is changing rapidly especially expansion of farming into pastoral land or farmland into urban settlements) j) Institutional capacity in policy development and land governance. k) Land ownership trends and how they may affect land conflicts. l) Land rights, the frameworks and existence of land rights within the region, with a focus on awareness of such rights and the challenges of obtaining land rights. m) Dynamics of land conflict, specifically locations and frequency, actors, underlying causes, and systems of resolution.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 6 2. METHODOLOGY
In order to document the status of land use, ownership, rights, and conflict in the study regions of Somaliland and Gedo regions a combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques were employed.
2.1. Approach This baseline assessment was participatory and inclusive, and it involved all the stakeholders who were intended to be part of the study. Both qualitative and quantitative information were collected and analysed. To track and give expression to the project indicators the consultants utilized random selection of households to participate in the study design which incorporated a wide range of stakeholders.
2.2. Field phase The field mission started with five (5) days of training for supervisors and enumerators who were selected for data collection from sites predetermined by FAO (Hargeisa, Gabiley, Borama, Baki, Sheikh, Burao and Odweyne in Somaliland and Dolow in Gedo). Training was held in Hargeisa and was facilitated by FAO M&E team from Nairobi office. One day of field-testing exercise was also included into the training timetable. Thereafter, participants were divided into four (4) data collection teams (3 teams for Somaliland and 1 team for Gedo region). Each of the team was composed of 3 enumerators and the supervisor in Somaliland while for Gedo Region; the team was composed of two (2) enumerators and one supervisor. The female proportion of overall teams was 33.3%.
2.3. Study sites Data collection was carried out in the representative districts of the South Central Somalia and Somaliland regions of the country where the land project is being implemented. The sampling frame consisted of all beneficiary households in Hargeisa, Burao, Borama, Odweyne, Gabiley, in Somaliland and Dolow in Gedo region. The sites were specifically chosen in order to encompass the various types of land use activities in South Central Somalia and Somaliland. Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland, is an urban settlement with Peri-urban and rural communities as well. Gabiley Baki, Sheikh, Burao and Borama are predominately agro-pastoral areas. Dolow, Salaxley and Odweyne were selected to represent the pastoral or/and agro pastoral land use.
2.4. Sampling procedures Both probability and non-probability sampling techniques were employed in this baseline survey.
2.4.1. Household survey Probability sampling was used to collect quantitative data at the household level as it allows taking a representative sample that represents the characteristics of the entire population. This in turn increased the confidence level in the generalization of responses about sub-groups or specific region. A multistage cluster sampling was used to guarantee the greatest representation and reliability of the survey vis-à-vis the target group and results validity. This involved the districts as the first cluster and villages as the second cluster.
Figure 2 1: Household Sampling Approach
Somaliland & Districts Villages Households South Central Somalia
The village clusters were chosen using stratified random sampling to ensure geographical representation. To identify the particular households per region/village to be sampled, systematic random sampling was employed where in every region the 푛𝑡household to be visited = Total number of households in the village or region divided by the sample allocated for the village
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 7 2.4.2. Key Informant Interviews The key informants were purposively selected. Snow ball sampling was used in areas where there would be referrals to more key informant interviews with the respected elders, religious leaders, local authorities, business men, NGO staff in the area etc.
2.4.3. Focus Group Discussions FGD’s respondents were identified through convenience sampling (the ability to mobilize community groups at a certain point in time).
2.5. Sample size 2.5.1. Household survey The total number of households interviewed during the study was 635 as shown in Table 2-1. Table 2 1: Household survey sample size Region District Number of Households Somaliland Hargeisa 82 Burco 80 Borama 77 Odweyne 80 Gabiley 78 Baki 73 Sheikh 80 Gedo Doolow 85 Total 635
2.5.2. Key Informant Interviews
Table 2 2: Sample size for Key Informant Interviews Region District Number of Key Informants Somaliland Hargeisa 5 Burco 5 Borama 3 Odweyne 3 Gabiley 2 Baki 2 Sheikh 2 Gedo Doolow 3 Total 25
2.5.3. Focus Group Discussions 24 FGD sessions were held in the study regions as shown in Table 2-3. Table 2 3: Sample size for the Focus Group Discussions Region District Male adults Female adults Total Somaliland Hargeisa 3 2 5 Burco 2 1 3 Borama 3 1 4 Odweyne 1 1 Gabiley 2 1 3 Baki 2 2 Sheikh 1 1 2 Gedo Doolow 3 1 4 Total 17 7 24
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 8 2.6. Data collection 2.6.1. Training of field teams A team of local enumerators and supervisors were hired for data collection from targeted areas in Somaliland and Gedo regions. All members of the team were selected for their understanding of the socio- cultural dynamics of the study areas. Eleven enumerators and four supervisors were trained in Hargeisa for a week. The training focused on the understanding of the data collection tools; the paper questionnaire and ODK system. The training also covered interviewing techniques and probing without suggesting or influencing responses to the respondents. A one-day pre-testing exercise was included into the training and a short field visit was undertaken in and around Hargeisa dividing the team into several groups, each led by a supervisor. The bulk of the training was devoted to reading and familiarizing the enumerators with the questionnaire, both in English and in Somali. The purpose of respective question was explained followed by instructions on how to fill out the questionnaire to familiarize the enumerators. Enumerators worked in pairs during the actual survey while sampling households. From the starting point identified by the supervisor, they moved in opposite directions. Before commencement of interviews in the villages, while accompanied by the supervisor, they presented themselves to the area chief or village elders. Although the local authorities had been informed, the enumerators explained again the purpose and procedure of the survey, and sought the consent of these leaders to conduct interviews.
2.6.2. Household interviews Household interviews were held with adult males and females in the study sites. In each household the head (whether male or female) and the senior most female in the household (wife or eldest adult female in the household) were chosen. The enumerators used smart phones (ODK) for collection of quantitative data, which ensured data quality as well as increased the speeds in data capture transmission and management as compared to conventional paper and pen survey methods. The inability to upload an incomplete questionnaire also ensured data completeness. The data collected were transferred by the supervisors into the software of FAO centre in Nairobi after ensuring the quality and the completeness of the data. If there were any challenge related to the use of the ODK mobiles for data collection or with the transfer system, the supervisor contacted the project coordinator who in turn communicated with the FAO team in Nairobi to solve the problem. A total of 632 households were interviewed across the seven districts (Hargeisa, Gabiley, Borama, Baki, Burao, Odweyne & Sheikh) of Somaliland and Dolow district in Gedo region.
Household interviews
2.6.3 Focus Group Discussions FGDs were held with community members in groups sharing similar characteristics to elicit their opinions, knowledge and attitude towards land tenure issues. These interviews were conducted with community groups of male and female adults separately. The discussions were moderated by chosen enumerators while the supervisors recorded the responses in the FGD responses data sheet.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 9
Focus Group Discussions
2.6.4. Key Informant Interviews KIIs were held with individuals deemed to be knowledgeable with land tenure issues in the study sites. These interviewees included local government officials at regional level (regional Governors), local governments officials at district (Mayors) levels and village level, community elders, religious leaders, beneficiary communities and Service Providers (NGOs).The KIIs mostly were undertaken by the supervisor, who also transcribed and summarized the interview.
Key Informant Interviews
2.7. Data management and analysis The data collected via ODK system on the mobile handsets were exported to Microsoft Excel where further cleaning was undertaken. There was little data verification undertakings because the ODK system had inbuilt controls that ensured proper data flows and limits. The cleaned data was then exported to SPSS (version 23) for analysis. The main outputs from the analysis were in form of frequencies, means and ranges to capture variability within indicators of interest. The qualitative data was entered into Microsoft Excel, from which common themes and messages were extracted and synthesized.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 10 3. CHARACTERISTICS O SAMPLED HOUSEHOLDS
3.1 Household characteristics Data was collected from 632 households a majority of which (n=508, 80.4%) were male headed with the highest proportion reported in Gabiley district (n=74, 94.9%), whereas Hargeisa reported the highest proportion of female headed households (n=29, 35.8%) as shown in Table 3-1. A higher proportion of households were agro-pastoralists (n=378, 59.8%). Between districts, Burco (84.2%, n=64) and Odweyne (65.4%, n=53) are predominantly pastoralists. All the other districts (Baki, Borama, Dollow, Gabiley, Hargeisa and Sheikh) are predominantly agro-pastoralists. Fishing or fish trading was practiced by between 3% and 12% of the households in Hargeisa (12%), Sheikh (10%), Borama (10%), Burco (8%) and Odweyne (3%). Farming (Riverine and Rainfed) was practiced by 4% of the households in total. Majority of these households were from Dollow (11%, n=9) and Borama (5%, n=4). Urban livelihood was reported in Gabiley (4%, n=3) and Hargeisa (1%).
Table 3‑1: Household characteristics by district District
Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total
Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %)
Household head gender
Male 69 (94.5) 69 (87.3) 53 (69.7) 59 (69.4) 74 (94.9) 52 (64.2) 69 (85.2) 63 (79.7) 508 (80.4)
Female 4 (5.5) 10 (12.7) 23 (30.3) 26 (30.6) 4 (5.1) 29 (35.8) 12 (14.8) 16 (20.3) 124 (19.6)
Total 73 (100) 79 (100) 76 (100) 85 (100) 78 (100) 81 (100) 81 (100) 79 (100) 632 (100)
Livelihood
Agro-pastoralist 56 (76.7) 64 (81) 6 (7.9) 50 (58.8) 73 (93.6) 48 (59.3) 25 (30.9) 56 (70.9) 378 (59.8)
Pastoralist 8 (11) 3 (3.8) 64 (84.2) 26 (30.6) 1 (1.3) 22 (27.2) 53 (65.4) 15 (19) 192 (30.4)
Fishing 0 (.) 8 (10.1) 6 (7.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 10 (12.3) 2 (2.5) 8 (10.1) 34 (5.4)
Farming (Riverine/Rainfed) 9 (12.3) 4 (5.1) 0 (.) 9 (10.6) 1 (1.3) 0 (.) 1 (1.2) 0 (.) 24 (3.8)
Urban 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (3.8) 1 (1.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (0.6)
Total 73 (100) 79 (100) 76 (100) 85 (100) 78 (100) 81 (100) 81 (100) 79 (100) 632 (100)
3.2 Household Composition Household composition was assessed based on the relationship of household members to household head, gender, marital status and household size. The gender distributions within households was more or less balanced with statistics showing that the ratio of male to female within households averaged 48% for females and 52% males across districts (Table 3-2). Sheikh is the only district that reported higher proportion of females household members (53%, n=250) compared to the male members. In terms of relationships, most members of the households were sons and daughters (63%, n=2493), the extended families were less than 1% except for brothers/sisters and grandchildren which contribute about 2% of the household membership. Dollow district had the highest proportion of extended family members particularly sisters/brothers and grandchildren. Burco and Dollow reported the highest proportion of divorced spouses and widow (-er) s. However, the proportion of widows and widowers were above 2% except Odweyne which reported less than one per cent widowed households. The high proportion of single individuals (66%, n=2623) should be interpreted with caution because the question was asked to every member of the household including the young ones.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 11 Total 1907(48) 2062(52) 607(15.2) 525(13.2) 2493(62.8) 16(0.4) 51(1.2) 30(0.7) 69(1.7) 7(0.1) 74(1.8) 15(0.3) 43(1) 32(0.8) 7(0.1) 1205(30.3) 29(0.7) 2623(66) 103(2.5) 9(0.2) Sheikh 250(53) 217(46) 77(16.4) 61(13) 310(66.3) 0(0) 3(0.6) 3(0.6) 4(0.8) 2(0.4) 2(0.4) 2(0.4) 1(0.2) 2(0.4) 0(0) 139(29.7) 4(0.8) 309(66.1) 13(2.7) 2(0.4) Odweyne 237(48) 256(51) 84(17) 68(13.7) 320(64.9) 1(0.2) 3(0.6) 1(0.2) 11(2.2) 0(0) 1(0.2) 2(0.4) 1(0.2) 1(0.2) 0(0) 161(32.6) 3(0.6) 323(65.5) 4(0.8) 2(0.4) Hargeisa 266(46) 312(53) 78(13.4) 63(10.8) 339(58.6) 4(0.6) 6(1) 5(0.8) 11(1.9) 1(0.1) 21(3.6) 2(0.3) 26(4.4) 20(3.4) 2(0.3) 157(27.1) 4(0.6) 400(69.2) 17(2.9) 0(0) Gabiley 255(45) 306(54) 75(13.3) 78(13.9) 363(64.7) 1(0.1) 7(1.2) 6(1) 11(1.9) 0(0) 16(2.8) 0(0) 0(0) 3(0.5) 1(0.1) 172(30.6) 3(0.5) 376(67) 10(1.7) 0(0) Dollow 222(48) 232(51) 71(15.6) 58(12.7) 280(61.6) 1(0.2) 1(0.2) 3(0.6) 18(3.9) 2(0.4) 14(3) 1(0.2) 3(0.6) 2(0.4) 0(0) 147(32.3) 6(1.3) 291(64) 8(1.7) 2(0.4) Burco 208(49) 209(50) 69(16.5) 63(15.1) 259(62.1) 6(1.4) 6(1.4) 4(0.9) 1(0.2) 1(0.2) 2(0.4) 5(1.1) 1(0.2) 0(0) 0(0) 136(32.6) 7(1.6) 254(60.9) 17(4) 3(0.7) Borama 249(48) 267(51) 80(15.5) 70(13.5) 328(63.5) 1(0.1) 11(2.1) 3(0.5) 9(1.7) 0(0) 6(1.1) 0(0) 5(0.9) 1(0.1) 2(0.3) 150(29) 1(0.1) 348(67.4) 17(3.2) 0(0) Baki 220(45) 263(54) 73(15.1) 64(13.2) 294(60.8) 2(0.4) 14(2.8) 5(1) 4(0.8) 1(0.2) 12(2.4) 3(0.6) 6(1.2) 3(0.6) 2(0.4) 143(29.6) 1(0.2) 322(66.6) 17(3.5) 0(0) District Female Male Household head Wife/Husband Son/daughter Son/daughter - in law Father/mother Father/mother - in law Sister/Brother Sister/Brother - in law Grandchild Grandparent Niece/Nephew Cousin Other Married Divorced Single Widow/er Other Gender Relationship to Household head Marital status Table 3‑2: Household composition by district Table
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 12 Household composition by gender of respondents followed a similar pattern where female members were less than the male members in overall, but within households, the male headed households had more male members while female headed household had more female members. Male headed households, had more extended relatives than female headed households in overall, more specifically the sisters and brothers (2%, n=46) and fathers/mothers which was slightly less than 2% (Table 3-3). The pattern for marital status was not surprising where more respondents from male headed households were married (31%, n=727) as compared to female headed households (29%, n=478).
Table 3‑3: Household composition by gender Gender of household head
District Female Male Total
Gender Female 838(50) 1069(46) 1907(48) Male 823(49) 1239(53) 2062(51)
Household head 247(14.8) 360(15.5) 607(15.2) Wife/Husband 193(11.6) 332(14.3) 525(13.2) Son/daughter 1075(64.7) 1418(61.4) 2493(62.8) Son/daughter-in-law 7(0.4) 9(0.3) 16(0.4) Father/mother 10(0.6) 41(1.7) 51(1.2) Father/mother-in-law 13(0.7) 17(0.7) 30(0.7) Sister/Brother 23(1.3) 46(1.9) 69(1.7) Relationship to Household head Sister/Brother-in-law 4(0.2) 3(0.1) 7(0.1) Grandchild 47(2.8) 27(1.1) 74(1.8) Grandparent 11(0.6) 4(0.1) 15(0.3) Niece/Nephew 17(1) 26(1.1) 43(1) Cousin 14(0.8) 18(0.7) 32(0.8) Other 0(0) 7(0.3) 7(0.1)
Marital status Married 478(28.7) 727(31.4) 1205(30.3) Divorced 17(1) 12(0.5) 29(0.7) Single 1103(66.4) 1520(65.8) 2623(66) Widow/er 61(3.6) 42(1.8) 103(2.5) Other 2(0.1) 7(0.3) 9(0.2)
Household composition between livelihoods showed an apparently higher proportion of women in the IDP livelihood (61%) than all other livelihoods where the proportion of female members were below 50% except urban which had 52% females members (Table 3-4). Farming (Riverine/Rainfed) reported the highest proportion of male members (60%, n=85). IDP livelihood households had the lowest number of extended family members while farming (Riverine) had the highest representation of this category of family members, mainly being father/mother (2.1%), parents in-law (2.1%), sisters and brothers were 2.8% similar to the grandchildren.
In terms of marital status, IDPs had no divorced or widowed family, which again was reported by majority households amongst the farming (riverine) livelihood, where both divorced and widowed individuals contributed a total of 7% of the households’ compositions.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 13 Total 43(1) 9(0.2) 7(0.1) 7(0.1) 29(0.7) 15(0.3) 32(0.8) 74(1.8) 16(0.4) 51(1.2) 30(0.7) 69(1.7) 103(2.6) 2062(51) 1907(48) 525(13.2) 607(15.2) 2623(66.1) 1205(30.4) 2493(62.8) IDP 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(3.8) 19(73) 10(38) 16(61) 3(11.5) 3(11.5) 11(42.3) 15(57.7) 2(1) 0(0) 4(2) 0(0) 2(1) 1(0.5) 9(4.7) 1(0.5) 5(2.6) 1(0.5) 1(0.5) 1(0.5) 1(0.5) Urban 91(47) 100(52) 52(27.2) 28(14.6) 30(15.7) 117(61.2) 127(66.5) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 7(4.9) 3(2.1) 1(0.7) 1(0.7) 5(3.5) 4(2.8) 3(2.1) 3(2.1) 4(2.8) 81(57) 85(59) 57(40) Farming 89(62.7) 43(30.3) 18(12.6) 22(15.4) (Riverine/Rainfed) 3(0.1) 4(0.1) 6(0.2) 9(0.3) 4(0.1) 58(2.4) 13(0.5) 22(0.8) 48(1.9) 10(0.4) 38(1.5) 19(0.7) 56(2.2) 1172(47) 1280(52) 721(29.4) 317(12.9) 365(14.8) 1657(67.6) 1554(63.3) Agro - pastoralist 5(0.4) 2(0.1) 7(0.6) 5(0.4) 9(0.7) 6(0.5) 7(0.6) 3(0.2) 11(0.9) 29(2.5) 17(1.4) 13(1.1) 21(1.8) 562(48) 596(51) 735(63.5) 378(32.6) 722(62.3) 159(13.7) 187(16.1) Pastoralist Other Widow/er Divorced Single Married Niece/Nephew Cousin Other Grandchild Grandparent Son/daughter - in law Father/mother Father/mother - in law Sister/Brother Sister/Brother - in law Son/daughter Livelihood Wife/Husband Female Household head Male Marital status Gender Relationship to Household head Table 3‑4: Household composition by livelihood Table
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 14 3.3 Household food consumption by district, gender and livelihood Household dietary diversity score which was calculated based the food groups consumed following the FANTA methods showed that Dollow district had the highest score implying households consumed more food varieties, in terms of food groups than all the others as shown in Figure 3-1. Baki district on the other hand, reported the lowest. There was little differences between male (6.3) and female (6.7) headed households with all of them having average scores of more than 6.
Figure 3‑1: Average household dietary diversity score
The difference between livelihoods was not very apparent except for the IDP category which recorded the lowest dietary diversity score (5.3) and faming livelihoods the highest (6.8) (Figure 3-2).
Figure 3‑2: Average household dietary diversity score by livelihood
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 15 3.4 Social Safety Nets Sheikh and Dollow districts reported the lowest percentage of households belonging to reliable associations or having access to credit facilities (Figure 3-3). Respondents in Gabiley and Hargeisa districts showed a higher degree of social safety networks with over 25% and 15% respectively belonging to reliable associations or having access to credit facilities. However, the distance between respondents and their closest relatives was also higher compared to Dollow and Sheikh Districts indicating some substitution character where those close to relatives do not rely on associations as a social safety measure.
Figure 3‑3: Social safety net indicators by district
There seems to be some association between gender and membership to reliable associations where more men belong to reliable associations than women while on the other hand more women have more access to credit facilities than men. This indicates some differences in terms of preference in social safety options. In terms of distance, women live closer to relatives (11km) than men whose average distance to the closest relative was 18km (Table 3-5), however, it could not be established from the data if the closeness implies closeness in terms of reliance and support.
Table 3‑5: Social safety net indicators by gender Female Male Grand Total Member of reliable association 25(34.2) 54(68.3) 79(103.9) Access to credit 34(46.5) 32(40.5) 66(86.8) Average distance to the closest relative (minutes) 10.7 17.9 14.7
In terms of livelihood, there is a distinct pattern whereby Pastoralist and Agro-pastoralists belong to more reliable associations than Farming (riverine), Urban and IDP (Figure 3-4). A similar pattern is observable in access to credit facilities. The urban livelihood households tend to live far away from close relatives than all other livelihoods. Average distance to the closest relative amongst pastoralist and IDP was about 13kms. The households in riverine livelihood lived closer to their relatives than all other livelihoods with an average distance of 7kms.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 16 Figure 3‑4: Social safety networks by livelihood
3.5 Employment Ten percent of the respondents had at least one member of their households on salaried employment. At district level, employment rates were fairly low except Hargeisa which reported 28% (n=23) of its household members employed over the last 12 months from the date of interview. Hargeisa district also recorded the highest average salary paid to those employed, whereby; the average salary was over 3 million Somali shillings. The second highest district, in terms of employment was Borama which reported 14% employment rates. The average salary for Borama district was 1.5 million. Dollow district reported the lowest employment rate at 1%.
Table 3‑6: Employment by district
Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Grand Total
At least one member of the household was 6(8.2) 11(13.9) 7(9.2) 1(1.3) 5(6.4) 23(28.3) 3(3.7) 4(5) 60(9.6) employed in the last 12 months
Average salary from the 705000 1490636 1045000 2500000 994000 3973765 368333.3 266251 2168366.14 employment (currency??)
Average income from 0 0 0 0 312500 474000 0 0 427857.14 gratuity received
At least one member of the household did casual 11(15) 13(16.4) 4(5.2) 16(21.9) 7(8.9) 11(13.5) 3(3.7) 4(5) 69(11.1) labour in the last 12 months
Average income from 2842900 6093154 2250000 7392250 2240714 3891364 27003000 4E+06 5543476.92 casual labor
At least of member of household worked for 5(6.8) 2(2.5) 35(46) 23(31.5) 1(1.2) 8(9.8) 45(55.5) 58(73.4) 177(28.5) another household for no pay
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 17 Employment by gender showed that there were more members from female headed households (11.2%, n=29) than male headed households (9%, n=21) (Table 3-7). However, in terms of salaries, employed members from male headed households earned twice the amount earned by their counterparts from female headed households. The difference was not very big for casual labour income where female headed household members earned slightly higher (6.2 million Somali Shillings) than those from male headed households which average 5.1 million Somali Shillings. A much more apparent observation is on the household members working for other households at no pay, 50% of the respondents from female headed households reported having worked for another household for no pay, compared to only 13% from the male headed households.
Table 3‑7: Employment by gender Female Male Grand Total
At least one member of the household was employed in the last 29(11.2) 21(8.5) 60(9.6) 12 months
Average salary from the employment 1440521.5 2825774.194 2168366.14
Average income from gratuity received 505000 325000 427857.143
At least one member of the household did casual labour in the last 28(10.8) 41(11.3) 69(11.1) 12 months
Average income from casual labour 6186840 5141375 5543476.92
At least of member of household worked for another household for 129(50) 48(13.2) 177(28.5) no pay
Most of the household heads were employed as agro-pastoralist (11.2%, n=34) while very few were employed in farming areas (Table 3-8).
Table 3‑8: Employment by Livelihood Pastoral Agro-pastoral Farming Urban IDP Grand Total
At least one member of household employed in 15(7.8) 34(9.1) 2(9.5) 9(26.4) (0) 60(9.6) last 12 months
Average salary from the employment 1010642 2943018 700000 1369111 0 2168366
Average income from gratuity received 775000 289000 0 0 0 427857.14
At least one member of household did casual 16(8.4) 41(11) 4(19) 7(20.5) 1(25) 69(11.1) labor in last 12 months
Average income from casual labor 4451230 6232250 5697500 3982857 2500000 5543476
At least of member of household worked for 85(44.7) 82(22.1) 4(19) 5(14.7) 1(25) 177(28.5) another household for no pay
3.6 Household Enterprise: Proportion of households owning private businesses There were very few respondents who owned private businesses. The only districts that had business owning households were Baki (0.2%, n=17), Borama (0.1%, n=12) and Hargeisa (0.3%, n=27). There were no differences in business ownership by gender as they both reported that 0.1% of the respondents owned private businesses. In terms of livelihood, urban residents had the highest proportion at 0.3% (n=11), followed by agro-pastoralists with 0.1% (n=2) owning private businesses. The other livelihoods didn’t report any private ownership.
A similar pattern to this was repeated for households receiving cash transfers, such as Hargeisa district that reported receipt of some cash transfers.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 18 4. Land indicators The baseline indicators include access to land, land use, land tenure, land acquisition, land rights, and land conflicts.
4.1 Access to and land use Eighty four percent of the respondents had access to land (Table 4-1). Out of these, 67% indicated use for crop farming, 47% indicated for livestock keeping, 8% for non-agricultural, 9% for fallow and 26% said they used their land for other activities. Within gender groups, the male headed households had more access to land (87%) than the female headed households (69%). For both gender categories land was majorly used for crop farming. There are distinct differences in land allocated for non-agricultural activities (e.g. homesteads), where females report 23% while males reported only 5%.
Table 4‑1: Access to land and land use by household head gender Household head gender Female Male Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Has access to land Yes 86 (69.4) 444 (87.4) 530 (83.9) No 38 (30.6) 64 (12.6) 102 (16.1) Total 124 (100) 508 (100) 632 (100) Land use activity Crop farming 50 (58.1) 307 (69.1) 357 (67.4) Livestock keeping 30 (34.9) 217 (48.9) 247 (46.6) Non-agricultural 20 (23.3) 20 (4.5) 40 (7.5) Fallow (not used) 6 (7) 44 (9.9) 50 (9.4) Other 14 (16.3) 121 (27.3) 135 (25.5)
In all districts, majority of the respondents had access to land, the proportion owning land ranged between 65% and 99% (Table 4-2). Almost all respondents from Baki district (99%) had access to land which they used primarily for crop farming (88%) followed by livestock keeping (50%). Burco district reported the lowest land access (65%) which was used for livestock keeping by 57% of the respondents, followed by non-agricultural activities (22%). The other district that used a bigger proportion of its land for livestock keeping is Odweyne (54%). All the other districts allocated the bigger proportions of the land to crop farming, ranging from between 45% (Sheikh) to 100% (Borama and Gabiley).
Table 4‑2: Access to land and land use activities by district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Has access to land Yes 72 (98.6) 69 (87.3) 49 (64.5) 58 (68.2) 74 (94.9) 70 (86.4) 70 (86.4) 68 (86.1) 530 (83.9) No 1 (1.4) 10 (12.7) 27 (35.5) 27 (31.8) 4 (5.1) 11 (13.6) 11 (13.6) 11 (13.9) 102 (16.1) Total 73 (100) 79 (100) 76 (100) 85 (100) 78 (100) 81 (100) 81 (100) 79 (100) 632 (100) Land use activity Crop farming 63 (87.5) 69 (100) 4 (8.2) 51 (87.9) 74 (100) 48 (68.6) 17 (24.3) 31 (45.6) 357 (67.4) Livestock keeping 36 (50) 30 (43.5) 28 (57.1) 6 (10.3) 41 (55.4) 40 (57.1) 38 (54.3) 28 (41.2) 247 (46.6) Non-agricultural 0 (.) 0 (.) 11 (22.4) 0 (.) 0 (.) 6 (8.6) 12 (17.1) 11 (16.2) 40 (7.5) (give e.g.) Fallow (not used) 3 (4.2) 2 (2.9) 0 (.) 1 (1.7) 16 (21.6) 11 (15.7) 5 (7.1) 12 (17.6) 50 (9.4) Other 0 (.) 0 (.) 30 (61.2) 2 (3.4) 0 (.) 17 (24.3) 51 (72.9) 35 (51.5) 135 (25.5)
From the data, land access by livelihood showed that urban households do not have much access to land (Table 4-3). Agro-pastoral and farming households had more access to land by 94% and 91% respectively. Seventy percent of the pastoralists had access to land. Households practising fishing as a livelihood strategy reported the lowest land access proportions (53%, n=18). As expected pastoralist allocated 58% of their land to livestock keeping, similarly agro-pastoralist allocated the bigger proportion of their land to crop farming (89%) and farming households (100%).
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 19 Table 4‑3: Access to land and land use activities by livelihood group Livelihood Farming Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Fishing Urban Total (Riverine/Rainfed) Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Has access to land Yes 134 (69.8) 356 (94.2) 22 (91.7) 18 (52.9) 0 (.) 530 (83.9) No 58 (30.2) 22 (5.8) 2 (8.3) 16 (47.1) 4 (100) 102 (16.1) Total 192 (100) 378 (100) 24 (100) 34 (100) 4 (100) 632 (100) Land use activity Crop farming 13 (9.7) 318 (89.3) 22 (100) 4 (22.2) 357 (67.4) Livestock keeping 78 (58.2) 166 (46.6) 2 (9.1) 1 (5.6) 247 (46.6) Non-agricultural 25 (18.7) 15 (4.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 40 (7.5) Fallow (not used) 5 (3.7) 43 (12.1) 0 (.) 2 (11.1) 50 (9.4) Other 68 (50.7) 51 (14.3) 1 (4.5) 15 (83.3) 135 (25.5)
4.1.1 Crop farming The survey established sorghum as the most grown crop followed by maize in second position and tomatoes in third position (Figure 4-1). There were no distinct gender differences in the types of crops grown, except between maize and tomatoes where more female households grew tomatoes more than those who grew maize. This was also noticed between beans and onions crops, female headed households’ grew more beans than onions.
Figure 4‑1: Crops farmed by gender of the household head
Sorghum was the most grown crop across all districts except in Dollow where the most dominant crop grown was maize (Table 4-4). Sheikh and Borama districts had almost a similar proportion of households growing both sorghum and maize, sorghum was grown by 49% of the respondents while maize was grown by 35% of the respondents in Borama. Sorghum was grown by 48% and maize by 39% of the respondents in Sheikh District. Generally, Hargeisa and Baki district farmers grew more crop varieties than all the other districts. They both grew 11 and 10 crop varieties respectively.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 20 Table 4‑4: Crops farmed by district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farmed Sorghum 23 (36.5) 34 (49.3) 0 (.) 1 (2.0) 68 (91.9) 25 (52.1) 1 (5.9) 15 (48.4) 167 (46.8) Maize 15 (23.8) 24 (34.8) 0 (.) 13 (25.5) 44 (59.5) 13 (27.1) 1 (5.9) 12 (38.7) 122 (34.2) Tomato 18 (28.6) 2 (2.9) 0 (.) 10 (19.6) 21 (28.4) 21 (43.8) 1 (5.9) 2 (6.5) 75 (21.0) Onion 16 (25.4) 1 (1.4) 0 (.) 8 (15.7) 22 (29.7) 9 (18.8) 1 (5.9) 1 (3.2) 58 (16.2) Beans 1 (1.6) 1 (1.4) 0 (.) 13 (25.5) 1 (1.4) 11 (22.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 27 (7.6) Fruits 6 (9.5) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (6.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 9 (2.5) Pepper 6 (9.5) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (6.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 9 (2.5) Lettuce 1 (1.6) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (1.4) 1 (2.1) 0 (.) 1 (3.2) 4 (1.1) Cowpeas 3 (4.8) 1 (1.4) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (1.1) Sweet Potato 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (5.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (0.8) Cabbage 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (4.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (0.6) Peas 0 (.) 1 (1.4) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Sesame 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (5.9) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Rice 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2.1) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Other 1 (1.6) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2.1) 0 (.) 1 (3.2) 3 (0.8)
Crop diversification is more intensive among agro-pastoralists than all other livelihoods strategies, they grow a total of 15 different crops, followed by the farming (Riverine households) who grow six different crop varieties (Table 4-5). The pastoralists grow only sorghum (15%) and maize (8%). The fishing households grow sorghum (25%) and tomatoes (25%). The crop preference doesn’t change, where sorghum and maize are the most preferred crops.
Table 4‑5: Crops farmed by livelihood groups Livelihood Farming (Riverine/ Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Fishing Total Rainfed) Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) Crop farmed Sorghum 2 (15.4) 157 (49.4) 7 (31.8) 1 (25) 167 (46.8) Maize 1 (7.7) 112 (35.2) 9 (40.9) 0 (.) 122 (34.2) Tomato 0 (.) 69 (21.7) 5 (22.7) 1 (25) 75 (21.0) Onion 0 (.) 54 (17.0) 4 (18.2) 0 (.) 58 (16.2) Beans 0 (.) 23 (7.2) 4 (18.2) 0 (.) 27 (7.6) Fruits 0 (.) 9 (2.8) 0 (.) 0 (.) 9 (2.5) Pepper 0 (.) 9 (2.8) 0 (.) 0 (.) 9 (2.5) Lettuce 0 (.) 4 (1.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (1.1) Cowpeas 0 (.) 4 (1.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (1.1) Sweet Potato 0 (.) 2 (0.6) 1 (4.5) 0 (.) 3 (0.8) Cabbage 0 (.) 2 (0.6) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (0.6) Peas 0 (.) 1 (0.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Sesame 0 (.) 1 (0.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Rice 0 (.) 1 (0.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Other 0 (.) 3 (0.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (0.8)
4.1.2 Livestock keeping Among households that reported practising livestock keeping, 177 (71.7%) reported that they owned livestock in the past 12 months (Table 4-6). Majority of these reported they kept goats (n=127, 71.8%). On average, households reported to keeping 27 goats. There were some gender differences in the most kept livestock type, where the most kept animal types among female headed households was sheep while
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 21 majority of male headed households kept goats. The same pattern was reflected in the average number of the two types of animals kept.
Table 4‑6: Livestock keeping by gender of respondent Gender of respondent
Female Male Total n (col %) or n (col %) or N (Col %) or Characteristic mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) Mean (95% CI) Owned livestock in past 12 months Yes 17 (56.7) 160 (73.7) 177 (71.7) No 13 (43.3) 57 (26.3) 70 (28.3) Total 30 (100) 217 (100) 247 (100) Households that own livestock Goats 9 (52.9) 118 (73.8) 127 (71.8) Sheep 10 (58.8) 115 (72.9) 125 (70.6) Cattle 9 (52.9) 67 (41.9) 76 (42.9) Camels 1 (5.9) 41 (25.6) 42 (23.7) Donkeys 2 (11.8) 14 (8.8) 16 (9.0) Number of livestock owned Goats * 18.9 (6.0 - 31.8) 27.4 (24.5 - 30.3) 26.8 (24.0 - 29.6) Sheep * 29.0 (16.0 - 41.9) 20.3 (17.8 - 22.9) 21.0 (18.5 - 23.6) Camels * 8.0 (. - .) 7.2 (5.2 - 9.1) 7.2 (5.3 - 9.1) Cattle * 4.8 (1.4 - 8.2) 5.6 (4.7 - 6.5) 5.5 (4.7 - 6.3) Donkeys * 1.0 (1.0 - 1.0) 1.1 (0.8 - 1.5) 1.1 (0.9 - 1.4) Tropical Livestock Unit * 4.3 (2.3 - 6.3) 6.2 (5.6 - 6.8) 6.0 (5.4 - 6.6) *- adjusted for extreme observation
Livestock ownership by districts showed that all districts have livestock owning households. Baki, Borama and Hargeisa districts reported about 50% livestock ownership (Table 4-7). Goats were the most owned livestock type in Baki, Borama, Burco, Dollow, Odweyne and Sheikh Districts while sheep were the most kept livestock in Gabiley and Hargeisa districts.
Table 4‑7: Livestock keeping by district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) or n (col %) or n (col %) or n (col %) or n (col %) or n (col %) or N (Col %) or or or Characteristic mean (95% mean (95% mean (95% mean (95% mean (95% mean (95% Mean (95% mean (95% mean (95% CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) Owned livestock in past 12 months Yes 18 (50) 15 (50) 23 (82.1) 6 (100) 33 (80.5) 21 (52.5) 36 (94.7) 25 (89.3) 177 (71.7) No 18 (50) 15 (50) 5 (17.9) 0 (.) 8 (19.5) 19 (47.5) 2 (5.3) 3 (10.7) 70 (28.3) Total 36 (100) 30 (100) 28 (100) 6 (100) 41 (100) 40 (100) 38 (100) 28 (100) 247 (100) Households that own livestock Goats 13 (72.2) 11 (73.3) 23 (82.1) 6 (100) 4 (12.1) 10 (47.6) 35 (97.2) 25 (100) 127 (71.8) Sheep 7 (38.9) 10 (66.7) 13 (56.5) 0 (.) 26 (78.8) 17 (81.0) 33 (91.7) 19 (76.0) 125 (70.6) Cattle 9 (50) 13 (86.7) 0 (.) 0 (.) 33 (80.5) 5 (23.8) 0 (.) 16 (64.0) 76 (42.9) Camels 3 (16.7) 1 (6.7) 9 (39.1) 1 (16.7) 3 (9.1) 6 (28.6) 14 (38.9) 5 (20.0) 42 (23.7) Donkeys 0 (.) 1 (6.7) 0 (.) 0 (.) 14 (42.4) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (4.0) 16 (9.0) Number of livestock owned 21.8 16.4 (8.2 - 31.7 26.8 (8.4 - 16.8 (7.4 - 24.4 (14.0 - 27.4 (22.5 - 31.2 (24.5 - 26.8 Goats * (11.2 - 32.5) 24.6) (23.7 - 39.6) 45.3) 26.1) 34.8) 32.4) 37.9) (24.0 - 29.6) 18.3 23.5 (17.9 - 23.8 14.8 (11.2 - 33.3 (24.3 - 16.1 (11.2 - 25.1 (17.3 - 21.0 Sheep * . (. - .) (14.8 - 21.7) 29.1) (14.8 - 32.8) 18.3) 42.2) 20.9) 32.9) (18.5 - 23.6) 9.3 Camels * 8.7 (. - .) 4.0 (. - .) 9.0 (. - .) 1.0 (1.0 - 1.0) 5.3 (2.2 - 8.4) 9.0 (5.1 - 12.9) 3.6 (. - .) 7.2 (5.3 - 9.1) (3.3 - 15.2) Cattle * 5.7 (3.3 - 8.0) 6.3 (3.9 - 8.6) . (. - .) . (. - .) 3.9 (3.2 - 4.6) 2.2 (0.2 - 4.2) . (. - .) 9.2 (6.9 - 11.5) 5.5 (4.7 - 6.3) Donkeys * . (. - .) 1.0 (. - .) . (. - .) . (. - .) 1.1 (0.8 - 1.5) . (. - .) . (. - .) 1.0 (. - .) 1.1 (0.9 - 1.4) Tropical 6.5 (4.3 - 5.0 (3.5 - 6.6) 5.9 (4.3 - 7.4) 4.9 (. - .) 3.7 (2.9 - 4.4) 6.7 (4.8 - 8.6) 6.6 (5.2 - 7.9) 8.2 (6.8 - 9.6) 6.0 (5.4 - 6.6) Livestock Unit * 8.6) *- adjusted for extreme observation
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 22 Eighty seven percent of the pastoralist households and 65% of agro-pastoralist households keep livestock (Table 4-8). Only one household among the farming and fishing households reported keeping livestock in the past 12 months. The bigger proportion of pastoralist kept goats (87%) than sheep (72%) while agro- pastoralist reported more sheep (69%) than goats (63%). On average, pastoralists’ households kept 30 goats and 25 sheep while agro-pastoralists kept 25 goats and 19 sheep. In terms of tropical livestock units agro-pastoralist had slightly lower value (5.5) than pastoralist (6.8).
Table 4‑8: Livestock keeping by livelihood Livelihood Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Farming (Riverine/Rainfed) Fishing Total n (col %) or n (col %) or n (col %) or n (col %) or N (Col %) or Characteristic mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) Mean (95% CI) Owned livestock in past 12 months Yes 68 (87.2) 107 (64.5) 1 (50.0) 1 (100) 177 (71.7) No 10 (12.8) 59 (35.5) 1 (50.0) 0 (.) 70 (28.3) Total 78 (100) 166 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 247 (100) Households that own
livestock Goats 59 (86.8) 67 (62.6) 0 (.) 1 (100) 127 (71.8) Sheep 49 (72.1) 74 (69.2) 1 (100) 1 (100) 125 (70.6) Cattle 2 (2.9) 73 (68.2) 1 (100) 0 (.) 76 (42.9) Camels 24 (35.3) 18 (16.8) 0 (.) 0 (.) 42 (23.7) Donkeys 0 (.) 16 (15.0) 0 (.) 0 (.) 16 (9.0) Number of livestock
owned Goats * 29.8 (25.2 - 34.3) 24.5 (21.0 - 28.0) . (. - .) 7.0 (. - .) 26.8 (24.0 - 29.6) Sheep * 25.4 (20.1 - 30.7) 18.3 (15.9 - 20.8) 20.0 (. - .) 6.0 (. - .) 21.0 (18.5 - 23.6) Camels * 7.6 (5.0 - 10.2) 6.6 (3.5 - 9.7) . (. - .) . (. - .) 7.2 (5.3 - 9.1) Cattle * 5.0 (5.0 - 5.0) 5.5 (4.7 - 6.4) 4.0 (. - .) . (. - .) 5.5 (4.7 - 6.3) Donkeys * . (. - .) 1.1 (0.9 - 1.4) . (. - .) . (. - .) 1.1 (0.9 - 1.4) Tropical Livestock Unit * 6.8 (5.8 - 7.9) 5.5 (4.9 - 6.1) 4.0 (. - .) 1.3 (. - .) 6.0 (5.4 - 6.6) *- adjusted for extreme observation
4.2 Land tenure The most common form of land tenure as reported by the respondents was individual ownership (Table 4-9). Land owned by majority of the respondents was used for the different activities. Communal land was mainly used for crop farming (0.8%) and livestock keeping (10%). Rented land was used for crop farming and non-agricultural activities while fallow land was owned land.
Table 4‑9: Land tenure by land use activity and household head gender Household head gender Female Male Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Owned 50 (100) 298 (97.1) 348 (97.5) Borrowed or free-leased in 0 (.) 4 (1.3) 4 (1.1) Communal 0 (.) 3 (1) 3 (0.8) Rented 0 (.) 2 (0.7) 2 (0.6) Total 50 (100) 307 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Owned 30 (100) 190 (87.6) 220 (89.1) Communal 0 (.) 25 (11.5) 25 (10.1) Borrowed or free-leased in 0 (.) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.8) Total 30 (100) 217 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Owned 20 (100) 19 (95) 39 (97.5) Rented 0 (.) 1 (5) 1 (2.5) Total 20 (100) 20 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Owned 6 (100) 44 (100) 50 (100) Total 6 (100) 44 (100) 50 (100) Other Owned 14 (100) 116 (95.9) 130 (96.3) Borrowed or free-leased in 0 (.) 3 (2.5) 3 (2.2) Communal 0 (.) 2 (1.7) 2 (1.5) Total 14 (100) 121 (100) 135 (100)
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 23 Table 4-10 shows that land tenure was consistent across the districts. Communal land is used by respondents in Burco and Odweyne districts only. Land use activities are mainly for livestock keeping, crop farming and other uses. Borrowed or free-leased land appears in Baki and Hargeisa districts used only for crop farming.
Table 4‑10: Land tenure by land use activity and district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Owned 60 (95.2) 69 (100) 3 (75) 50 (98) 74 (100) 46 (95.8) 15 (88.2) 31 (100) 348 (97.5) Borrowed or free-leased 1 (1.6) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2) 0 (.) 2 (4.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (1.1) Communal 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (25) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (11.8) 0 (.) 3 (0.8) Rented 2 (3.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (0.6) Total 63 (100) 69 (100) 4 (100) 51 (100) 74 (100) 48 (100) 17 (100) 31 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Owned 36 (100) 30 (100) 21 (75) 6 (100) 41 (100) 40 (100) 26 (68.4) 20 (71.4) 220 (89.1) Communal 0 (.) 0 (.) 5 (17.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 12 (31.6) 8 (28.6) 25 (10.1) Borrowed or free-leased 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (7.1) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (0.8) Total 36 (100) 30 (100) 28 (100) 6 (100) 41 (100) 40 (100) 38 (100) 28 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Owned 11 (100) 5 (83.3) 12 (100) 11 (100) 39 (97.5) Rented 0 (.) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2.5) Total 11 (100) 6 (100) 12 (100) 11 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Owned 3 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 16 (100) 11 (100) 5 (100) 12 (100) 50 (100) Total 3 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 16 (100) 11 (100) 5 (100) 12 (100) 50 (100) Other Owned 27 (90) 1 (50) 16 (94.1) 51 (100) 35 (100) 130 (96.3) Borrowed or free-leased 1 (3.3) 1 (50) 1 (5.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (2.2) Communal 2 (6.7) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (1.5) Total 30 (100) 2 (100) 17 (100) 51 (100) 35 (100) 135 (100)
Pastoralist and agro-pastoralists are the only livelihoods where respondents leased or borrowed land, rented land or used communal land for crop farming, livestock keeping and other land use activities (Table 4-11). Rented land was practiced by fishing and pastoral households. Communal land was used for livestock keeping by 18% of the pastoralist and 6% of the agro-pastoralists respondents.
Table 4‑11: Land tenure by land use activity and livelihood group Livelihood Farming Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Fishing Total (Riverine/Rainfed) Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Owned 13 (100) 311 (97.8) 20 (90.9) 4 (100) 348 (97.5) Borrowed or free-leased in 0 (.) 4 (1.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (1.1) Communal 0 (.) 3 (0.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (0.8) Rented 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (9.1) 0 (.) 2 (0.6) Total 13 (100) 318 (100) 22 (100) 4 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Owned 62 (79.5) 156 (94) 2 (100) 0 (.) 220 (89.1) Communal 14 (17.9) 10 (6) 0 (.) 1 (100) 25 (10.1) Borrowed or free-leased in 2 (2.6) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (0.8) Total 78 (100) 166 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Owned 24 (96) 15 (100) 39 (97.5) Rented 1 (4) 0 (.) 1 (2.5) Total 25 (100) 15 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Owned 5 (100) 43 (100) 2 (100) 50 (100) Total 5 (100) 43 (100) 2 (100) 50 (100) Other Owned 66 (97.1) 49 (96.1) 1 (100) 14 (93.3) 130 (96.3) Borrowed or free-leased in 1 (1.5) 1 (2) 0 (.) 1 (6.7) 3 (2.2) Communal 1 (1.5) 1 (2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (1.5) Total 68 (100) 51 (100) 1 (100) 15 (100) 135 (100)
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 24 4.3 Land acquisition Land acquisition analysis in Figure 4-2 shows that most households acquired land through inheritance regardless of the land use activity. The second common mode of land acquisition is purchase across the different land use activities.
Figure 4‑2: land acquisition by land use activity
Analysis by gender did not reveal any notable gender differences in the mode of land acquisition. In fact, in both gender categories, inheritance is the most common mode of land acquisition followed by purchase (Table 4-12). Overall, very few individuals received land through other modes such as gifts.
Table 4‑12: Land acquisition by land use activity and household head gender Household head gender Female Male Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Inherited 35 (70) 254 (82.7) 289 (81) Purchased 15 (30) 36 (11.7) 51 (14.3) Received as gift 0 (.) 9 (2.9) 9 (2.5) Other 0 (.) 8 (2.6) 8 (2.2) Total 50 (100) 307 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Inherited 24 (80) 162 (74.7) 186 (75.3) Other 3 (10) 27 (12.4) 30 (12.1) Purchased 1 (3.3) 20 (9.2) 21 (8.5) Received as gift 2 (6.7) 8 (3.7) 10 (4) Total 30 (100) 217 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Inherited 19 (95) 19 (95) 38 (95) Received as gift 0 (.) 1 (5) 1 (2.5) Other 1 (5) 0 (.) 1 (2.5) Total 20 (100) 20 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Inherited 4 (66.7) 40 (90.9) 44 (88) Purchased 1 (16.7) 3 (6.8) 4 (8) Other 1 (16.7) 1 (2.3) 2 (4) Total 6 (100) 44 (100) 50 (100) Other Inherited 10 (71.4) 77 (63.6) 87 (64.4) Purchased 3 (21.4) 24 (19.8) 27 (20) Other 1 (7.1) 17 (14) 18 (13.3) Received as gift 0 (.) 3 (2.5) 3 (2.2) Total 14 (100) 121 (100) 135 (100)
Across districts, the mode of land acquisition remained inheritance, except in Dollow district where majority of the respondents said they purchased land (62%) while 33% informed that they inherited land for crop farming (Table 4-13). Baki and Hargeisa districts reported more modes of land acquisition than all other districts although the trend is still the same where inheritance, purchase and gifts were mentioned in that order of frequency.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 25 Table 4‑13: Land acquisition by land use activity and district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Inherited 53 (84.1) 62 (89.9) 2 (50) 17 (33.3) 74 (100) 40 (83.3) 15 (88.2) 26 (83.9) 289 (81) Purchased 6 (9.5) 4 (5.8) 1 (25) 32 (62.7) 0 (.) 4 (8.3) 0 (.) 4 (12.9) 51 (14.3) Received as gift 2 (3.2) 3 (4.3) 0 (.) 2 (3.9) 0 (.) 2 (4.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 9 (2.5) Other 2 (3.2) 0 (.) 1 (25) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (4.2) 2 (11.8) 1 (3.2) 8 (2.2) Total 63 (100) 69 (100) 4 (100) 51 (100) 74 (100) 48 (100) 17 (100) 31 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Inherited 31 (86.1) 27 (90) 19 (67.9) 5 (83.3) 41 (100) 24 (60) 22 (57.9) 17 (60.7) 186 (75.3) Other 0 (.) 0 (.) 5 (17.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 6 (15) 11 (28.9) 8 (28.6) 30 (12.1) Purchased 5 (13.9) 2 (6.7) 2 (7.1) 0 (.) 0 (.) 5 (12.5) 4 (10.5) 3 (10.7) 21 (8.5) Received as gift 0 (.) 1 (3.3) 2 (7.1) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 5 (12.5) 1 (2.6) 0 (.) 10 (4) Total 36 (100) 30 (100) 28 (100) 6 (100) 41 (100) 40 (100) 38 (100) 28 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Inherited 11 (100) 4 (66.7) 12 (100) 11 (100) 38 (95) Received as gift 0 (.) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2.5) Other 0 (.) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2.5) Total 11 (100) 6 (100) 12 (100) 11 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Inherited 2 (66.7) 2 (100) 1 (100) 16 (100) 9 (81.8) 5 (100) 9 (75) 44 (88) Purchased 1 (33.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (25) 4 (8) Other 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (18.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (4) Total 3 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 16 (100) 11 (100) 5 (100) 12 (100) 50 (100) Other Inherited 22 (73.3) 0 (.) 8 (47.1) 36 (70.6) 21 (60) 87 (64.4) Purchased 5 (16.7) 0 (.) 8 (47.1) 11 (21.6) 3 (8.6) 27 (20) Other 3 (10) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (7.8) 11 (31.4) 18 (13.3) Received as gift 0 (.) 2 (100) 1 (5.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (2.2) Total 30 (100) 2 (100) 17 (100) 51 (100) 35 (100) 135 (100)
Livelihood analysis revealed a pattern similar to all other land related indicators where pastoralist and agro-pastoralist acquired land through more varied means than all other livelihoods. Among pastoralist and agro-pastoralist, the common mode of land acquisition is inheritance followed by purchase (Table 4-14). Gifts were mentioned by less than 10% of the respondents across livelihoods.
Table 4‑14: Land acquisition by land use activity and livelihood group Livelihood Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Farming (Riverine/Rainfed) Fishing Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Inherited 11 (84.6) 259 (81.4) 15 (68.2) 4 (100) 289 (81) Purchased 1 (7.7) 46 (14.5) 4 (18.2) 0 (.) 51 (14.3) Received as gift 1 (7.7) 7 (2.2) 1 (4.5) 0 (.) 9 (2.5) Other 0 (.) 6 (1.9) 2 (9.1) 0 (.) 8 (2.2) Total 13 (100) 318 (100) 22 (100) 4 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Inherited 46 (59) 139 (83.7) 1 (50) 0 (.) 186 (75.3) Other 18 (23.1) 11 (6.6) 0 (.) 1 (100) 30 (12.1) Purchased 8 (10.3) 12 (7.2) 1 (50) 0 (.) 21 (8.5) Received as gift 6 (7.7) 4 (2.4) 0 (.) 0 (.) 10 (4) Total 78 (100) 166 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Inherited 23 (92) 15 (100) 38 (95) Received as gift 1 (4) 0 (.) 1 (2.5) Other 1 (4) 0 (.) 1 (2.5) Total 25 (100) 15 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Inherited 4 (80) 38 (88.4) 2 (100) 44 (88) Purchased 0 (.) 4 (9.3) 0 (.) 4 (8) Other 1 (20) 1 (2.3) 0 (.) 2 (4) Total 5 (100) 43 (100) 2 (100) 50 (100) Other Inherited 47 (69.1) 36 (70.6) 1 (100) 3 (20) 87 (64.4) Purchased 11 (16.2) 9 (17.6) 0 (.) 7 (46.7) 27 (20) Other 9 (13.2) 5 (9.8) 0 (.) 4 (26.7) 18 (13.3) Received as gift 1 (1.5) 1 (2) 0 (.) 1 (6.7) 3 (2.2) Total 68 (100) 51 (100) 1 (100) 15 (100) 135 (100)
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 26 4.4 Land rights Land rights analysis (Figure 4-3) shows that title deeds are the most common form of land ownership rights regardless of the land use activity and gender of household. This was followed by land ownership certificate as mentioned by respondents.
Figure 4‑3: Land rights by land use activity and household gender
Title deeds are the most listed form of land rights across all districts. Possession of land ownership certificate was reported by respondents from Burco, Dollow, Gabiley and Sheikh districts, regardless of land use (Table 4-15). The general observation is that there is no direct association between land use activity and land ownership rights.
Table 4‑15: Land rights by land use activity and district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Title deed 57 (90.5) 69 (100) 2 (50) 45 (88.2) 68 (91.9) 45 (93.8) 14 (82.4) 29 (93.5) 329 (92.2) Certificate 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (25) 6 (11.8) 6 (8.1) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (3.2) 14 (3.9) Tax receipts 3 (4.8) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (4.2) 1 (5.9) 0 (.) 6 (1.7) Sales deeds 1 (1.6) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Other 2 (3.2) 0 (.) 1 (25) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2.1) 2 (11.8) 1 (3.2) 7 (2) Total 63 (100) 69 (100) 4 (100) 51 (100) 74 (100) 48 (100) 17 (100) 31 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Title deed 34 (94.4) 30 (100) 21 (75) 3 (50) 39 (95.1) 30 (75) 25 (65.8) 19 (67.9) 201 (81.4) Tax receipts 2 (5.6) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 10 (25) 1 (2.6) 0 (.) 13 (5.3) Certificate 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (33.3) 2 (4.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (3.6) 5 (2) Other 0 (.) 0 (.) 7 (25) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 0 (.) 12 (31.6) 8 (28.6) 28 (11.3) Total 36 (100) 30 (100) 28 (100) 6 (100) 41 (100) 40 (100) 38 (100) 28 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Title deed 11 (100) 3 (50) 12 (100) 11 (100) 37 (92.5) Tax receipts 0 (.) 3 (50) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (7.5) Total 11 (100) 6 (100) 12 (100) 11 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Title deed 3 (100) 2 (100) 0 (.) 16 (100) 8 (72.7) 5 (100) 11 (91.7) 45 (90) Tax receipts 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (27.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 3 (6) Certificate 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (100) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (8.3) 2 (4) Total 3 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 16 (100) 11 (100) 5 (100) 12 (100) 50 (100) Other Title deed 26 (86.7) 2 (100) 17 (100) 49 (96.1) 29 (82.9) 123 (91.1) Certificate 1 (3.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2.9) 2 (1.5) Tax receipts 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2) 1 (2.9) 2 (1.5) Other 3 (10) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (2) 4 (11.4) 8 (5.9) Total 30 (100) 2 (100) 17 (100) 51 (100) 35 (100) 135 (100)
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 27 Forms of land right was mainly title deed amongst all livelihoods (Table 4-16). However, rights were more varied among pastoralists and agro-pastoralists than all livelihoods as they reported land certificate, tax receipts and sale deeds as forms of land rights. There seems also to be no association between land use activity and form of land rights.
Table 4‑16: Land rights by land use activity and livelihood group Livelihood Farming Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Fishing Total (Riverine/Rainfed) Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Crop farming Title deed 11 (84.6) 295 (92.8) 20 (90.9) 3 (75) 329 (92.2) Certificate 2 (15.4) 10 (3.1) 1 (4.5) 1 (25) 14 (3.9) Tax receipts 0 (.) 6 (1.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 6 (1.7) Sales deeds 0 (.) 1 (0.3) 0 (.) 0 (.) 1 (0.3) Other 0 (.) 6 (1.9) 1 (4.5) 0 (.) 7 (2) Total 13 (100) 318 (100) 22 (100) 4 (100) 357 (100) Livestock keeping Title deed 54 (69.2) 145 (87.3) 2 (100) 0 (.) 201 (81.4) Tax receipts 6 (7.7) 7 (4.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 13 (5.3) Certificate 2 (2.6) 3 (1.8) 0 (.) 0 (.) 5 (2) Other 16 (20.5) 11 (6.6) 0 (.) 1 (100) 28 (11.3) Total 78 (100) 166 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 247 (100) Non-agricultural Title deed 23 (92) 14 (93.3) 37 (92.5) Tax receipts 2 (8) 1 (6.7) 3 (7.5) Total 25 (100) 15 (100) 40 (100) Fallow (not used) Title deed 3 (60) 41 (95.3) 1 (50) 45 (90) Tax receipts 1 (20) 1 (2.3) 1 (50) 3 (6) Certificate 1 (20) 1 (2.3) 0 (.) 2 (4) Total 5 (100) 43 (100) 2 (100) 50 (100) Other Title deed 63 (92.6) 45 (88.2) 1 (100) 14 (93.3) 123 (91.1) Certificate 1 (1.5) 1 (2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (1.5) Tax receipts 0 (.) 2 (3.9) 0 (.) 0 (.) 2 (1.5) Other 4 (5.9) 3 (5.9) 0 (.) 1 (6.7) 8 (5.9) Total 68 (100) 51 (100) 1 (100) 15 (100) 135 (100)
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 28 4.5 Land size The average land owned allocated to land use activities showed that more land is left fallow averaging to 5.7 ha, followed by livestock keeping (2.4 ha) and crop farming (1.3 ha) (Table 4-17). Although male-headed households owned more land on average than female-headed households, the pattern in terms of land use activities were similar. The 95% confidence intervals showed that there is no statistical difference in land allocation between male and female-headed households as the confidence intervals overlapped.
Table 4‑17: Average land size (in Ha) by land use activity and household head gender Household head gender Female Male Total Characteristic mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) Mean (95% CI) Land size (in Ha) Fallow (not used) * 5.0 (. - .) 5.8 (3.4 - 8.3) 5.7 (3.5 - 8.0) Livestock keeping * 1.6 (0.7 - 2.5) 2.5 (2.0 - 2.9) 2.4 (1.9 - 2.8) Crop farming * 1.6 (1.1 - 2.1) 1.2 (1.0 - 1.4) 1.3 (1.1 - 1.4) Non-agricultural * 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) Other * 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) *- adjusted for extreme observation
Land use activities, in terms of land allocated to each activity didn’t show a consistent pattern across districts. Odweyne, Sheikh and Dollow residents allocated land activity to fallow, livestock keeping and then crop farming in decreasing order as most land was allocated to fallow and least to crop farming (Table 4-18). Baki, Borama and Hargeisa residents allocated more land to livestock keeping followed by crop farming while Burco residents allocated more land to crop farming. Respondents from Gabiley reported an equal allocation of land to crop farming and fallow and less to livestock keeping.
Table 4‑18: Average land size (in Ha) by land use activity and district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total mean mean mean mean mean mean mean mean Mean Characteristic (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Land size (in Ha) 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.4 1.4 17.4 14.4 5.7 Fallow (not used) * . (. - .) (0.1 - 0.1) (0.1 - 0.1) (. - .) (0.0 - 0.8) (0.1 - 3.0) (9.0 - 25.8) (10.1 - 18.6) (3.5 - 8.0) 0.5 0.3 1.5 4.0 0.3 1.7 4.5 8.4 2.4 Livestock keeping * (0.0 - 1.0) (0.1 - 0.6) (0.2 - 2.8) (1.5 - 6.5) (0.2 - 0.4) (0.9 - 2.5) (3.1 - 5.9) (8.0 - 8.9) (1.9 - 2.8) 0.3 0.4 2.4 3.9 0.4 0.5 3.5 3.7 1.3 Crop farming * (0.2 - 0.4) (0.2 - 0.5) (. - .) (3.6 - 4.1) (0.4 - 0.5) (0.3 - 0.7) (2.9 - 4.0) (3.3 - 4.1) (1.1 - 1.4) 0.0 Non-agricultural * . (. - .) . (. - .) . (. - .) . (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) (. - .) 0.0 0.0 Other * . (. - .) . (. - .) . (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) (. - .) (. - .) *- adjusted for extreme observation
As expected pastoralist allocated more land to livestock keeping (2.6 ha) while farming (riverine) allocated more to crop farming (6.4 ha) (Table 4-19). A notable observation is that Agro-pastoralist left more land fallow (6.4 ha) than they allocated to crop farming or livestock keeping. Fishing livelihood households allocated more of their land to livestock keeping (8.9 ha) followed by crop farming.
Table 4‑19: Average land size (in Ha) by land use activity and livelihood groups Livelihood Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Farming (Riverine/Rainfed) Fishing Total Characteristic mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) mean (95% CI) Mean (95% CI) Land size (in Ha) Fallow (not used) * 2.4 (. - .) 6.4 (3.8 - 9.0) . (. - .) 0.1 (0.1 - 0.1) 5.7 (3.5 - 8.0) Livestock keeping * 2.6 (1.8 - 3.5) 2.2 (1.7 - 2.8) 0.2 (. - .) 8.9 (. - .) 2.4 (1.9 - 2.8) Crop farming * 1.4 (0.4 - 2.3) 1.3 (1.1 - 1.5) 1.3 (0.5 - 2.1) 0.5 (. - .) 1.3 (1.1 - 1.4) Non-agricultural * 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) . (. - .) . (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) Other * 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) 0.0 (. - .) *- adjusted for extreme observation
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 29 4.6 Land conflicts Seventy five percent of the respondents had experienced land conflict in the last 12 months, analysis by gender of showed that 74% of the male-headed households and 77% of the female-headed households (Table 4-20) had experienced conflicts.
Table 4‑20: Land conflict experienced in the past 12 months by household head gender Household head gender Female Male Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Experienced conflict in past 12 months No 96 (77.4) 378 (74.4) 474 (75.0) Yes 28 (22.6) 130 (25.6) 158 (25.0) Total 124 (100) 508 (100) 632 (100) Conflicts experienced Trespassing 24 (85.7) 117 (90.0) 141 (89.2) Land enclosure 18 (64.3) 80 (61.5) 98 (62.0) Use of resources 9 (32.1) 26 (20.0) 35 (22.2) Charcoal production 9 (32.1) 15 (11.5) 24 (15.2) Other 3 (10.7) 4 (3.1) 7 (4.4)
Figure 4-4 shows that the most common type of conflict experienced by households was land enclosure and trespassing.
Figure 4‑4: Land conflicts experienced by households
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 30 Trespassing and land enclosure were the most common types of conflicts experienced in Gabiley and Hargeisa districts (Table 4-21) while trespassing was among the most experienced conflict nearly among the entire livelihood group (Table 4-22).
Table 4‑21: Land conflict experienced in the past 12 months by district District Baki Borama Burco Dollow Gabiley Hargeisa Odweyne Sheikh Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Experienced conflict in past 12 months No 68 (93.2) 73 (92.4) 75 (98.7) 85 (100) 2 (2.6) 11 (13.6) 81 (100) 79 (100) 474 (75.0) Yes 5 (6.8) 6 (7.6) 1 (1.3) 0 (.) 76 (97.4) 70 (86.4) 0 (.) 0 (.) 158 (25.0) Total 73 (100) 79 (100) 76 (100) 85 (100) 78 (100) 81 (100) 81 (100) 79 (100) 632 (100) Conflicts experienced Trespassing 0 (.) 5 (83.3) 0 (.) 75 (98.7) 61 (87.1) 141 (89.2) Land enclosure 0 (.) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 45 (59.2) 52 (74.3) 98 (62.0) Use of resources 2 (40.0) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 14 (18.4) 18 (25.7) 35 (22.2) Charcoal production 2 (40.0) 0 (.) 0 (.) 4 (5.3) 18 (25.7) 24 (15.2) Other 1 (20.0) 0 (.) 1 (100) 0 (.) 5 (7.1) 7 (4.4)
Table 4‑22: Land conflict experienced in the past 12 months by livelihood group Livelihood Farming Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Fishing Urban Total (Riverine/Rainfed) Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Experienced conflict in past 12 months No 169 (88.0) 253 (66.9) 22 (91.7) 28 (82.4) 2 (50.0) 474 (75.0) Yes 23 (12.0) 125 (33.1) 2 (8.3) 6 (17.6) 2 (50.0) 158 (25.0) Total 192 (100) 378 (100) 24 (100) 34 (100) 4 (100) 632 (100) Conflicts experienced Trespassing 18 (78.3) 118 (94.4) 1 (50.0) 3 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 141 (89.2) Charcoal production 5 (21.7) 19 (15.2) 0 (.) 0 (.) 0 (.) 24 (15.2) Land enclosure 13 (56.5) 79 (63.2) 1 (50.0) 4 (66.7) 1 (50.0) 98 (62.0) Use of resources 5 (21.7) 28 (22.4) 1 (50.0) 0 (.) 1 (50.0) 35 (22.2) Other 4 (17.4) 2 (1.6) 0 (.) 1 (16.7) 0 (.) 7 (4.4)
4.7 Conflict actors The main actors in land conflicts are ordinary civilians (89%, n=125) and clans/group (55%, n=77) (Table 4-23). The players also included government and business enterprises playing less than 10% across gender, livelihood and districts.
Table 4‑23: Trespassing conflict players by household head gender Household head gender Female Male Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Trespassing conflict players Ordinary civilians 18 (75) 107 (91.5) 125 (88.7) Clan/groups 16 (66.7) 61 (52.1) 77 (54.6) Government 2 (8.3) 5 (4.3) 7 (5) Business enterprise 2 (8.3) 2 (1.7) 4 (2.8) IDPs 1 (4.2) 0 (.) 1 (0.7) Others 3 (12.5) 9 (7.7) 12 (8.5)
Clans/groups played more prominent roles when it came to conflicts related to charcoal production and use of resources
Table 4‑24: Use of resources conflict by household gender Household head gender Female Male Total Characteristic n (col %) n (col %) N (Col %) Use of resources conflict Clan/groups 7 (77.8) 22 (84.6) 29 (82.9) Ordinary civilians 4 (44.4) 11 (42.3) 15 (42.9) Business enterprise 2 (22.2) 0 (.) 2 (5.7) Government 0 (.) 1 (3.8) 1 (2.9) Others 1 (11.1) 1 (3.8) 2 (5.7)
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 31 5. Observations and Findings 5.1 Land acquisition and distribution The most common form of land acquisition in the respective communities was given as (i) family inheritance, (ii) gifts, (iii) outright purchase and (iv) allocation from the local government. In a few cases, forceful acquisition of land has been observed in some communities particularly areas in Odweyne and Burao districts where the respondents mentioned such cases. Similarly, majority of the respondents indicated having acquired their land predominantly through inheritance from their families.
All the respondents were in agreement that the land distribution is according to traditional Degan or clan homeland system of governance by clan leaders, mostly on clan/family basis, and sometimes, according to social status and political dynamics, with the respect of their application of customary law (Xeer) agreement. Each community/clan has its traditional system of leaders (elders, chiefs (Caaqilo), and sultans) and these were selected among the most respected members of their community.
Inheritance process is traditionally handled by informal committees that have been formed based on clan representatives after consultations with the respected clan and religious leaders. Chiefs from sub clans distribute the land, with the support of traditional elders, based on the same clan system. The traditional leaders select village committees to solve any land problems that may arise between communities in the village or area. It is very rare that women are included in these committees as reported by the groups during discussions and by the key informants from both local authorities and community leaders.
In common Somali practice, this procedure which is fundamentally run by traditional elders (such as Sultans and Chiefs) is an established process starting from the complainant up to Guurti (traditional elders established to intervene). The Guurti consisted elders selected for their knowledge and experience in their community, and is very common in Somaliland where they have the highest power among the community. The length of conflict resolution process depends on the magnitude of complaint, if the case is seen as immaterial then it can be addressed by immediate family (husband, parents and relatives) but if the case is more complex, chief elders have to intervene convincing those involved to accept the verdict that will be reached by the elders, the Guurti is the ultimate body to intervene if complaints are escalated or appealed. As with many other community level issues, traditional elders and leaders are the most influential figures in land distribution matters. Government administration officials are second in stature on these matters, where they are available or present; do not have strong influence in land matters the elders due to the lack of enforcement capacity of local government’s decisions in the area of the incidence.
5.2 Land ownership Based on group discussions and information from key informant interviews with regards to land ownership, majority of the respondents alluded to the fact that the largest proportion of land in sampled areas was communally owned (about 50-60%) but there is no accurate census which confirms the exact percentage of communally owned land. This land was used for pastoralism and agro-pastoralism. They further indicated that 30% of the land was individually owned while the rest belonged to the government. The management of these swathes of communal land is primarily the responsibility of the village committees (representatives of the sub-clans), traditional leaders and sometimes with input from the government. This information does not contradict to the findings from household interviews as this latter was based on land ownership at household level.
Even though every person in the community has a right to access and use land for grazing purposes, land is pre-dominantly used for livestock grazing and farming. All the sampled respondents agreed that the presence of land as a communal asset was very necessary. The main reason for this assertion is because of lack of a variety in terms of availability of resources. Therefore, land is considered the most important and valuable natural asset according to the respondents. The communal ownership of land and land use minimizes conflicts, while maximizing the utility of land for their primary livelihood, which is pastoralism in many areas of Somaliland.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 32 The main land related problems faced by the respondents from the sampled communities included land enclosures made by some of residents in the areas who use their power or political connections as reported by respondents in areas of Burao and Odweyne districts. Road infrastructure fragmenting and blocking animal corridors was experienced in areas where communities live on farming or/and agro pastoralism. Land degradation from charcoal production and the establishment of new settlements were among the problems mentioned during the discussions and interviews with the key informants.
Women, children, and other vulnerable groups such as IDPs and minority groups were identified by the respondents as the community groups most affected by all forms of land conflicts and other land related issues. This is because these groups have little or no land rights, particularly women culturally considered inferior (or with lesser rights than men) and are not included in the village committees or elders in the community.
Lack of capacity and faith in the government systems has resulted in traditional and religious leaders playing lead role in mediating/arbitrating/resolving land disputes in the community. These traditional and religious systems hold a lot of clout and sway among community members in general; therefore, any directives or interventions from them are fully respected contrary to that of government systems surrounded by corruption and lack of enforcement as reported by the respondents. In the absence of strong and capable institutions to implement formal laws and manage land issues, traditional councils of elders by and large remain the most influential and effective bodies to address the problem. Where these traditional systems are used, the elders gather at a pre-determined location (usually under a tree) where the conflicting parties meet and give their sides of the matter at hand. Solutions or judgements are also handed down at the same location and in a similar manner, once the elders arrive at a consensus.
5.3 Land laws and rights All members of the community have a right to own land, which they are free to donate, sell or allocate to their family members as inheritance. They are also allowed to lease or rent it out to other persons as necessary and this is common across the target areas of the study. Individuals and the community in general secure this right to land either through government certification of land ownership or through the approval and guidance of traditional elders in the area of residence. In some villages, there are land certificates issued by the government which are recognised in the communities. Despite the general lack of influence on land matters, women are allowed to own land in most instances.
There were two opposing views on women’s right to land among the study participants. A majority of them opined that women have only usufruct right to grow crops to feed the family, while others said they both have the right to grow crops to feed the family and make profit by owning land. It was agreed though, that traditional customs and norms of the community are major impediment faced by women right to own land. The respondents indicated having some awareness of laws governing the transfer, use and management of land in their respective communities. None indicated observing any of these laws being enforced by any institution, body or individual. These laws generally govern user rights, control rights and transfer rights. Specifically, the laws address issues around the right to sell, the right to farm, graze, derive income from the land, protection from illegal expropriation of the land and the right to exclude unauthorized people from using the land.
Traditional systems remain the primary source of protection of community/individual land rights enforced by the clan elders and local authorities with the support of religious leaders and political figures paying tax to local authorities as reported by those participants of the study in Somaliland.
Some of the participants reported that laws governing the agricultural lands are partially enforced by the Ministry of Agriculture of Somaliland, local authorities and council of elders who in some instances play a major role in the whole land registration process. However, the lack of a proper government structure and system, coupled by the poor representation at local levels were mentioned as the main impediments to the
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 33 enforcement of these land rights and laws in the communities where they exist. Other reasons given for the poor enforcement of these land rights and laws included; (i) lack of respect of traditional government systems (ii) lack of community participation and awareness (iii) inability to enforce due to weak institutions (lack of human and technical resources) (iv) corruption, and (v) prioritizing of clan loyalties above community well-being as occurred in some parts of Somaliland. These members of the community have loyalty to the clan of the local authorities or the government and due to this they make enclosures for their own use. In most of the communities, it was reported that IDPs have access to land but are not allowed to own any land as they have the status of refugee. Their ability to use land is premised on them being accepted by the community or having lineage relation to the community.
5.4 Land conflict management The existence of and experience in land conflicts was reported by a majority of the respondents. Common causes of these conflicts were given as illegal enclosures on communal land, disputes over accessto and use of water points, and fraudulent eviction (communal open land) by the government as occurred in Qolcaday in Hargeisa area. Majority of the respondents indicated having experienced these conflicts within the last 12 months, with local sub-clans, clans, farmers and pastoralists being the general groups involved. Traditional leaders, village committees, religious figures and business groups were also reported to have been involved in some of these conflicts to reach compromises or peaceful resolutions.
Some of the conflicts ended in violent confrontations which resulted in death in some cases as reported by the respondents. Early involvement of the elders and other dispute resolution mechanisms ensured compromise and peaceful resolutions were reached. Scarcity of water and pasture were identified as the main reasons for the rampant conflicts in the highlighted areas. Perceived historical injustices were also a major source of these conflicts, and some respondents were even unwilling to respond to this question due to the fear of stoking the conflicts further by discussing the issue. Apart from the issues related to settlements within the communal areas, grazing and pasture rights are the leading cause of conflicts among these communities. Other causative factors include lack of separate and effective land law between pastoralists and crop producers.
In most instances of conflict, the customary traditional systems of conflict resolution were employed. Mediation by traditional elders/leaders was the preferred channel of redress for aggrieved parties. In some areas, where available, religious (Sharia) and government laws are considered to arrive at fair resolution of such conflict. The verdicts of these traditional and religious leaders are highly accepted and relied upon by disputants more often than not, as compared to their dependence or consultation of law courts, particularly when it comes to resolution of land related conflicts. The effectiveness and impact of the traditional and religious leaders is more visible than that of law courts. Most of the participants in the study also mentioned that they do not rely on courts due to many reasons, including corruption and bribe-seeking, bureaucratic hassles inherent in the system, and lack of law enforcement body. In the rare events where courts are used, they only announce decisions made by the traditional councils and security forces come in to support their implementation if they exist.
Majority of the victims of land conflicts are livestock rearing persons as agricultural activities are expanding to their grazing land and thus they will be the victims moving their animals to areas of grazing far from water points. Others include IDPs, women returnees and other minority groups because of their vulnerability and lack of protection among the communities. Conflict/competition between crop producers and pastoralists is a big issue according to all the respondents. As highlighted above, the enclosure of communal land reduces resource access, increases competition over grazing, and contributes to the marginalization of pastoralist. Traditional and religious (Sharia) systems of allocating and protecting pastoral corridors do exist, but their adherence or enforcement is not always optimal, and this situation is exacerbated by instances of drought and famine.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 34 5.5 Comments and Suggestions a) There is a need for comprehensive land surveys to solve the land disputes among farmers b) Enhanced government presence and law enforcement is also required to protect the most vulnerable and provide alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for aggrieved parties in the community c) Local communities need capacity building and support for promotion of water storage and preservation, including the maintenance of forest covers as a preventative measure to the water-related conflicts d) Strategies for separating grazing land from the farming land should be put in place, as this will minimize many instances of land conflict between the two livelihoods e) Government (particularly in Somaliland where the system somehow is working) should consider donating more land to the most needy and vulnerable members of the community to enhance land ownership f) Existing government structures at district level such as law courts, policies and other dispute resolution mechanisms need to be diversified and decentralized to enhance conflict resolutions to support religious and traditional leaders g) Boundaries should be created and clearly marked wherever possible to minimise the incidents particularly in Togdheer areas where such conflicts between pastoralists have been reported h) Local communities should be better educated or trained with intensive and short seminars and provided with more infrastructures such as water points to reduce over-reliance on the few communal resources available in the area. Education will also help them to diversify their livelihoods, hence reducing their dependence on land based resources infrastructure. i) Agricultural inputs are very useful in agricultural areas of the targeted study sites such as Baki, Ruqi, Gabiley and Burao areas in Somaliland, and Dolow area of Gedo region in the south of Somalia. Any support in this matter will help the communities especially at this time of draught as the rains are delayed in many parts of Somalia/Somaliland and farmers do not have seeds to cultivate j) Encourage formation of co-operatives to promote land consolidation and use for alternative enterprises in the areas of farming with vegetables and cereals k) Enhancing laws on accountability among institutions and equality among communities (clans, sub clans) is an issue that should be enforced as some of the strong clans or individuals use their dominance to develop their own land or enclosures as mentioned earlier l) Provide trainings for the traditional elders and religious leaders in modern conflict resolution systems m) Pastoralist communities should be supported with improved feeder roads and more watering points which could have a very role in minimizing conflicts between community members.
6. Conclusion Land use activities in Somaliland and Gedo regions majorly comprised of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. Although there are other livelihood strategies like fishing, farming and urban, farmers and pastoralists come out as groups who are more dietary diverse. Gender showed an apparent pattern in types of crops grown, where male headed households tended to grow rarely grown crops such as cowpeas, fruits, peas, rice and sesame in targeted areas. Social safety networks are not predominant in the sampled areas as only two districts out of eight showed belongingness to reliable associations or having access to credit. Certainly more men than women belonged to reliable organisation.
The main differentiating feature in terms of land use is the location where district differences are more apparent than gender and livelihood. Land tenure was not distinctly different between locations; however, land conflict, type of crops grown and livestock kept were different between districts. Common form of land tenure is individual ownership. Communal ownership is another form of land tenure and is mostly depicted by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. Most of the land is acquired through inheritance by the different gender categories regardless of use.
Land conflicts do exist in the sampled areas with women, children, IDP’s and the minority being most affected groups. Trespassing and land enclosures were the most common types of conflicts reported by the respondents in Somaliland. Solving land conflicts and disputes is very informal as most of the respondents
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 35 do not have trust in set institutions. Traditional systems remain primary source of protection of community/ individual land rights enforced by the clan elders and local authorities with the support of religious leaders and political and intellectuals. However, there is lack of a proper government structure and system which impedes the enforcement of land rights and laws in the communities where they exist.
7. Recommendations
From the study findings, it recommended that
• Interventions should be encouraged to scale up social safety programs as this networks will help provide resilience to these communities for poverty reduction and prosperity. • Interventions on land use should be tailored to specific districts because there are distinct differences between districts. For example, there is need for interventions targeting land conflict resolutions in Hargeisa and Gabiley. • There is need for farmers to diversify crops grown to increase food security and resilience, particularly in Baki, Burao and Odweyne. • There is need to identify reasons for the differences in crops grown between male and female headed households, in order to encourage more female headed households to grow the non-traditional crops currently grown by men. Similarly women should be encouraged to venture into large ruminant livestock keeping. • Development of land ownership and use policies, particularly on land surveys should be developed and implemented. • There is need for community support in land related matters, more specifically land ownership policies, training on land conflict resolutions and land use and management. These policies should further be tailored to accommodate the marginalized groups who include women. • Building credible institution and proper institutionalization of policies should be encouraged to have households use these channels for conflict resolution
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 36 8. Annexes Soft copies of Quantitative and Qualitative forms will be annexed with the final draft of the report.
This version Feb 2016
Baseline Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire
QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER
LAND PROJECT BASELINE HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
JULY 2015
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Building Resilience in Somalia This version Feb 2015 Impact Evaluation Household Questionnaire
My name is ______. I am working with the UN FAO. If you agree, I would like to ask you questions about your household access tand utilization ot land. Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary. You are free to decide not to participate in the study or to decline to answer any question. Everything you say will be kept confidential and will not be given to the government or any other group. No names of any respondent will ever appear in any of the reports of the research. I do not work for any government agency, and this survey is not an assessment for any relief program. Whether you decide to participate in the study or not will have no bearing on whether you receive any assistance in the future.
Your responses will eventually help us to develop a better understanding of the current situation. I cannot give you anything except my appreciation. This interview should take about one to two hours to complete. Are you willing to go ahead?
Yes No
Signature of enumerator: Date:
1 START
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia”
This version February 2016 37
Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire
Table of Contents
Module Content Page
Part 1: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS A Interview Particulars 3 B Household Roster 4 D Education 5 F Food Consumption 6
Part 2: EMPLOYMENT, PRODUCTIVITY, CREDIT AND SHOCKS G Coping Strategies 7 H Social Safety Networkk and Shocks 8 I Employment 9 J Household Entreprise 10 M Transferred Received 11
Part 3: LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS O Land Use 12 P Crop Farming 13 R Livestock Keeping 14 Baseline Building Resilience in Somalia This version Feb 2015 Impact Evaluation Household Questionnaire
A. INTERVIEW PARTICULARS
A1: Questionnaire Number______A2. Date of Interview: Day Month Year Household Identification Interviewer A3 Region A12.Identification Name of A13b Interviewer CODE interviewer A4. District A13. Code of Data Collection Team A5. Village Name (or Location, such as strategic water point) A14. Field Supervisor A15b Supervisor CODE Name
A6. Name of Respondent (only one) A7. Respondent gender (Male/Female)
A8. Do you consider your household to be [MARK THE SELECTION]: Pastoralist Agro-pastoralist Riverine Fishing Urban IDP Other
Household Location A9. Household Address:
A10. Other information useful to track the household
A11. Telephone number:
This version February 2016
Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire
B. HOUSEHOLD ROSTER B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 I Please, tell me the names of all persons What is the relation of What is When was Is [NAME] male What is [NAME]’s [NAME]'s D who usually live in your household, [NAME] to the household [NAME] born? or female? marital, status? including small children and infants, and head? age? 1. Married [SEE HH CODES] 1. Male C starting with the household head, 2. Divorced followed by the spouse. (in years) 2. Female 3. Single O 4. Widow/er D 5. Other E
11 (A) COVER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 38 C. EDUCATION. ASK ABOUT ALL THE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Can you read? Can you write? Did you ever attend Was/is it a formal What is the highest grade you have What is the total expence any School or are school or completed? incurred for schooling you currently informal over the last year? attending school? (Koranic) school? For informal school (Koranic): 1 - 30 JUZ; 0. No 0. No Including Fees, Uniforms, ID CODE 1. Yes 1. Yes 0. No >> Next module For formal school: Books, Pens, School 1. Yes >> D5 grade 1 -12 SCH. maintenance, School 1. Formal water… 2. Informal for higher education: 13 SCH; 1st Degree 14 SCH; 2nd Degree+
99. Don't know GRADE SoSH/SLSH 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia This version February 2016 Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire
F. FOOD CONSUMPTION SCORE
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
FOOD ID Over the past one week (7 days), how How was this food How much did you spend many days did you or others in your acquired? in total for each group of household consume any [...]? food over the last 7 days IF NOT CONSUMED, RECORD ZERO. [See Below] ? [SoSH/SLSH]
FOOD GROUPS Cereals and grain: Rice, pasta, bread / cake and / or donuts, sorghum, millet, 1 maize, fonio Roots, Tubers, and Plantains (Cassava Tuber/Flour; Sweet Potato; Irish Potato; 2 Other Tuber/Plantain) Nuts and Pulses (Bean; Pigeon Pea; Macademia Nut; Groundnut; Ground Bean; 3 Cow Pea; Other Nut/Pulse) Vegetables (Onion; Cabbage; Tanaposi; Nkhwani; Wild Green Leaves; Tomato; 4 Cucumber; Other Vegetables/Leaves) Meat, Fish and Animal Products Egg;Dried/Fresh/Smoked Fish (Excluding Fish 5 Sauce/Powder); Beef; Goat Meat; Poultry; Other Meat) Fruits (Mango; Banana; Citrus; Pineapple; Papaya; Guava; Avocado; Apple; 6 Other Fruit) Milk/Milk Products (Fresh/Powdered/Soured Milk; Yogurt; Cheese; Other Milk 7 Product - Excluding Margarine/Butter or Small Amounts of Milk for Tea/Coffee) 8 Fats/Oil (Cooking Oil; Butter; Margarine; Other Fat/Oil) Sugar/Sugar Products/Honey (Sugar; Sugar Cane; Honey; Jam; Jelly; 9 Sweets/Candy/Chocolate; Other Sugar Product) Spices/Condiments (Tea; Coffee/Cocoa/Millop; Salt; Spices; Yeast/Baking 10 Powder; Tomato/Hot Sauce;Fish Powder/Sauce; Other Condiment - Including Small Amounts of Milk for Tea/Coffee) Food acquisition codes 1 = Own production (crops, animal) 2 = Fishing / Hunting 3 = Gathering 4 = Loan 5 = market (purchase with cash) 6 = market (purchase on credit) 7 = beg for food 8 = exchange labor or items for food 9 = gift (food) from family relatives or friends 10 = food aid from civil society, NGOs, government, WFP etc.
G. COPING STRATEGIES Coping Strategies Index (CSI) G1.Have there been moments in the past 7 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food? 0. No >> NEXT MODULE 1. Yes >> G 2
Which Strategy did you adopt? G2. G3. Number of days out of G4. Please rank these strategies the past seven: 0. No (Use numbers 0 – 7 to answer Divide them into four severity categories: 1. Yes number of days; Use 98 for 1. least severe not applicable) 2. moderate 3. severe 4. very severe
a. Rely on less preferred or less expensive food? b. Borrow food, or rely on help from a relative? c. Purchase food on credit? d. Gather wild foods, "famine foods" or hunt? f. Harvest and consume immature crops? g. Consume seed stock that will be needed for next season? k. Send household member elsewhere? h. Beg for food? i. Limit portion size at meal time? l. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat? m. Reduce consumption by others so working members could eat? n. Reduce number of meals eaten in a day? o. Go entire days without eating? p. Sell livestock?
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia”
G. COPING STRATEGIES 39 Coping Strategies Index (CSI) G1.Have there been moments in the past 7 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food? 0. No >> NEXT MODULE 1. Yes >> G 2
Which Strategy did you adopt? G2. G3. Number of days out of G4. Please rank these strategies the past seven: 0. No (Use numbers 0 – 7 to answer Divide them into four severity categories: 1. Yes number of days; Use 98 for 1. least severe not applicable) 2. moderate 3. severe 4. very severe
a. Rely on less preferred or less expensive food? b. Borrow food, or rely on help from a relative? c. Purchase food on credit? d. Gather wild foods, "famine foods" or hunt? f. Harvest and consume immature crops? g. Consume seed stock that will be needed for next season? k. Send household member elsewhere? h. Beg for food? i. Limit portion size at meal time? l. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat? m. Reduce consumption by others so working members could eat? n. Reduce number of meals eaten in a day? o. Go entire days without eating? p. Sell livestock?
Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia This version February 2016 Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire
I. Employment and Labor ENUMERATOR: ASK ALL HH MEMBERS ENUMERATOR: ASK ALL HH MEMBERS WAGE LABOUR CASUAL LABOUR UNPAID/COMMUNITY LABOUR I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 At any time over the last 12 months, What did [NAME] do in the What is [NAME]'s net take- In the last 12 months, how much did At any time over the last 12 What was the amount, in cash At any time over the last 12 was [NAME] employed for a wage, salaried job he/she dedicated home payment/salary as [NAME] receive in gratuities, including months did [NAME] do any casual or in kind, that [NAME] months, did [NAME] work for other salary, commission or any payment the most hours to during the last [PROFESSION] ; in-kind payments such as uniform, labour for anyone who is not a received for this work over households, free of charge, as in kind, for anyone who is not a 7 days or the last time [NAME] housing and food, that were not member of your household? the last 12 months? exchange labourer or to assist for ID CODE; member of your household? worked? included in the salary you just nothing in return? REPORT reported? YES…1 >>I6 ESTIMATE CASH VALUE OF THE ID YES...1 ENUMERATOR: PLEASE SEE NO…0 >>I7 ANY IN-KIND PAYMENTS YES…1 CODE NO…0 >>I5 "PROFESSION" CODES ON ESTIMATE CASH VALUE OF ANY IN- RECEIVED. NO…0 >>NEXT MODULE HH FROM CODES PAGE [LAST 12 MONTHS] KIND PAYMENTS RECEIVED. MEMBER MOD B >>NEXT HH MEMBER
SoSH/SLSH SoSH/SLSH SoSH/SLSH
Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia This version February 2016 Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire
J: HOUSEHOLD ENTERPRISES ASK THE RESPONDENT - HH LEVEL J1. Over the past 12 months has anyone in your household operated any (non-farm) income- 1. Yes Generating enterprise which produces goods or services or has anyone in your household owned a shop or operated a trading business? (Enterprises might include, for example, making bricks, or charcoal; mason; firewood selling; metalwork; tailoring; repair work; food processing, petty trading, food selling or trading, etc.) 0. No >> NEXT MODULE
J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 What income-generating enterprises did individuals Where do you operate the Who is your main customer? Where do you mainly buy the How much do you pay for this What was the in your household operate over the past 12 enterprise? inputs/goods that you sell? inputs/goods in the last 12 amount you months? 1. People from the same village months? earned or lost 1. Home, Inside Residence 2. People from neighboring villages from this 2. Home, Outside Residence 3. Traveller 1. Own produced/From nature enterprise over
ID ENTERPRISE ID 3. Industrial Site 4. Traders from the Same Village 2. Village stores the past 12 months? [COLLECT INFORMATION ON ALL ENTERPRISES 4. Growth Center 5. Traders from nearby village 3. Growth point stores HERE BEFORE GOING ON TO COLLECT DETAILS 5. Traditional Market 6. Traders from nearby town 4. Town ON EACH.] 6. Commercial Area Shop 7. Traders from other part of the country 5. Nearby Village Producers 7. Other Fixed Place 8. Institutions 6. Traders from nearby town 8. Other Mobile Place 9. Other 7. Traders from rest of the country 9. Nearby Village 8. international traders/companies 10. Closest Town 9. Others 11. Rest of of the country
Business Code [SEE Written Description SoSH/SLSH SoSH/SLSH CODES] 1 2 3 4 5 6
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 40 M. TRANSFER RECEIVED Transfer (Cash or in-kind) M1. During the past 12 months has any member M2. What is the total value of this assistance M3.If you received a formal transfer from an of your household received any cash or in-kind in the last 12 months? external agency, did it come when you most help from any of the following? needed it? 0. No Name of sources 0. No>>Next Transfer 1.Yes 1. Yes >> M2
Formal Transfers Food Aid Foor for Work Project Cash for Work Project Faffa Free Cash Seeds and Tools Credit Livestock Informal Transfers Zakaat Other cash gift (e,g, Sadaqa) Cash Loan Food or grain gift Grain loan Seed gift/loan Free labour Free use of oxen, plough or animals Xoolo Goyn Ciyi Alabari/Sab Dhibaad Kaalo Irmaansi/Maal Yarad Qaaraan Diiya Other cash gift (e,g, Sadaqa)
O. LAND USE O1. Does anyone in the household have access to land? 0. No >> NEXT MODULE 1. Yes >> O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7a O7b LANDUSE CODES What is the land How was land for What type of documentation What is the area of land for tenure for this this [ACTIVITY] used for asserting rights on this [ACTIVITY] ? [ACTIVITY]? acquired? land for this [ACTIVITY] ?
1. Title SEE PLOT MEASUREMENT 1. Owned 1. Purchased 2. Certificate CODES 2. Rented 2. Inherited 3. Sales deeds 3. Borrowed or free- 3. Received as gift 4. Tax receipts leased in 4. Other 5. Other 4. Communal 5. Other
QUANTITY UNIT 1 Crop farming 2 Livestock keeping 3 Non-agricultural 4 Fallow (not used) 5 Other, specify
O. LAND USE O2. Which land use activity has your household been involved in during the last 12 months ? See below codes
O8 O9 O10 O11 O12a O12b O13 If you had to sell What is the What is the soil How would you What is the area of land Does your household the land for this predominant soil quality on land for rate the extent of that is currently under have access to the [ACTIVITY] how type on land for this [ACTIVITY]? erosion on land for irrigated farming? following water much would you this [ACTIVITY]? this [ACTIVITY]? [INFRASTRUCTURE]? receive? 1=YES, 0=NO 1. No erosion SEE PLOT 1. Clay 1. Good 2. Low MEASUREMENT CODES 1. Wells 2. Sandy 2. Fair 3. Moderate 2. Canals 3. Loam 3. Poor 4. High 3. Diversion weirs 4. Water Pump 5. Other
SoSH/SLSH QUANTITY UNIT
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 41 O14 Has the [INFRASTRUCTURE] been useful to the household?
1=YES, 0=NO
Baseline Building Resilience in Somalia This version Feb 2015 Impact Evaluation Household Questionnaire
P. CROP PRODUCTION
P1 P2a CROP CODES ASK THIS AMONG HOUSEHOLDS THAT How much [CROP] did you harvest during REPORTED THEY PRACTICED CROP the Last 12 Months? FARMING IF NO HARVEST, RECORD ZERO AND GO TO D3.
QUANTITY 1 Rice 2 Wheat 3 Millet 4 Sorghum 5 Maize 6 Cassava 7 Irish Potato 8 Sweet Potato 9 Yams 10 Beans 11 Lentils 12 Peas 13 Soybeans 14 Cabbage 15 Other leafy vegetables 16 Lettuce 17 Tomato 18 Fruits (banana, watermelon, oranges) 19 Onion 20 Cowpeas 21 Pepper 22 Sesame 23 Other, specify
Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia This version February 2016 Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire
R: LIVESTOCK KEEPING AMONG THOSE WHO REPORTED THEY PRACTISED LIVESTOCK KEEPING R1. Who in the HH is primarily responsible for the animals? Report the Member ID from the Roster R2 R3 R4 LIVESTOCK CODE During the last 12 months, How many [LIVESTOCK] are owned have you or any member of by your household now (present at your household raised or your farm or away)? owned any [LIVESTOCK]?
Yes...... 1 No...... 0 >> NEXT ANIMAL
NUMBER 201 Cattle 202 Goats 203 Camels 204 Sheep 205 Donkeys 206 Poultry 207 Other 1 (P) CROP PRODUCTION
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” Baseline Building Resilience in Somalia This version Feb 2015 42 Impact Evaluation Household Questionnaire
CROP CODES BUSINESS CODES GENERAL CODES INDUSTRY CODE 1 Rice 1. Petty trader 0 No 1. Agriculture, Forest & Fishing 2 Wheat 2. Butchery 1 Yes 2. Mining 3 Millet 3. Bottle Shop/Grocery 99 Don't know 3. Manufacturing 4 Sorghum 4. Clothing/Shoe Store 98 Not Applicable/Not Available 4. Electricity, Gas, Air Conditioning Supply 5 Maize 5. Hardware Store MONTHS HOUSEHOLD CODES 5. Water supply, waste management 6 Cassava 6. Ag inputs Store 1 JAN 1. Household head 6. Construction 7 Irish Potato 7. Selling Airtime 2 FEB 2. Wife/Husband 7. Wholesale and retail trade 8 Sweet Potato 8. Mill 3 MAR 3. Son/daughter 8. Transportation and Storage 9 Yams 9. mechanic/tire repair 4 APR 4. Son/daughter-in-law 9. Accomodation and Food Services 10 Beans 10. Traditional healer 5 MAY 5. Father/mother 10. Information and communcation 11 Lentils 11. taxi/transportation 6 JUN 6. Father/mother-in-law 11. Financial and Insurance Activities 12 Peas 12. Restaurant/Café/Teahouse 7 JUL 7. Sister/Brother 12. Real Estate Activities 13 Soybeans 13. Electronics/phone repair 8 AUG 8. Sister/Brother-in-law 13. Professional, Scientific and Technical activities 14 Cabbage 14. Agricultural inputs and tools rental 9 SEP 9. Grandchild 14. Administrative and support service activities 15 Other leafy vegetables 15. Seamstress/tailor/clothes repair 10 OCT 10. Grandparent 15. Public Administration and Defense 16 Lettuce 16. Hairdresser/Barber 11 NOV 11. Niece/Nephew 16. Education 17 Tomato 17. Making Bricks 12 DEC 12. Cousin 17. Human health and Social work activities 18 PLOT Fruits (banana, watermelon, oranges) 18. Construction MEASUREMENT 13. Other 18. Arts, entertainment and recreation 19 Onion 19. Carpenter CODES UNIT OF MEASUREMENT 19. Other service activities 20 Cowpeas 20. Crafts(basket making, reedmat making..) 1. Qoodhi 1 Piece/ unity/ pair of shoes 20. Activities of households as employer (domestic personel) 21 Pepper 21. Home Brewery 2. Meter 2 Gram 21 other (SPECIFY) 22 Sesame 22. Charcoal 3. Hectare 3 Kilogram 23 Other(SPECIFY) 23. Khat seller 4. Jibaal 4 Liter 24. Livestock trader 5. Tacab 5 Daasad (see Pictures next page) 25. Produce sellers 6. Other (SPECIFY) 6 Galan (see Pictures next page) 26. Fish traders 7 Kabdad or Kiish (see Pictures next page)16 Bundle 27. Pharmacist 8 Rubbo (see Pictures next page) 17 Satches (1/2 kg) 28. Vetrinary pharmacists inputs 9 Ounce 18 Paket 29. Middle men 10 Jawaan/Kiish 19 Kilowats 30. Other traders 11 Saxarad = Wooden box 20 Backet 12 Gacan 21 Waslad (250grams) 13 Drum (100 liter) 22 Pandal 14 Jerican (20 liter) 15 Glass of milk (75 grams)
This version February 2016
Baseline Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire 1 CODES
WATER CODES TREATMENT CODES COPING STRATEGIES 1. Household connection 1. Government hospital 1 - Eat less food (smaller portions) 2. Standpipe (Kiosk/Public tap/Taps connected to a storage tank) 2. Government health facility 2 - Collect bush products to sell to buy food 3. Protected swallow well (covered with hand pump/motorized pump) 3. CHW 3 - Collect wild fruits for food 4. Tanker 4. Mobile/outreach clinic 4 - Hunting (gazelle, dik dik etc) 5. Spring 5.Other public sector (specify) 5 - Sell firewood 6. Bottled Water 6. Private hospital/clinic 6 - Sell charcoal 7. Rooftop rainwater 7. Private physician 7 - Rely on handicraft making 8. Berkads 8. Private pharmacy 8 - Sell labour to buy food 9. River/stream 9. Private mobile clinic 9 - Form a cooperative with other producers 10. Dam/Pond (Balley) 10. Other private medical (specify) 10 - Produce and sell fodder 11 Open swallow well 11. Relative/friend 11 - Preserve and store food for household REASONS FOR MOVING- HOUSEHOLD 12. Shop 12 - Adopt a new livelihood 13. Traditional practitioner 13 - Rent out animals (donkeys, camels) 1. Fighting, 14. Other (specify) 14 - Sell livestock 2. Drought PROFESSION 15 - Rent out land 3. Problems in the Community CODES (ISCO): 16 - Sell land 4. Ordered by Government, 1. Manager 17 - Migrate to urban areas to find work
5. Flood 2. Professional 18 - Migrate to another rural area 6. Other Environmental Shock 3. Technician and associate professionals 19 - Move to IDP camp 7. Moved for opportunity (work, aid, other pull factor) 4. Clerical support workers (administrative workers) 20 - Move to neighbouring country REASONS FOR SEPERATION - CHILDREN 5. Services and sales workers 21 - Rely on food aid 1. losing caregivers/children due to medical evacuation 6. Skilled agricultural forestry and fishery workers 22 - Rely on food for work, cash for work, cash transfers 2. losing caregivers/children during relocation or displacement 7. Crafts and related trades workers 23 - Rely on assistance from relatives and friends 3. caregivers voluntarily sending their children to institutional care/orphanages 8. Plant and machine operators, and assemblers 24 - Send children to work 4. caregivers voluntarily sending their children to extended family/friends 9. Elementary occupations 25 - Take children out of school 5. caregivers voluntarily sending their children to work far from parents/usual caregivers10. Armed force occupations 26 - Send children to school 6. disappearance of children/caregivers 11. Construction workers 27 - Other (SPECIFY) 7. recruitment 12. Other (specify) 8. Other (specify)
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 43
9. References
• Burman, J., Bowden, A., and Gole, A. 2014. Land tenure in Somalia. A potential foundation for security and prosperity land tenure in Somalia. • Cotula, L. ; et al. 2007. Changes in “customary” land tenure systems in Africa. (1st Ed.). • Dehérez, D. 2009. The scarcity of land in Somalia. Natural resources and their role in the Somali Conflict. • FAO. 2002. Land tenure and rural development. Food and Agriculture Organisation. • FAO 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. Rome. • Takeuchi, S., and Marara, J. 2009. Conflict and land tenure in Rwanda (No. 1). • UNDP. 2004. Socioeconomic assessment of South-Central Somalia. United Nations Development Program. • Venema, J. H., Alim, M., Varga, R. R., Oduori, S., and Ismail, A. 2009. Land use planning guidelines for Somaliland. Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com/research/land-planning- guidelines-somaliland/?utm_source=desktopandutm_medium=1.12.4andutm_campaign=open_catalo ganduserDocumentId={450b0162-d7cc-4314-9fac-c052ec56ee5e} • World Bank. 2005. Conflict in Somalia: drivers and dynamics. Retrieved from http://siteresources. worldbank.org/INTSOMALIA/Resources/conflictinsomalia.pdf
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia” 44
In 2011, Somalia was faced with a humanitarian disaster caused by drought, conflict, high food prices and underlying vulnerabilities. Using the lessons learned from the famine and determined to reduce the impact of future shocks, WFP, UNICEF and FAO came together in April 2012 to define a joint strategy for building long-term resilience in Somalia.
Through the Joint Resilience Strategy (JRS), the three agencies work to build community and household resilience by enhancing productive sectors, providing basic services and putting in place predictable safety nets for chronically vulnerable households implemented through the programming of the three agencies in five districts: Dollow (in South-Central), Burco, Odeweyne (in Somaliland) and Ishkushaban and peri-urban Bossaso (in Puntland). The combination of these districts represents the main livelihoods including Pastoral, Agropastoral, Coastal, Riverine, Peri-Urban populations and IDPs. The expected impact of the Joint Resilience Strategy is that targeted communities will “graduate” to a level of increased resilience that is sustainable and measurable.
A jointly implemented impact evaluation, using a mixed methods approach, begins with baseline studies, and continues with midline and endline assessments to measure the changes in the resilience of targeted populations. The reports are comprised of the quantitative tool of the Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA) as well as the qualitative tools which include the Community Consultations and Action Planning (CCAP) processes and the Seasonal Programming Calendars. As of 2014, comprehensive baselines for the impact evaluation of the Joint Resilience Strategy have been completed for all the five pilot districts.
For more information, please visit the Somalia Resilience Information Portal at www.resilienceinsomalia.org.
Baseline Survey on “Rebuilding Confidence on Land Issues in Somalia”