Title of project: Crop, livestock, and marketing interventions to improve agricultural productivity for smallholder farmers in Somaliland
Research and evaluation team: Mukhtaar Caydiid, Abdiaziz Ahmed, Nimcaan Ahmed, Khalid Esa, Silvia Kahihu, Ann Wanjiku and Ken Lee
Sector: Agriculture
Location: Maroodi Jeeh region, Somaliland
Sample: 183
Target group: Farmers
Project Overview
Context
The study area for this programme is in Somaliland, where agriculture, both crop production and livestock rearing contributes significantly to the country's GDP, accounting for approximately 42.9% of the national total. It also provides livelihoods for 20-25% of the population (MoND&P, 2017; NASP, 2020-22). Agro-pastoral communities in Somaliland rely on two primary forms of agriculture: rainfed and irrigated farming. Rainfed agriculture is particularly vulnerable to unpredictable rainfall, limiting productivity due to its low input, small-scale nature. On the other hand, irrigation, practised on a smaller scale along seasonal streams, supports vegetable and fruit production for commercial sale, but profit margins remain modest.
Maroodi-Jeex, where Somaliland's capital Hargeisa is located, is an important agricultural region. Agro-pastoralism is the dominant livelihood activity in rural parts of the region. Farmers supply Hargeisa's 1.3 million inhabitants with food and livestock products, capitalising on their proximity to a major urban market. However, agriculture in the region faces significant challenges. On the demand side, weather shocks (e.g., severe drought and flash floods that erode arable land) and environmental issues (e.g., land degradation, soil erosion, declining grazing resources, and reduced soil fertility) significantly impact productivity. On the supply side, limited access to credit, and a lack of market power hinder productivity and profitability.
Intervention details
The programme was designed to address the complex barriers to agricultural productivity by providing a bundle of interventions targeting crop production, livestock management, and market access. Livestock and market interventions were much smaller components. The programme aimed to increase and diversify household incomes by improving agricultural outputs and protecting livestock during times of environmental stress, such as drought. It focused on enhancing resilience and productivity for 183 irrigation-equipped, land-owning farmers in two selected villages.
The crop interventions included providing training in Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and technical assistance to boost productivity. The programme also supplied essential inputs such as seeds, pesticides, and irrigation equipment. Two demonstration farms were established within the target communities to serve as practical learning hubs, where farmers could observe and apply new techniques. These farms also acted as experimental grounds for testing new crop varieties and irrigation methods prior to wider adoption.
Livestock interventions were aimed at improving fodder production and introducing better harvesting methods, especially during drought periods. The programme distributed fodder seeds and trained community animal health workers (CAHWs), equipping them with veterinary kits necessary for maintaining animal health.
On the marketing side, the programme focused on forming cooperatives to enhance farmers' bargaining power. This allowed better access to financing and market opportunities while also providing training on market strategies to optimise sales.
Methodology
The programme was implemented through a collaborative process, ensuring the involvement of local stakeholders and the community. The programme engaged relevant government bodies, including the Ministries of Agricultural Development and Livestock and Fishery Development, signing Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) to clarify roles and responsibilities. Consultative meetings were held with target communities to raise awareness about the programme’s goals and expected outcomes, fostering a sense of ownership.
The intervention was rolled out in two villages, Jaleelo and Xumbo_weyne, all located in the Maroodi-Jeex region. Farmers who met specific criteria, such as being residents of the study area, land ownership, access to irrigation and active participation in farming activities, were selected for participation. In total, 183(nT) farmers were enrolled in the programme. To rigorously evaluate the impact of the programme, a counterfactual was established by selecting farmers (nC=237) from three neighbouring villages that closely resembled the treatment villages in terms of socioeconomic characteristics, agricultural practices etc.
Baseline data collection occurred in September 2022 and captured information on household characteristics, income, agricultural practices, and crop choices. An endline survey conducted in 2023 focused on the same variables to measure the programme's impact over time. The Difference-in-Differences (DiD) approach was applied to estimate the intervention’s effects by comparing changes between the treatment and control groups, while accounting for pre-existing differences.
Results
Baseline results showed significant differences between the treatment and control groups, with some notable similarities. Treatment farmers exhibited better socioeconomic status at baseline. Specifically, they had higher income levels and were more frequently engaged in crop production activities. Additionally, these farmers demonstrated higher rates of farming activity and were more likely to have recently received training from other organisations. They were also more likely to be members of cooperatives, possess relevant agricultural knowledge, and were implementing good agricultural practices. As a result of our targeting efforts, they were also more likely to be irrigating, or have potential for irrigation (water and energy). Despite these differences, one notable similarity was the choice of crops, which remained consistent across both groups.
Farmers in the treatment group experienced significant income gains, particularly cash crop farmers who reported a 28% increase in income compared to baseline levels. In contrast, the control group saw a 38% decline in income, suggesting that the programme played a critical role in shielding participants from adverse market conditions and poor harvests. The provision of seeds and improved farming techniques also led to an increase in crop variety and overall agricultural productivity in the treatment group. Meanwhile, control group farmers experienced a reduction in crop cultivation across all crop varieties.
The programme's efforts to organise farmers into cooperatives, intended to enhance their market power, showed limited success. Only 13% of farmers sold their produce through cooperatives, indicating challenges in uptake. Similarly, the impact on livestock farmers was mixed. While knowledge of fodder production improved, one-third of livestock farmers failed to plant the distributed fodder seeds, signalling a gap between training and actual implementation.
In summary, the programme demonstrated positive outcomes in improving agricultural productivity and income, but some core issues, particularly related to market power and livestock management, remain unresolved. The programme's selection of farmers who were already better positioned to succeed may have contributed to the observed impacts. Nevertheless, based on the current evidence, we’re confident that programme participants are better-off because of this project. A more comprehensive report will follow, detailing the full methodology, challenges, and outcomes.