Agriculture is the foundation of Somalia’s economy and culture, providing livelihoods for over 70% of the population. The sector faces significant challenges but also harbours great potential if the right policies and support are implemented.
Historically, Somalia was nearly self-sufficient in cereal production. But decades of conflict have degraded soils, infrastructure, and technical capacity within the agricultural sector. Yields for rain-fed crops remain dangerously low given poor agricultural practices and lack of drought-resilient varieties. At the same time, population growth and climate change pose mounting threats to already-strained resources.
Fertilizer Ban
Banning fertilizer in Somalia would be unfeasible at the current moment given the nation’s heavy reliance on agriculture. While concerns over fertilizer’s environmental impact are valid, a ban could seriously threaten food production in one of the most food-insecure regions in the world.
A ban could lead to decreased crop yields, reduced food security, and negative economic impacts for farmers and communities that rely on agriculture.
Banning fertilizers abruptly in Somalia would lead to a dramatic decrease in crop yields due to the long-term depletion of soil nutrients, a situation worsened by years of inadequate water management and climate change-related challenges. Such a drop in agricultural productivity could trigger severe food shortages and potentially lead to famine conditions.
Implementing a sudden ban would leave farmers with no time to adjust their agricultural practices. Transitioning to alternative farming methods, such as composting, crop rotation, and the use of less chemical-intensive fertilizers, requires not only education but also time for experimentation and adaptation. However, shifting to these sustainable agricultural practices demands a significant commitment to extension services and a period of adaptation for farmers—resources that are scarce in Somalia due to ongoing conflict and political instability.
Perhaps a more prudent policy would be to first focus on rehabilitating soils, improving water access for agriculture, and introducing integrated pest management. In parallel, the government could work to gradually reduce fertilizer usage and dependence through subsidizing organic alternatives. An immediate ban before establishing more sustainable solutions risks worsening the country’s already grave humanitarian crisis rather than solving its environmental challenges. Overall, a staged and supported transition is vital for Somalia’s long-term food and ecosystem security.
As Somalia’s Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, banning fertilizer would require extensive deliberation and planning due to sensitivities around small-scale farmers’ livelihoods.
The vast majority of Somalia’s agricultural sector is comprised of subsistence farmers who possess limited resources and face constraints such as unreliable water access and inadequate advisory support services. Without needed knowledge and inputs, these vulnerable groups would struggle to maintain crop productivity should fertilizers be prohibited abruptly.
It is therefore prudent for the Ministry to conduct thorough assessments evaluating socioeconomic consequences smallholders may confront without fertilizer aid. Comprehensive engagement with farmer representatives should also occur to understand challenges on the ground and avoid well-intentioned policies hurting vulnerable populations.
As you note, Somalia currently lacks well-established agricultural extension networks to disseminate alternative techniques swiftly and consistently to all farmers transitioning away from fertilizers. Investment in building advisory capacity would be crucial to facilitating any transition sustainably over an appropriately long timeline.
Overall, as the Ministry responsible for Somalia’s agri-sector development, we must carefully consider small-scale farmers’ needs and advocate for their interests in policy-making. A fertilizer ban decision demands extensive stakeholder consultation, socioeconomic cost-benefit analyses, and viable replacement strategies to back farmers throughout change – to avoid potential crises while still achieving environmental stewardship goals. Prudence and planning for the most vulnerable groups’ well-being should take precedence in this complex issue.
A unilateral ban decision would also insufficiently consider the difficult realities these vulnerable farmers face. They deserve policy advocacy that protects their interests, rather than top-down edicts that fail to grasp local vulnerabilities.
Overall, any policy shifts in this sector warrant careful consideration of socioeconomic realities on the ground and should empower, rather than penalize, those working to nourish the nation amid adversity. A nuanced, community-centered approach will be most likely to achieve environmental and food production goals sustainably.
Alternative Policies for a Fertilizer Ban
The government might introduce a subsidy scheme for fertilizers that focuses on the integrated management of soil fertility and the shift from chemical fertilizers. This scheme would offer farmers vouchers to buy compost, green manures, and crops that fix nitrogen, aiding in soil replenishment. It would promote the adoption of organic fertilizing methods while ensuring that food production remains stable during the switch. The subsidy could be phased out over a period of 5-10 years as the use of alternatives becomes more widespread.
The creation of large demonstration farms could be used to exhibit effective techniques that use low amounts of chemicals, such as mulching, rotating crops, and systems of agroforestry. Local farmers could learn to replicate these methods through training provided by village extension agents. Witnessing the success of these methods firsthand could help convince skeptical farmers of the feasibility of more sustainable practices.
By limiting the use of the most dangerous types of fertilizer while allowing those that are less processed, alongside stricter regulations on how fertilizers are stored and applied, the environmental damage could be minimized without compromising agricultural output. This approach would aim to reduce pollution from runoff through more controlled use.
Investments in the rehabilitation of irrigation systems and initiatives for harvesting rainwater would enhance resilience to droughts, reducing the dependency on fertilizers by improving the efficiency of water use and nutrient uptake by crops. This strategy would support a gradual reduction in reliance on synthetic inputs for food production.
Continued investment in irrigation, extension services, development of drought-resistant crop varieties, and comprehensive management of soil nutrients will be crucial for increasing productivity and resilience in the face of climate change.
These proposed policies, combined with educational efforts and a gradual implementation, could lead to sustainable reductions in fertilizer use without compromising the food security of Somalia. An outright ban on fertilizers should be considered only after alternative agricultural practices have been established and proven effective.
The author is Ismail Kukay, an Agricultural Extensions and Rural Development Specialist. He can be reached via: Kukay003@gmail.com
