LocationsA recent UNDP study reveals why some Somali pastoralists are more resilient than others
Dealing with drought: Somali pastoralists may have an answer
November 28, 2024
In what could inform future policies, a recent UN study reveals the secrets behind the success of certain Somali communities in maintaining healthy rangelands, even during severe droughts.
The study carried out by UNDP Somalia Accelerator Lab team has indicated that communities in Somaliland that have successfully maintained or improved their rangelands, particularly during severe droughts. These "positive deviant" communities were identified through a combination of satellite imagery analysis and field research. Key factors contributing to their success include community awareness of ecosystem protection, diversified livelihoods, effective land management practices, and strong local governance. The study sought to understand these factors so that policymakers and development organizations working in similar regions can implement similar initiatives to improve rangeland health and community resilience.
Identifying deviant communities
The Somalia pilot study identified “positive deviants” as communities that achieve better-than-average outcomes in their local environments. In this case, these communities were able to maintain and even improve the health of their rangelands compared to other communities facing similar challenges, particularly during the severe droughts of 2016/17. The quantitative study utilized earth observation data, along with land cover and administrative data, to pinpoint areas where vegetation remained stable before, during, and after the drought period.
The identification of settlements exhibiting positive vegetation trends was achieved through a method called “local scaling”. This technique evaluates vegetation conditions by comparing them to a reference state, which represents the expected condition in the absence of extreme climatic or human influences (Prince et al., 2009). By using this method, the study accounted for variations in vegetation productivity due to differing local conditions (e.g. rainfall). Because vegetation productivity is calculated relative to its maximum potential within each homogeneous group. Through this extensive analysis, 13 villages were identified as potential positive deviants.
Figure 1: The analysis identifying Positive, Negative and median villages across the West Golis Pastoral Livelihoods Zone.
Figure 2: Online validation of the positively identified communities using high resolution arial images.
Validation process
Validation of these positively deviant villages was carried out in two stages. The first stage involved a visual inspection involving Data Powered Positive Deviance (DPPD) team members (and GIS experts) using high-resolution satellite imagery to highlight villages with a high probability of positive deviant activity. The evaluation criteria being : if there are settlements or not, purely agricultural areas or not (our preference was in it being agropastoral or pastoral), visibility of human interventions which could explain the positive performance. The secondary criteria were related to accessibility which can allow for easy field research.
The second stage involved stakeholder-based validation, where interviews with government partners, implementation partners, and local NGOs provided additional insights. These sessions were followed by discussions with regional coordinators and district authorities in the selected villages. Based on these interviews, one of the initially chosen villages was excluded due to lack of data and replaced with another from the sample.
The final sample consisted of 18 villages, categorized into three groups: 8 positive deviants, 8 negative deviants, and 3 average performers from the Togdheer, Awdal, and Maroodijeex regions. This selection aimed not only to learn from the positive deviants but also to understand what distinguishes them from the negative deviant villages and, to a lesser extent, the average villages. Identifying these differences is key to understanding the factors that contribute to positive deviant performance.
Data collection methodology
Three primary methods were used to collect data: surveys, focus group discussions, and community mapping and observations. Surveys aimed to uncover rangeland management practices, rangeland resources, water resources, socio-economic conditions, previous development interventions, and specific practices that could explain positive deviant behavior. Focus group discussions included key informants, such as village leaders and elders, who participated in the surveys. A group participatory mapping exercise was also conducted to highlight areas of interest that were not covered by geospatial information. In addition to observational notes taken by interviewers during village visits provided a comprehensive overview of village activities.
Fieldwork and key informants
The final stages of stakeholder validation sessions facilitated contact with village elders and village development committees, who served as 'door openers’ to the community. Initial discussions with these elders helped identify key informants for the focus group discussions and participatory mapping exercises. These individuals contributed to building a preliminary village profile by providing detailed information.
Within this initial stage, the results of the previous stage were communicated to the identified key informants in the focus group discussions. Translating the results of the GIS analysis and the high-resolution satellite imagery to the community members while explaining the benefits of this study and the latent potential in the applied methodology.
Figure 3: Spread of soil degradation in one of the positively deviant areas, a protected mountainous area.
Figrue 5: Land degradation up close.
What we learned
As part of our initial learning, we found interesting positive observations and positive practices which could explain the positively deviant community differentiators.
Among the positive observations, the first was community awareness. In the “positive” identified communities, we found that the community awareness on the importance of ecosystem protection and land degradation was high compared to the negatively deviant communities.
The second positive observation was about the rangeland percentage. The survey results revealed that rangeland spaces were higher in negatively deviant communities than in positively deviant ones. This might be because of a more pronounced shift to agro-pastoralism in the positively deviant communities. While in negatively deviant areas, it was either purely pastoral or farming with less diversification in livelihoods.
The third observation relates to “enclosures. In the positively deviant villages, a mixture of communal land enclosures, private enclosures and public land was well defined and regulated. An area we went again and again to further investigate the importance of this and how it shapes people’s perception in the public enclosures.
The fourth and the last observation we made was about “land degradation.” In both negatively deviant and positively deviant villages, land degradation was occurring, with discussions finding almost identical causes in both categories. However, the difference was in the perception of degradation in between the two categories of communities.
Figure 4: Reasons for degradation as identified commutatively by focus group discussions across communities.
Positive practices adopted in positively deviant villages:
Various practices and strategies were identified through focus group discussions, field inspections, and observations:
Figure 6: Honey-bee farming by women’s group in positively deviant communities.
In one of the positively deviant villages, honey bee farming was a prominent activity initiated by the FAO. This project led to the formation of a women's honey bee farming group, which expanded its operations and markets, reinvesting income into acquiring new equipment. The livelihood was essential in providing awareness of the dependency of the honey-bee farms on the health of the ecosystem surrounding it.
An agro-pastoralist in one of the positive villages practiced mixed farming and herd size management. By selling livestock before the drought and maintaining a smaller herd, he minimized his dependence on rangeland vegetation.
Figure 7: Adaptive Farming practices in positively deviant villages and private enclosures.
Drip irrigation systems were used in some villages, albeit limited to higher-income households. This technology contributed to better vegetation yield on farms.
In our previous blog, we explored whether private enclosures are beneficial or not. We considered the premise that public land enclosures are advantageous as they safeguard land for the common good. These public enclosures, managed by government agencies and organizations, are areas closed off to protect rangelands for grazing during severe droughts. The contrast in vegetation between these enclosed areas and non-enclosed land is evident in the images. These enclosures require ongoing rehabilitation and protection from overgrazing.
Figure 8: Community enclosures for preservation of grazing resources.
On the other hand, private enclosures are owned by communities or individuals. Access to these grazing resources can benefit a single person, a family, or a small community. The impact of such enclosures is less clear-cut in terms of their overall benefit. The exclusivity of these resources can lead to conflicts over grazing rights. While some communities may permit pastoralists to use their protected grazing areas during droughts, this access is typically regulated by traditional laws, such as Xeer.
Nevertheless, aerial images and interviews suggest that these enclosures might serve as a defense against land degradation (see figure). Fieldwork and validation interviews, however, reveal mixed opinions about whether they effectively prevent or mitigate degradation.
Figure 9 a and b: Both show arial footage of private enclosures in positively deviant villages as a first step to fighting the creeping of land degradation
Figure 10: Focus group discussions in the positively deviant villages.
In the case of the large distance separating these communities from formal law enforcement, traditional laws and village development committees played a critical role in regulating natural resources used in positively deviant villages. In addition, to protecting the separation between the different land ownership categories (communal enclosures, private enclosures and public lands).
Most of the positively deviant villages implemented various soil and water conservation interventions, as evidenced by aerial images, validation meetings, and qualitative interviews. The primary conservation techniques used were soil bunds and half-moon structures, designed to slow down rainwater runoff and protect the topsoil. Additionally, these methods helped to retain soil moisture to some extent. It is important to note that positively deviant villages were also highly proactive in maintaining these structures.
In one of the positively deviant villages there was incredible reseeding efforts by the local population. Local farmers and agro-pastoralists either volunteered or hired laborers to regenerate vegetation cover their farms.
In some positively deviant members of these communities transferred evergreen trees which grow in the highlands to the lowlands which they occupy. This experimentation process could be the explanator to the high vegetation covers.
In some positively deviant members of these communities transferred evergreen trees which grow in the highlands to the lowlands which they occupy. This experimentation process could be the explanator to the high vegetation covers.
The positively deviant communities were aware of the importance of maintaining a strict policy and implementation of waste management especially to protect natural resources. They had a dedicated area to dump waste, and members who were accountable. While making sure to burn the accumulated waste.
Challenges and areas for further study
During this field study in 2021, most of the identified villages were located in remote areas, which presented several challenges during our initial fieldwork. These included poor infrastructure, such as the near absence of an electrical grid, sewage systems, and water supply, making equipment charging particularly difficult. However, the telecommunication network was excellent in all but one of the NPD villages. Additional challenges that limited the number of participants in the focus group discussions included the onset of the rainy season in some areas and the fact that some key informants were still away, searching for grazing land in the coastal area (Guban) or along the Ethiopian border.
One of the immediate next steps adopted was to investigate the extreme ends of the identified communities, focusing on the most positive and negative. To better identify positively deviant practices and develop generalizable interventions in depth and scope. In the next blog we will explain the in-depth investigation to arrive at a clearer understanding of the dynamics in both categories and hopefully pave the way forward.
Hodan Ahmed is the Head of Head of Exploration at the UNDP Accelerator Lab, Somalia.