By Abdirahman Ibrahim Abdilahi
In western Somaliland, farming is already a difficult calculation. Rainfall can be unreliable, water is limited, agricultural inputs can be expensive or difficult to obtain, and pests and plant diseases can threaten crops before they reach the market. For households that depend heavily on a single growing season, losing part of a harvest can mean losing food, income and the ability to invest in the next crop.
But there is another potential source of agricultural loss that deserves closer investigation: wildlife entering cultivated fields.
Farmers in parts of Awdal and Maroodi Jeex have described encounters with wild animals around agricultural land and have attributed some crop damage to species including warthogs, porcupines, hares, gazelles, dik-diks, primates and birds. The reported damage includes feeding on crops, uprooting plants, trampling fields and consuming seeds or fruit.
Yet an important question remains unanswered: how much crop production is actually being lost to wildlife, which species are responsible, and how often does it happen?
The distinction matters because a farmer can be certain that a crop has been damaged without necessarily being certain which animal caused it. Tracks may disappear, several species may feed on the same crop, and damage caused by livestock, rodents, insects, disease or weather can sometimes resemble wildlife damage.
The scale and causes of wildlife-related crop damage in western Somaliland have not yet been adequately established through systematic field research. That makes the issue both important and difficult: farmers need protection from genuine losses, but effective protection begins with identifying the real cause.
An agricultural system already under pressure
Agriculture in Somaliland is concentrated in areas where rainfall, soils and access to water make cultivation possible. A government agricultural profile identifies Awdal and Waqooyi Galbeed among the country’s important cereal-producing areas, with rain-fed farming particularly significant around Borama, Gabiley and Hargeisa. Sorghum and maize are major crops, while irrigated smallholder farms produce vegetables and fruits for local markets.
These farms operate under considerable climatic and economic pressure.
An assessment of agriculture in Maroodi Jeex and Gabiley documented farmers’ concerns about drought, changing rainfall patterns, declining groundwater, soil degradation and limited resources. Rain-fed farmers are particularly exposed because their production depends heavily on seasonal rainfall.
Recent reporting from Awdal illustrates how agricultural losses can extend beyond the field itself. In Ruqi, crop failures associated with drought contributed to farmers’ inability to repay debts and affected local businesses.
In such circumstances, even a relatively modest additional source of crop loss could matter to a household.
But that does not establish wildlife as a major cause of agricultural losses. The evidence available so far is insufficient to make that conclusion.
That uncertainty is precisely why the question deserves investigation.
What farmers report—and what researchers still need to establish
Human-wildlife conflict is a recognized agricultural and conservation issue worldwide. The Food and Agriculture Organization describes crop destruction as one of the major forms of human-wildlife conflict and notes that the risk can vary with crop type, crop maturity, availability of natural food and human activity around farms.
Somaliland has documented human-wildlife conflict of its own. Research in western Somaliland has examined wildlife interactions with communities, including conflict involving predators and livestock. A study published in Oryx, for example, documented wild cheetahs in Awdal and identified human-cheetah conflict as an issue requiring further attention. The documented conflict in that study was primarily related to livestock rather than crops.
Conservation organizations working in Somaliland have also conducted community surveys examining wildlife presence, livelihoods and human-wildlife conflict, including reports of agricultural damage.
These studies provide important context, but they do not answer the central question of how much crop production is being lost to wildlife.
That gap is significant.
A farmer who says that monkeys destroyed part of a field may be accurately describing what was observed. But without direct observation or other evidence, the report does not necessarily establish that monkeys caused all of the damage.
The distinction becomes particularly important when decisions are made about fencing, deterrents, compensation or wildlife management.
From reports to evidence
One practical way to investigate the problem would be to distinguish between different levels of evidence.
Confirmed damage could involve direct observation, photographs, camera-trap footage or other evidence clearly identifying the animal responsible.
Probable damage could be associated with strong species-specific evidence such as characteristic tracks, droppings or feeding marks.
Reported damage could describe a farmer’s attribution that has not yet been independently verified.
Such categories would not diminish farmers’ observations. Farmers spend more time in their fields than most outside researchers and may recognize patterns that would otherwise be missed. Their knowledge is therefore an important starting point.
The purpose of independent verification would be to strengthen that knowledge, not replace it.
Over time, combining farmer observations with field evidence could reveal which reports represent recurring patterns and which may have other explanations.
The landscape may matter as much as the farm
Wildlife incursions are unlikely to occur randomly.
A farm bordering natural vegetation may face different exposure from one surrounded by cultivated land. Farms near seasonal waterways, riverbeds or other areas used by wildlife may also experience different patterns of animal movement.
This matters in Somaliland because agriculture is closely linked to access to water. Irrigated farms are often located along dry riverbeds and other water sources.
Environmental conditions may also influence encounters.
When rainfall is poor and natural food or water becomes scarce, wildlife may move toward areas where resources are more reliable. That can increase contact between wildlife and people.
But even this relationship should be tested rather than assumed.
Drought may increase wildlife movement toward farms in some locations, while agricultural practices, fencing, crop type and landscape structure may be more important in others.
The relevant question is therefore not simply whether wildlife enters farms, but under what conditions it does so.
What should be measured?
A serious assessment would need to go beyond asking farmers whether animals are a problem.
Researchers could record:
which species are observed around farms;
when incursions occur, including time of day and season;
which crops are affected;
which stages of crop growth are most vulnerable;
the number and area of damaged plants;
the type of damage;
evidence identifying the animal responsible;
distance from natural vegetation and water;
the type of boundary or deterrent used; and
the resulting production and financial loss.
Camera traps positioned at selected farm boundaries could help establish which species actually enter fields. Regular field inspections could document tracks, feeding signs and damaged plants.
Researchers could also compare farms with different levels of exposure and, where practical, compare protected and unprotected plots.
The purpose would be straightforward: measure what is happening rather than relying solely on what is believed to be happening.
From damaged plants to lost income
For farmers, the most important question may not be how many animals entered a field, but what their visits cost.
Wildlife damage therefore needs to be translated from damaged plants or hectares into lost production and income.
If researchers can estimate the proportion of a crop damaged, they can estimate the corresponding reduction in yield and use local farm-gate prices to calculate its economic value. Comparisons between exposed and protected plots could provide stronger estimates where suitable research designs are possible.
The household consequences may extend beyond the immediate financial value of the crop.
A farmer producing a surplus for sale may lose expected income. A household producing primarily for consumption may instead face a shortage of food and have to purchase what it would otherwise have harvested.
The same percentage of crop damage can therefore have very different consequences depending on household circumstances.
This is why wildlife-related crop damage should not be measured only in hectares or damaged plants. Its significance ultimately lies in what the loss means for people’s livelihoods.
The answer is not to eliminate wildlife
There is an understandable temptation to frame crop damage as a choice between farmers and animals.
That would be a mistake.
Somaliland’s wildlife already faces pressure from habitat degradation, overgrazing, hunting and other human activities. At the same time, farmers cannot reasonably be expected to absorb preventable agricultural losses simply in the name of conservation.
The practical objective should be coexistence: reducing damaging encounters while protecting agricultural livelihoods.
Depending on the species and local conditions, possible approaches could include better-designed farm boundaries, targeted physical barriers, changes in crop management, guarding during vulnerable periods and other non-lethal deterrents.
But effectiveness cannot simply be assumed.
A barrier that prevents one species may do little against another. A deterrent may work temporarily and then lose its effect. A measure that costs more to install and maintain than the crop it protects will not be a practical solution for many smallholders.
The most useful interventions are therefore likely to be those that are tested under local conditions and evaluated for both effectiveness and cost.
A research opportunity
Western Somaliland already has people with valuable knowledge of its agricultural and natural landscapes: farmers, pastoralists, community elders, agricultural extension workers, conservation practitioners and researchers.
Bringing those sources of knowledge together could establish a much clearer picture of the problem.
Household surveys could document farmers’ experiences, perceived causes of damage and existing protection methods. Field monitoring could provide independent evidence of when and where damage occurs. Camera traps could identify animals entering fields. Mapping could reveal whether farms near particular habitats, water sources or wildlife movement routes experience greater exposure.
Over time, such monitoring could establish a baseline.
It could also help answer a question that is essential for policy: whether wildlife-related crop damage is a widespread agricultural constraint or a localized problem affecting particular communities, crops or seasons.
That distinction matters.
If the problem is concentrated in a handful of locations or associated with particular species, targeted interventions may be more effective than broad measures applied across entire regions.
If the losses are widespread and economically significant, the case for coordinated agricultural and wildlife-management strategies becomes much stronger.
Listening to farmers while testing the evidence
The goal should not be to dismiss farmers’ reports simply because they have not been scientifically verified.
Nor should every reported loss automatically be attributed to wildlife.
Both approaches can lead to poor decisions.
Farmers’ observations can identify where investigation is needed. Scientific monitoring can help establish the cause and scale of the damage. Economic analysis can determine whether the losses are significant enough to justify particular interventions.
Together, these approaches can turn anecdotal reports into usable evidence.
That evidence could ultimately benefit both sides of the conservation equation: farmers would have a stronger basis for protecting their crops, while wildlife managers would have better information about where human-wildlife interactions are creating genuine problems.
The question that comes first
The story of wildlife and agriculture in western Somaliland should not begin with the assumption that animals are the problem.
It should begin with a question:
How much crop production is actually being lost to wildlife, where, when and because of which species?
That question matters because Somaliland’s farmers already face drought, uncertain rainfall, water constraints, pests, disease and economic pressure. Agriculture is important to food security and household income, while the country’s wildlife faces pressures of its own.
These realities do not have to be placed on opposite sides.
If wildlife is causing significant crop losses in particular communities, those losses should be documented and practical measures tested. If some reported cases turn out to have other causes, that finding would be equally valuable.
Good policy begins with knowing the difference.
For farmers, the goal is not necessarily a landscape without wildlife. It is a landscape in which a harvest can reach maturity without unnecessary loss—and in which wildlife can continue to exist without being treated as the enemy.
For western Somaliland, finding that balance will require more than anecdotes. It will require careful observation, local knowledge, transparent evidence and solutions tested in the fields where farmers actually work.
The first step is therefore neither eradication nor confrontation. It is finding out what is really happening.
