By: Ahmed Hussein
Saturday, February 14, 2026
©FAO
By every conventional measure, Somalia should not have a functioning agricultural export sector. It lacks effective development banks, trade preferences from the European Union, and comprehensive World Bank projects. There are no subsidized inputs or donor-funded extension services. This absence of structured development programs could lead one to assume that agriculture is stagnant—but that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Remarkably, Somalia’s livestock trade moves over 5 million head of cattle, goats, sheep, and camels annually to Gulf markets, generating an estimated $400–$500 million each year. Here, herders receive payment within days, exporters compete on quality and timely delivery, and, crucially, the system does not collapse when a project ends because there was no project to begin with.
This scenario isn’t merely an anomaly; it reflects a significant indictment of traditional development practices, often failing to resonate with the realities on the ground.
The Architecture of Failure
Across Africa, billions have been funneled into agricultural transformation by development finance institutions and bilateral donors, yet the results speak for themselves. We see underutilized agro-industrial parks, halted corridors, and displaced communities. Farmers remain mere price-takers, stripped of the agency within their own value chains.
The Script is Always the Same
The narrative unfolds like clockwork: a government receives a loan or grant, a foreign consortium secures the contract, and land is acquired from local communities under “public purpose” provisions. Smallholders are wooed with promises of jobs and integration into global markets, only to find themselves with casual jobs that offer low wages and minimal security.
Often, these contracts dissolve, leaving communities with depleted resources and a bitter memory of their lost land. This systemic failure isn’t merely a mishap; it’s by design—a mechanism for transferring resources from the rural poor to political and corporate elites, all sanitized by the misleading language of poverty alleviation.
The Somali Exception
Now consider the circumstances in Somalia, where the livestock export sector operates almost entirely outside the frameworks of traditional development. In this part of the Horn of Africa, Somali livestock exporters have carved out one of the continent’s most functional agricultural trade systems. There aren’t restrictive export licenses waiting to be snagged by ministers’ nephews or state marketing boards dictating prices below production costs.
Instead, the only requirement is simple: a buyer in Saudi Arabia who won’t accept sick animals, an exporter in Bossaso whose reputation serves as collateral, a herder who vaccinates his camels thanks to accessible veterinary care, and a member of the Somali diaspora who can transfer money swiftly through informal channels without bureaucratic hurdles.
This system persists not because it relies on international development initiatives; it thrives on economic necessity and local ownership.
What Development Finance Refuses to Learn
International organizations look at the Somali model and often see only absence: no formal credit, minimal regulation, and a lack of trade agreements. Their conclusion? More intervention is required—more programs, more partnerships, more oversight.
This is Exactly Backwards
What Somalia illustrates is that local farmers and traders do not need saving; they require unblocking. This can be achieved by establishing states that enable rather than control. Ministries should focus on certifying animal health while stepping back from unnecessary interference. Open markets will allow credible buyers to engage without needing political connections.
Additionally, functional input markets are essential for accessing quality vaccines and feed, creating a scenario in which suppliers strive to earn repeat business. Financing should flow through trustworthy systems ingrained in kinship networks rather than through impersonal commercial loans. Ultimately, competition should drive quality rather than favoritism.
The Heresy
The distressing reality many in the development sector refuse to acknowledge is that Somalia’s livestock export system performs better than numerous aid-dependent agricultural programs—not despite the lack of international support, but due to it. The absence of multilateral loans means no land grabs for export corridors, and a lack of bilateral preferences prevents dependency on shifting international standards.
What Somalia’s traders received—specific quarantine protocols and targeted technical assistance—was limited and rooted in need, contrasting sharply with sweeping transformation programs that often undermine local systems.
The Question That Cannot Be Asked
International financial institutions are currently drenched in funding for agro-industrial parks and special economic zones across Africa, justified by pretenses of job creation and value addition. However, history reveals a consistent outcome: promised jobs often materialize as fewer and more precarious than expected, while communities displaced for these projects find themselves sidelined from the economic benefits.
The Somali livestock trader, who navigates a vibrant market without a dollar of development finance, will keep moving millions of animals each year, thus feeding families, employing neighbors, and fostering community wealth.
A Different Kind of Development
Imagining a development industry that genuinely considers Somalia requires radical rethinking. It doesn’t mean crafting a “Somalia Livestock Export Transformation Project” with hefty loans and extensive frameworks, which would likely disrupt the very systems that make it work.
Instead, it would involve recognizing that Africa’s most effective agricultural export systems often operate devoid of external financing. It requires asking tough questions about why so many significant international development strategies fail to support profitable, sustainable enterprises owned by Africans.
Moreover, resources should be redirected away from megaprojects that dispossess communities toward patient capital that specifically aids cooperatives and local traders. Success should pivot on community control over resources, including land and water, rather than merely on funds disbursed.
This scenario feels unlikely; institutional incentives favor maintaining the status quo. The very entities that stand to gain from the existing model will resist a transformative shift, as will the consultants who evaluate these projects.
The Verdict
Somalia’s livestock export system serves as a critique of traditional development projects. It compels us to recognize that African farmers are not lacking in skill, diligence, or entrepreneurial spirit. Instead, they need access to open markets, effective infrastructure, and trusted financial systems, while government interference should be minimized.
The truth stands: development banks and bilateral agencies haven’t shaped this successful model, nor can they replicate it. Their established approach has been a catastrophic misallocation of resources that has often enriched corporations and marginalized rural communities.
The pressing question remains: can the development industry truly learn from the Somali experience? More importantly, is it willing to embrace this lesson?
__________________________________________
Ahmed Hussein, New Business Development expert in Agro-processing and Agribusiness with extensive international experience. A qualified Food Scientist (master from Cornell University) and a Food Processing Engineer (Master from the University of Toronto).
Board member of ASAP – Association of Somali Agricultural Professionals based in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
This article is part of a series published by ASAP.