“Breaking the localisation deadlock”

Review of Humanitarian Capacities, Power Relations and Localisation in the Somali Humanitarian System Author: Fernando Almansa (consultant) Copyright: 2020 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 1. CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE HUMANITARIAN CAPACITY REVIEW 9 2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 9 3. HUMANITARIAN ACTORS AND THEIR TYPOLOGY 10 4. HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT AND VULNERABILITY IN AND 15 5. HUMANITARIAN CAPACITY IN SOMALIA AND SOMALILAND 17 5.1. OVERALL GLOBAL CONTEXT CAPACITIES IN SOMALIA AND SOMALILAND 17 5.2 SOMALI NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS HUMANITARIAN CAPACITIES 22 5.2.1 Somalia (South Central) Non-Governmental Organisations’ Humanitarian Capacities 22 5.2.2 Non-Governmental Organisations’ Humanitarian Capacities 28 5.2.3 Somaliland Non-Governmental Organisations’ Humanitarian Capacities 34 5.2.4 Overall Local Humanitarian NGOs 39 5.3 STATE INSTITUTIONS 42 5.3.1 Federal Government State institutions 42 5.3.2 Puntland State institutions 48 5.3.3 Somaliland State institutions 53 5.3.4 Overall state institutions 58 5.4 OVERALL ORGANISATIONAL HUMANITARIAN CAPACITIES 58 5.5 GENDER ANALYSIS OF ORGANISATIONAL HUMANITARIAN CAPACITIES 59 6 ORGANISATIONAL RELATIONS AND POWER ANALYSIS 62 7. SOMALIA’S HUMANITARIAN LOCALISATION AGENDA: OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS 66 8. UPDATED SOMALIA AND SOMALILAND HUMANITARIAN PROFILE 72 9. RECOMMENDATIONS 74 ANNEX 1 INTERVIEWEES 78 ANNEX 2 METHODOLOGY 78

3 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Acronyms

ANSA Armed Non-State Actor CBO Community Based Organisation CHS Core Humanitarian Standard DINA Drought Impact Needs Assessments DOC Drought Operation Centre DRR Disaster Risk Reduction EFSVL Emergency Food Security and Vulnerable Livelihoods FGCA Federal Government Controlled Area FGS Federal Government of Somalia HCT Humanitarian Country Team HDI Human Development Index HR Human Resources HUCOCA Humanitarian Country Capacity Analysis IDP Internally Displaced Person IHL International Humanitarian Law INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation IT Information Technology LNHA Local National Humanitarian Actor LNNGO Local National Non-Governmental Organisation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MHADM Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management NADFOR National Disaster Preparedness and Food Reserve Authority NDRA National Disaster Relief Agency NGCA Non-government controlled area NGO Non-Government Organisation SHF Somalia Humanitarian Fund WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WRO Women’s rights organisation

4 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Executive summary the eight NGOs has increased an average of The areas of major growth are on leadership and 20 percent, but with significant differences coordination, and the weakest in humanitarian in the three territories. With the exception of standards compliance, financial resourcing and This analysis finds that local and national NGOs two parameters, (leadership attitudes and logistical capacity. (LNNGOs) and the government’s humanitarian knowledge management), all other metrics agencies are growing their capacity and (including Technical specialisation and Federal Government of Somalia (FGS), Ministry of influence, whilst the humanitarian system Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management standards compliance) have experienced a continues to be dominated by the UN machinery (MHADM): This new Ministry of the Federal significant increase. and a large number of international non- Government of is a big step forward within the government organisations (INGOs). There is FGS to articulate all the humanitarian work in The overall capacity of Somali LNNGOs a positive evolution in terms of contextual Somalia, has great networking capacity and it is strongest in networking and alliance humanitarian capacity, but new challenges may should be prioritised in the allocation of regular building, conflict sensitivity approaches, increase the gap between needs and response resources and capacity to develop humanitarian connectedness and resilience building. The capacity. policies and strategies for Somalia. At present, weakest areas are analytical and strategising the Ministry has significant limitations and lacks capacity, institutional risk management and both resources and strategic direction and This participatory analysis follows up on work geographical outreach. Essential components needs to gain recognition and leadership within done in 2014 and uses the Humanitarian Country such as leadership, advocacy, analytical the humanitarian sector quickly in order to be Capacity Assessment (HUCOCA) methodology. and strategising capacity, and knowledge taken into account on humanitarian strategies’ It adds new areas of analysis such as power management require an urgent investment and design and resources allocation. relations among different humanitarian actors; commitment. evolution of the localisation agenda; and gender Puntland Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster perspectives and their inclusion as part of the Management Agency (HADMA): Over the last Changes and evolution in the humanitarian humanitarian capacity assessment. five years HADMA has gained knowledge and capacities of state institutions: experience in logistical management, technical Changes and evolution in the humanitarian skills (vulnerability analysis, assessment and The comparative analysis from 2014-2019 of the capacities of local and national NGOs: planning capacity), monitoring and evaluation, three states’ humanitarian institutions shows an use of quality standards and networking, average increase of 63% of overall capacity. This When comparing the LNNGOs that were and coordination with other humanitarian is mainly due to the effort done in Somaliland stakeholders. These gains could be lost if assessed in 2014 and 2019, the results show and at FGS, but also the low baseline of 2014. insufficient investment is made to consolidate positive progress. Humanitarian capacity of

5 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

the knowledge and experience acquired over the Gender Analysis of Organisational Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster last years. HADMA’s humanitarian capacity needs Humanitarian Capacities: Management (MHADM) do not have a capacity attention in terms of financial management, for influence proportional to their potential qualified human resources and logistics. More Most LNHAs include gender justice values power. This analysis indicates that the power robust support and a clear strategic plan in their documents and narrative, but this some state agencies have is still more in theory is needed by the Puntland government and appears to be more of a rhetorical exercise than than in practice, and that international actors International Humanitarian Actors (IHAs). a practical one. In the case of international are the main influential group into the Somali agencies, this seems to be more explicit. humanitarian system. Somaliland has different ministries and Women are still a significant minority within agencies involved in humanitarian work. The most relevant humanitarian agency is the humanitarian organisations. Women are more Many LNHAs play a relevant and influential National Disaster Preparedness and Food likely to be in secondary administrative roles role in the humanitarian system, but this Reserve Authority (NADFOR). NADFOR’s plays a within humanitarian organisations. With the doesn’t always translate to power. For LNNGOs, strong humanitarian leadership role with clear exception of Women’s Rights Organisations influence is more related to the operational strategic direction, substantial networking, (WROs), less than 30% of LNHA leadership are implementation than on analytical and advocacy coordination and communication capacity and women; this also applies to several INGOs. capacity, although there has been significant the work on disaster management will deliver WROs do not play a very significant role in the progress in LNNGOs advocating in recent very positive results, if consistently developed. humanitarian sector. Gender inclusion in the years, but this is often framed primarily around The work of NADFOR with IDPs and refugees is humanitarian system is still weak. Women are the localisation agenda, rather than broader still unclear, leaving many vulnerable people gradually taking more prominent roles in the strategic areas. out of humanitarian assistance and financial system, but more on the operational level than and human resource capacity is still low and on the strategic and policy making level. Local communities can have strong influence knowledge management mechanisms are not in over the LNHAs through clan leaders and elders. place while humanitarian standards compliance Power Analysis of Humanitarian Actors Other less articulated communities such as mechanisms are largely absent. NADFOR has big potential and more investment on quality urban IDPs have minimal capacity for influence. standards, more openness to cooperation with The assessment explored three key elements LNNGOs and peer institutions in neighbouring related to power analysis: relevance, power Organisational Relationships countries, and more government resources and influence. In general, international actors allocated with a long term perspective will have more power, relevance and influence Relations among the different actors have been benefit humanitarian capacity enormously. in how the humanitarian system operates analysed at three levels: information sharing, in Somalia. Some state actors such as the activity based relations, and strategic relations. The assessment shows that most of the state-

6 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020 based local humanitarian organisations keep mechanisms. This is translated into poor Other aspects emerging from the analysis limited relations within their own peer state performance in terms of quality delivery, which indicate that the localisation debate is too LNGOs. In most cases, relations are set on the reduces trust and throws into question the focused on organisational interests, rather than basis of acceptance and mutual understanding engagement with the humanitarian core values, on increasing positive impacts on people affected instead of content. thus reinforcing the tight restrictions in funding by humanitarian crises. There is also a perception mechanisms and compliance measures. It by LNHAs that the attribution of successes and INGOs tend to establish an ambivalent becomes a vicious cycle that creates a deadlock failures from the international agencies towards relationship with LNNGOs as subcontractors for advancing the localisation agenda. LNHAs is unfair. in risky areas and as competitors in areas where they can implement programmes The obstacles and potential opportunities for Recommendations & Investment Action Plan: directly. Relationship perceptions are generally the implementation of the localisation agenda asymmetric. Relationships are frequently based in Somalia and Somaliland have been assessed 1. All actors must commit and take action to on information sharing or joint activities. The around five main factors: humanitarian values and genuinely address the persistent, structural low analytical and strategising capacity of approach; technical and managerial capability of barriers to advancing the localisation LNHAs translates into a low level of relationships LNHAs; funding autonomy, fundraising capability agenda, recognising that despite significant between LNHAs. International agencies do not and funding conditions (by donors) for LNHAs; progress in recent years, many of the issues seem to set relations with LNHAs in a way that mutual trust and relations between LNHAs and highlighted in this report are the same as could help to overcome this deficit, instead international agencies; and political agendas of five years ago. perpetuating operations-based dialogue, which LNHAs, international agencies and donors. The 2. The discussion on localisation agenda tends to perpetuate the status quo. results indicate that LNHAs and international should be articulated around the greatest agencies have a very similar understanding of the humanitarian impact and its efficiency, Humanitarian Localisation Agenda relative importance of the five factors. not on organisational interests or financial needs. The analysis shows a double bind, leaving International agencies and LNHAs agree that 3. Issues around women’s empowerment localisation at an impasse: there are strict the most conditioning factor to make progress and gender equality must be more clearly restrictions on the way LNHAs are funded, in the localisation agenda is funding issues. articulated and addressed throughout with no flexibility and no institutional building International agencies are more concerned than the humanitarian architecture, including costs included, that has a direct effect in the LNHAs about the different understanding of addressing various issues raised in this managerial quality and technical competence humanitarian values and approaches, as well as analysis, such as the need to support of the LNHAs. This occurs because of a lack of on the managerial capacity of LNHAs. LNHAs are women’s humanitarian leadership. financial capacity to hire and retain competent more concerned than international agencies on 4. All humanitarian actors should agree on staff and to develop adequate management funding and trust issues. one single common evaluation/assessment

7 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

system to assess the humanitarian make decisions on how to make “value Based on the analysis, please find full list of impact of INGO and LNNGO actors. A chain” options based on impact and cost- recommendations and a proposed Investment common framework of assessment of effectiveness. Action Plan for 2020-2021 outlined in the final impact, efficiency, risk management and 6. LNHAs and IHAs should work together on section of this report. accountability must be in place for all analysing and sharing how humanitarian humanitarian actors with no distinction values and principles are implemented Note: This report analyses different aspects between national and international actors. in the complex contexts of Somalia and of the Humanitarian system in South Central 5. Humanitarian actors should collectively Somaliland, and the dilemmas they raise in Somalia, Puntland and Somaliland. The way assess the different “value chain” options practical terms, particularly the principles of in which this analysis is presented does not and related costs attached to the different neutrality, impartiality and independence. reflect any political stand vis à vis the different models. Humanitarian actors should territories and their status.

8 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

1. Context and purpose of the 2. Approach and Humanitarian Capacity Review methodology

This report analyses different aspects of the humanitarian The analysis has been achieved through system in Somalia (South Central), Puntland and Somaliland. building on the Humanitarian Country Capacity The way in which this analysis is presented here does not Analysis (HUCOCA) methodology, but with reflect any political stand, but is designed to reflect the significant additions and improvements three different humanitarian contexts, such as the different for the purpose of this specific analysis. agencies operating in each area. A structured consultative participatory approach has been used involving diverse The research is conducted under the guidance of Oxfam, humanitarian stakeholders, where local and building on the 2014 Humanitarian Capacity Analysis and national humanitarian NGOs were the primary expanding new areas of analysis, such as power relationships informants in addition to governments, the UN among different humanitarian actors, evolution of the system, INGOs and Red Crescent. Documentary localisation agenda, gender perspectives and their inclusion review has also been used for background as part of humanitarian capacity. This report is the outcome. information. The full methodology is available at www.fernandoalmansa.com/Publicaciones/ A key purpose of this analysis is to move forward the publicacion8.pdf localisation agenda in Somalia and Somaliland on the basis of the analysis presented in this report. Ownership and engagement of all humanitarian actors is a must.

9 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

PART I: HUMANITARIAN CAPACITY ANALYSIS

3. Humanitarian actors and their typology

As identified in 2014, there are different humanitarian actors working in and influencing the humanitarian system in Somalia and Somaliland. These actors are classified below:

Humanitarian Examples of Organisa- Mandate/Responsibility Presence Relevance Stakeholder tions /Entities 1. Federal • Ministry of • Within the responsibilities of • Federal Government • High in terms of relevance in the sector Government of Humanitarian the government: prevention, Controlled Area and in political terms Somalia (FGS) Affairs and Disaster preparedness, response, disaster (FGCA) • Very limited resources and delivery Management (MHADM) risk reduction (DRR), management capacity • Sectorial ministries and coordination. 2. Puntland • HADMA • HADMA: Humanitarian assistance • Puntland • HADMA’s relevance and capacity are Authorities • Puntland State’s delivery, DRR management and low in delivery terms, and medium in Ministries (Health, coordination coordination terms Women’s affairs, • Delivering services within the Education, etc.) sectorial responsibilities of the government in place 3. Somaliland • NADFOR (National • NADFOR is responsible for disaster • Somaliland • The government’s role is becoming Authorities Disaster Preparedness management and food security stronger in political terms. and Food Reserve in emergencies, delivery, DRR • The role of NADFOR is very important Authority) management and coordination in coordination terms, as well as in • NDRA (National • NADFOR and NDRA report directly to delivery of food aid Displacement and the President of Somaliland Refugee Agency) • NDRA replaces the old Ministry for • Somaliland ministries Displacement and Refugees

10 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Humanitarian Examples of Organisa- Mandate/Responsibility Presence Relevance Stakeholder tions /Entities 4. Clan leaders • Multiple clans’ leaders • Mediate and arbitrate to solve and • All Somalia and • This is the most relevant institution in and elders’ as per the different make decisions on serious disputes Somaliland (including Social terms. Clans provide a strong committees main clans: , within communities and between Ethiopian Somali ”social insurance network” to their Dir, Hawiye, and clans territories) members Rahanweyn • High relevance in negotiating humanitarian access or related disputes • They are highly influential in appointing political leaders 5. Local National • Hundreds of LNNGOs • Combining development and • Across all Somalia • Very relevant actors in humanitarian NGOs (LNNGO) are registered and humanitarian work in most cases and Somaliland but assistance delivery and increasing active • Others combining peacebuilding varied access in their role in recent years. • TARDO, CED, SSWC, mandate with other mandates non-government • They are instrumental to UN agencies HIJRA, SADO, controlled areas and INGOs SOMALI AID, HARDO, (NGCA) • Becoming gradually more articulate DIAL,HAVOYOCO, and vocal CANDLE LIGHT, HIRDA, KAALO WAWA, etc. 6. International • More than 50, • Humanitarian and Development • Present across • High in political-influential terms NGOs (INGO) including Oxfam, CARE, mandate all regions, but in • Medium in delivery terms NRC, Save the Children, • Some working on peacebuilding different degrees, • Limited in direct humanitarian access ACF, Action Aid, World excluding South in some areas Vision, Acted, DRC, Central NGCA Concern, Goal, SOS Children Villages

11 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Humanitarian Examples of Organisa- Mandate/Responsibility Presence Relevance Stakeholder tions /Entities 7. UN agencies • UN OCHA • Facilitate coordination, reliable • In all regions and • In general UN agencies are very • UNICEF humanitarian information and States, with the relevant, powerful and influential in all • WHO provide humanitarian services exception of NGCA the humanitarian landscape in Somalia • WFP directly or through other and Somaliland. They dominate the • IOM humanitarian actors humanitarian agenda, funding key • UNHCR implementing partners (government • UNFPA ministries and agencies, local NGOs and INGOs; with whom they implement their activities) • UN agencies have gained more coherence among themselves and are better articulated since 2017 • OCHA has gained influence and recognition in the humanitarian system • The Somali Humanitarian Fund (SHF)2 administrated by OCHA is playing a key role in interacting with several international donors and local and national humanitarian actors • UN agencies are criticised for being aligned with Federal Government interests

2 The SHF represents currently less than 5% of Total Humanitarian Funding per year. (54.3 M$ / 1,090 M$ = 4.98%)

12 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Humanitarian Examples of Organisa- Mandate/Responsibility Presence Relevance Stakeholder tions /Entities 8. Somalia Red • Somali Red Crescent • SRCS has a double identity in • SRCS operates in • SRCS is very relevant in delivery terms. Crescent Society (SRCS) and Somalia and Somaliland under a all Somaliland and • Provides specialised services and ICRC president sitting in Nairobi Somalia except NGCA facilities to disabled people (artificial • SRCS and ICRC work in partnership • ICRC is able to do limbs and physiotherapy) but with clear division of roles in some humanitarian • Despite the experience of staff order to maintain ICRC’s neutrality work in NGCA kidnappings, they still have high • SRCS coordinates with relevant • ICRC began humanitarian access ministries and some UN agencies, operations in • ICRC keeps its distance from UN and less so with NGOs Somaliland in March other actors to preserve its neutrality 2019 9. Donor • DFID, TIKA, USAID, • Supporting humanitarian agencies • Mainly in GCA and • Very influential on humanitarian agencies ECHO, SIDA, World with own political agendas Somaliland programmes through funding Bank, etc. 10. Academia • States’ Universities, • Some universities support LNHAs • , Puntland • Some NGOs have agreements with NEAR Network, ODI, etc. through research and staff and Somaliland universities to facilitate the inclusion of graduate women into the public administration system (e.g.: Puntland). • Near Network and ODI actively partnering and supporting research and institutional strengthening 11. Communities • Women’s • As part of civil society they mobilise • Across all Somalia • Humanitarian access across all and organisations resources for emergency responses and Somaliland territories Community • Youth organisations and are the first responders Based • CBOs • IDPs themselves have mutual Organisations • IDP solidarity support groups following Muslim (CBOs) committees tradition

12. Faith Based • Islamic Relief, several • Mutual Muslim support • All territories • Very relevant within Somali society Organisations local Islamic solidarity (more invisible to the International groups community) • Disputes among local religious groups hinder their full capacity for effective humanitarian assistance

13 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Humanitarian Examples of Organisa- Mandate/Responsibility Presence Relevance Stakeholder tions /Entities 13. Private Sector • Private companies: • Provide essential logistics • Based on areas of • Very relevant as a backbone of telecommunication, support to the country: business interests, logistics for humanitarian work, rather importers, etc. telecommunications, finances opportunities and than as donors or sponsors (electronic money), provision of economic feasibility goods, etc. 14. Media • International media • Plays an important role in alerting • Across all the • Although they could play a more and local media to humanitarian situations. territories, with the relevant role in the humanitarian field, • Social media • Some Media act as facilitators of exception of NGCA it is still limited information to the communities (some freelancers affected by crises, mainly through assist there) local radio stations • Some international media assists in facilitating humanitarian accountability • Some LNGOs work with local TV and radio stations to disseminate their humanitarian programmes • Social media, (Facebook and others) are increasing their role as information and accountability channels3 15. ANSA (Armed • Violent extremist • Violent extremist groups control • NGCA, predominantly • High in humanitarian access control Non State groups humanitarian access in their own in South Central • Very low in delivery terms Actors) areas, denying or allowing access to some LNGOs during times of crises 16. Other bodies • SNC • Different forums exist for NGOs in • Somalia and • Coordinate information and networks • SOSCENSA Somalia and Somaliland; some are Somaliland • Provide collective advocacy • SNF mixes of INGOs and LNNGOs such as • SOSCENSA is very relevant and SNC, others are only Somali NGOs influential in advocacy terms such as SOSCENSA

3 Social media platforms are playing a greater role in mobilising resources and providing real-time data on humanitarian crises, e.g.: The Abaarah.org platform

14 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

4. Humanitarian context and vulnerability in Somalia and Somaliland

The humanitarian context in Somalia and Somaliland can be described through the S O M A L I A A D M I N I S T R A T I V E M A P

40°E 42°E 44°E 46°E 48°E 50°E N N ° °

2 Caluula 2 ! !! ! 1 Bolimoog Bio Addo 1 ! Caluula Wareegsimo Af Kala Haye ! ! ! Airebehje

El! Gomor !Bareeda Goobiya Ol!og ! ! Damo Kalaale Uocobar ! Xabo ! Ceel-Quud ! Endichi ! ! following criteria: Haluod ! Sireis ! ! ! ! ! !!Sayn ! Buqcatooti ! ! ! Ceel Carab ! Daralehe Tooxin ! ! ! Garsa ! ! ! ! Tayega ! ! ! ! ! ! Dhurbo ! ! CALUULA El Haghen ! ! ! Xabaalo Ambiyaad Ongoloho ! ! ! ! ! ! !Rio Culul ! !! ! ! ! G U L F O F A D E N ! ! Ximistiyo Xoogaad Cogarti Xaabbo ! Xays Loho Bareda ! ! ! ! Runyo ! ! Scemiz ! Q! andala Geed-Xagar Lawya Caddo ! ! ! ! ! ZEYLAC ! Melha ! ! ! ! El Qori ! ! ! Dibir ! ! ! Hoddaa Armugia ! El Ahg Hemanle ! ! Qora-Laha Muliyo Didinchi ! ZEYLAC ! Medlehe Modoh Ceel-Gaal ! El Mogor ! ! ! Be! nder Bacaad Muudiye Toqo!shi ! ! ! ! Mareera Warmaddow Gahrreg !! Xeela ! ! Buur Gaaban ! Hollis ! ! Conqoro Dur-Duri ! ! Bossaso Qaanlaaye Galayr Gammedin !! ! Baargaal !! ! Guriasamo ! ! ! ! ! Waraabood Zeylac !Bossaso ! ! Dawaar ! ! Dadabalo Ceelaayo Qaw! Rehis ! ! Doon Jaglaleh ! ! Saforrei Homisso Ghed!a Dauho ! Jadan ! ! ! ! ! Buuxaale ! Corieli Las Mihin Qoow (Bender Siyaada) ! Las Gal Hagia Ceel Ahable ! ! ! Unu!un Laz-I-Naio Caasha Caddo Helem Bahaila ! ! Galgala Golgol Xankoo!kib ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! Laas Moholin ! Laasa Surad Xarshaw ! ! !Bacugia ! ! Dari Sal Weyn Xirsi Bow ! Laasqoray Dhasaan 1 ! ! ! Tolmo !Gondoli Laasqoray El Dhurre !!!! ! Laasa-Surad ! ! Mash-Caleed Qorax Jiif ! Dhegacad ! QANDALA ! Ulxeed ! Las Goriga Habab Git ! Odawaa Dari ! ! ! ! ! Waqdariya Hundegaal Iongali Seiemmogh Qorraxaad ! ! ! Berda Uen Aualgube Ha!i ! ! Xidid Farcaanood Daga Xaab ! ! ! ! ! Gub Kayaxa Shebaab ! ! Gurur Laas Xuluys ! Gaatir-Oodan Bohagno Beel-Wacatay ! ! Xammure! Laag ! ! El Af-Ca Uarallai Karin Xuurwee Xuliya ! ! ! ! ! Daray-Madobe ! ! ! ! ! Maydh Mush-Xaleed ! ! ! Saladegh ! Harag Jiid ! Xabaasha-Waale Duriduri ! ! ! Xarago Tager Avarfaro Ceel Gaal ! ! ! ! Las Chi Bohol ! Haraaryo Kow ! ! ! ! Hareed ! ! B! adawle ! Qurac ! ! ! Cali Weeci Xaadh ! Geed La Rifay ! Canjeel Masuadde ZEYLAC ! ! Celaayo ! ! ! Itaageer ! ! ! Xiis ! ! Ceel Dibir Marraje El Daddavo ! Xijijle ! ! ! Tuur Masale Arar Gubetti ! Gumbax Dudub Asa Haren Yalho BOSSASO Balidhidin ! ! ! Laan Cawaale ! ! Heensa ! ! Cirshiida Satellite Caiodo ! Itager ! Ruguda !Balli Doog ! Laan Shinbirood ! ! ! ! ! Rugay !Af Urur Massal Surat ! Tasjiic Baliyar !Hoosin Gaabo ! ! ! ! Qumbo Wareen ! ! Haldhaagan Geeso-Qabad Tuulo-Ciise ! ! Guutooyinka Lo'Aneba Xero Mugle ! ! Faluja ! Gumbah Deh-Cabo Iskudarka ! ! !!! ! Midhishi Garab Karid LAASQORAY ! ! ! Cammuud Culus Gumbuxo Conqor ! ! ! Yos ! ! !! ! ! Qoralahe ! !! ! ! ! Tuur-Idaad Sh.Ciise Karuure ! Kulmiye ! Ufeyn-Sare El Arare ! ! Bulo Xareed ! ! ! Yubbe Loyeel Hadaaftimo ! ! Xidhxid Galbeed ! Qabura Shalcaw Gudaado ! ! Buq-Catooti ! Heemaal Cadde Ceel-Daraad ! ! Marawade Laako Jiingadda Legunle ! ! Garaaca ! ! ! ! ! ! Badhan !! ! ! ! Daayer Gal Rukuuda Haylan ! Raad ! Laso-Dhagax-Guduudan ! ! Dhamiije-Tiro Xoore Lughaye ! Kalyo-Waqal Mindigle ! Midigale ! Iasup Ena Baianle ! ! ! ! ! Daamo Audelle Uen ! ! !! ! Xamure ! Xubeera ! ! Ceel Madoobe ! Coodenley !Kobdhexaad Ufeyn Handa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jidhi ! Xajiinle! ! Ceerigaabo Ceel-Doofaar Nuur Odawaa Gahayr ! Hadhwanaag ! ! ! ! Lav!a Rugodle Bali-Shillin ! ! ! ! !!!! God Cabobe El Fira ! L! UGHAYE Maax Satellite ! ! ! ! Heemaal Dheere ! ! !! Cawsane ! Biyo Case Siyaara ! ! Tuula Dac!ar Geed La-Rifay ! ! ! ! Scillale Bio Madda Garahule Doghei Baxarsaas Heemaal Xussein Geerisa ! Dhahqadood Satellite D!ayaxa ! ! Timirshe ! ! Hurdiya ! ! ! Kalawle ! Gudmo Biyo Cas ! Gudma Hadle Satellite ! ! Baxara Saaf ! ! Haydeeta Weyn Eil Geradi Society and Governance: ! ! ! Caddoowe Goob Bur Meirale ! Cabdil Qaaddir Sheikh Awaare Cabdi Geedi ! Biyo-Cas Biyo Guure Dhoob Barookhle ! ! ! ! Raqas Satellite Dacnan ! ! Sabawanag ! ! Carto Ciiradhame Dawacaaley Doganh!eieh !Dabder Biyafoge Daryalle ! ! ! !Gargoore ! ! ! ! ! Agarboale Caro-Weyne Batalaale ! ! Scillale Hodmane ! ! Derbi Xoorre ! Magab Mulaax Masa Gan Cee!l Doofar ! ! Sala Gon Karduush ! Bukh ! ! !Dagaar ! ! ! ! ! Dacawaley Jaama Laye !Afdiin Sh Well ! ! Ceel Sheekh !! Dharoor ! ! ! Cabdi Geeddi ! ! ! CEERIGAABO Laso-Dawaco ! Ciisse Dhorzi Dhaban Dhige Fararali ! ! Iskudar ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mashruuca Dibira Weyn ! Qsali Biyo-Guure BERBERA Meeladeen Al Marodle ! ! Bulloxaar ! Juurile ! ! Jilbalay ! Hayle Beeyo-Dhaadheer Yufle Biyo-Guduud ! Dhextaal Xaafuun Fiqi Aadan Geeri ! ! ! Ascira ! Awdal ! ! Bari El Gaimeddo! ! Sh. Dudub BAKI Berbera Argasan ! ! ! Xareed! Kalarag Lamadaga ! Xariirad Caro-Wareen Hulka Cilaamo ! ! ! ! ! El Uneut Lathuba Spr Well ! Dhabi Cad! Dubar ! Ina Bulshaale ! ! ! ! ! Sarata Goofka ! Rag Cadeeye Biyo Guduud Laz Meleden Karin Karin ! ! !! Dibad Valley Waibioh ! Soddonley ! ! ! Haylaan El Gavoiad ! Aroor-Seel Fa!dhiwanag ! ! ! ! ! ! Foocaar ! ! ! !! ! Ceel Dhabasle Xariir ! Ceel Baxay !! ! Baki ! ! ! ! ! ! ! El Raghebis ! ! ! ! Ceel La Helay Bahdoon Dhalaax Satellite Qaloocato ! ! Dalwayn ! Darinne! Jif Dhoobo ! ! ! ! ! ! Xaaji Tawakal Xagal !! ! Tuurka Fara-Dee!ro Laas Xig ! ! !El Medo ! Gor Goray Baki Gargaar ! ! ! ! ! Burco Kibir Kalmac Sare ! Dix-Gudban Weeraar Ago Merodeh ! ! !Ceel-Buh !Af Ruugleey Gargoorey ! Xabaalo Tumaalood Laba Hadhalay ! Hiil Buraan Buraan Jeedaal Al Rungle ! ! ! ! ! ! Hanghei ! ! ! Sheed Dheer ! Ceel-Daayeer Kalmac ! ! Xoorrey Beeyo Cadaadeed ! ! Dhagax Guduud Satellite ! ! ! ! ! ! Karin Kulan ! ! Dhabar Dalool Sibeeye Dara Godle ! Xididaley Kal Daray ISKUSHUBAN Celi Waran Weis ! Guryasan ! Damasha Saley ! ! Bildhaalay ! !! Cammaan ! ! ! Dhuxun ! ! ! ! Jibalei ! Teeb Mija Caseeye ! ! CEEL ! ! ! ! !! Bahalaley Laas Dhuure Dambas-Wayne Qayaad Samo B! ORAM! A ! ! Q!ulquda ! ! Illad Kalgaraf ! ! Dhidhiid !! Shimbiraale ! !! Sodonlay! Cad Satelli!te ! !Xamarta Dur-Dur Cad Qudhacood ! ! ! Ceel Daayeer Rari-Bul ! ! ! ! ! Hayee!ti ! Dhuur Cilaan Bixin ! ! ! ! Laaleys Mooda! !Ceeryaan Satellite Biike ! !! ! Kidiyood Isasudhan ! ! ! ! Koolo ! Alxamdullileh ! Wanbarta Qolqol Waji-Wayn Quud ! ! Boodaale Sool Midgaan Samafara ! W!adaba ! ! Ilada Dubgax Satellite ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xamaas !!! Dhuumood Beeyo Macaan ! Gooraan Kuddo Xeego ! ! ! ! AFWEYN ! Kabiid ! ! Quljed ! Gacan Garas Qarradh !! Baar-Madobe Qoton Qardhiile ! Kal Qoray ! ! ! Baylah Ma Leh Satellite ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qudhaco ! Baabaa ! ! Kalsheekh Tuulo-Dhibiijo Qoof !! ! ! Laaso-Dawaco ! ! !! Tuulo Dhibiijo ! ! Anghor Daban Cubocso ! ! Xamarta Hogeed ! ! ! ! ! !Fiqifuliye Habar Shiro ! ! Xuubabays N ! San Dharkayn Daba-Raqas Qoyon Waaciye ! N ! ! Satawa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Daradawanle ! ! ! Gidil ! ° Sheikh Huways ! ! ! ! ° ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel Maweel ! ! ! ! ! Lafa-Maroodi Baloole & Igar Kalad Hacda Xiriiro Bola Cohuan ! ! ! ! Illinta Dhexe Illinta Bari ! Huguf !! ! ! Huluul ! ! ! ! 0 ! ! 0 ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! Xiinweyni ! ! ! ! Tuurta Kiridh ! Sabaayo Iskorosaar ! !! Kulmiya ! ! ! ! ! ! Dalmadot ! ! B! orama! Illinta Qoryaale ! ! Sheikh ! ! ! Jidbaale ! ! ! ! SHEIKH Waraabe Daree!ray ! Fiqi Ayuub

1 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel Afweyn Damala Xagarre Xiddo Kalmasso Laamiye ! ! ! ! Illinta Galbeed ! ! ! Wagar ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kal Booca Satellite ! Xasan Badhiile ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qudbiga ! ! ! ! S! hakaal(Shabaax) Seemaal !! !! ! Kalbarre ! ! !! ! ! !Ras Wed ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Duud-Hooyo !! ! ! Woqo! oyi ! Laas-Geel Il-Carmo Gaad Dharyo ! God Lagodei Kalqor!ey ! ! ! Masle ! ! ! ! Ilinta Dhexe ! Karinta Jid Cad ! ! ! Gaal Goble ! Sheikh Yusuf ! ! ! Bus ! ! ! Samaysa Dheer ! !Fundhuc-Dule Fooda ! ! ! ! Sheikh Dubur Gumbur Xangeeyo Camuud Satellite Bodacad !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Alaala-Cadka ! ! Xamilka ! ! ! Xirsi Jiciir ! ! ! Jidhaangob Cagaaray ! !Karin Biyood ! ! ! ! ! Dhereran Sheerbi !Xabaal-Reer Laasa Carro ! ! ! Wa!ra!qa-Gibil Ku Dirir ! Kaldaray ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Dari Maraa ! !Laas Doomaare Damale Xagare Liqaar ! ! ! ! ! ! Ximan Boodhley Geba Gebo ! ! Ciddei Jebis ! ! ! Girni ! ! ! Xero-Barkhadeed Ceeley ! !! ! !! ! ! ! Liqaan ! ! ! ! Xumba Weyne ! ! ! Khamun GE!B! ILEY ! Go'Da-Weyn ! Eddi Gellie ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Galbee! d ! ! Darar Weyne Beer Weyso Xin-Galool !! Guud Cad ! ! ! ! ! ! Shagale Cilaan Booc ! ! ! Rako Weraar ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Cambaar Sare ! ! ! ! ! ! Rablay ! D! heri Jebiye ! Karasher Dhoomo Ceel Midgaan ! ! ! Xu!!unshaley ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kulaal ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Waabaha ! ! ! Udaan ! ! Diiriye Guuleed Cambaar Hoose ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kal Dhadhaab ! Xeradaa/Muudal !! ! ! !! !! !! ! Sobaad ! ! ! Karasharka ! Hul-Canood !! ! G!!! e! !b! i!ley Xoog Jeerinle ! ! !Caateeye Cabdi Balli Samokaab ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! Diinqal ! Ceel-Dhere ! ! Sh.Samire/Botor ! Tiin! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Qoyta ! Fadhi Gaab Ceel La Qoday ! ! !! ! ! Dagaame Kala Rog Dindinta ! Torabora ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Il-Tuug ! !Darka Shilmaale ! ! Forestry Bali-Caraale Wardher ! Deb Buni Qaararsoor Qodax ! ! ! ! ! ! Farah Baladi ! ! ! ! ! ! Y!aldo ! ! ! ! ! Bali Samakaab Qalwo ! ! ! ! ! !! S!!anlawe-Galbe!d Dhega Cade ! ! ! !War Gunbi Satellite ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cobol Hadla Qabri Samane El Harre Sanjilbo Xumbays ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wadhan Warta Shiikha Kala Baydh ! ! ! Dariyar ! ! ! ! ! ! Heedho ! ! Bali-Rooble Kala Balaydh ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qoton Wajaale ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xaqayo-Malaas ! El Aragghelo Arris ! ! ! Su!radley ! ! Gobol Gobol !Bacoolaha ! ! ! Laalays Oroma ! Hargeysa Salaan ! Sinnar Siigo-Dheer Awr-Boogays Sarmaan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Godwaraabe ! !Dalan Dowl ! Baraagaha Qol Uurjire ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Warta Hooda ! ! ! ! !Waraaboqod ! ! ! ! ! ! Xorfada ! Xidh-Xidh ! Ceeg Saaf ! ! ! ! ! Burco Kaam Barwaaqo ! Moxamed Jibriil ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Gobdheere ! ! Kaladhac ! Higlo Ceelcowsle Meygaag Xidhinta ! ! ! ! !! ! Salebankulul ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xidh-Diqsiile Dabdheera !! ! Aadan Saleebaan Nasiyeh Kado ! ! ! ! Dacawaale Xabaala Amare ! ! Bandarbayla ! ! ! Gediitaley ! ! Hargo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xasan Qootar ! Gar Adag ! Sarmaanyo Xerta Kubo! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Dabo-Jilab Dakhanyado ! Sincaro Derin Garaseed ! ! Laas-Baxay ! ! ! ! ! Hog-Mashruuca Wariiley !Dhanaano ! Dersi ! Libaax-Xar ! ! HARGEYSA Galooley ! ! Dhudhud Dhaliilo ! Dogoble Qol Kheyra Xerta Cuskad ! ! ! QARDHO Tincad! ! ! Cadaadkulaale ! ! Ugaadhya!hay ! ! ! ! Ilka Cadeys Xurfada Tuur Xoday ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Waalid-Xoor ! ! ! ! ! ! Laba Afle Balay-Kaliil Kaam Weyne! Widhiidh Weylo Cad ! ! ! ! Warta Cas !! Afineyn Dumadle Afweyne ! ! Gool Weyne Waddo D!hibiiq ! ! Shiikh Maldha ! ! Odweyne Dameeraha ! ! ! ! Jedad ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Odwe!yne! ! ! ! ! ! ! Warta Bayle Dhaban Shoodhe Satellite ! ! ! Toon Xadhig-Xadhig !! Liban Esa ! ! ! ! ! God-Dheer ! ! Maraaga ! Shaarub ! ! Dhego Weyne Barwaaqo/Beer 3 Tuur Xoday Sattellite ! Dhaxan ! ! Beerato Ceel Xumo ! !! ! ! Shoodhe ! Qormo Buurcad Magaalo-Kuul ! Sheikh Moldhle ! ! ! ! ! Beer One ! ! Tuurciyaale ! ! ! Xaaxi Iyehyeh ! Warta-Xooga ! ! Jameecaadka ! Beer Two Xood Dhuudo ! ! ! Jab Dhurwaa Suryo ! Faraguul ! ! Haro Sheikh ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel Dareer ! ! ! ! Genyu Ado ! ! ! ! Ina Hind!is!e Waridaad ! Laa-Baas • The strong role that clans play in Somali society provides cohesion and also divisions ! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel Dhidar Bali-Mirowle Kadhada Bali-Jiilaal CAYNABO Sufur Wayne Gar-Hel ! ! ! ! !! Isku Dhoonka ! Sayla Galbeed ! ! Darfaccle Satellite ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Raydab!ka OWD!WEYNE Unuunley Ina! Dhakool G!adhka B!erkeda Cali Xirsi ! Warta-Moxamed Fanax ! ! ! Cadow Yuurura ! ! Kaam-Cumar ! ! !Dhudhub ! Jameecada Dhudhun Dhiilo Berkada Goosha !Yakayake ! ! Qool-Caday Mureec Godama Dera Lebe Bos Galool Madobe Lasacardin ! ! ! ! ! ! BANDARBEYLA Jan Wado-Bariis ! Qorijabley Cabdi Faarax Xayira Dhoobo Cantuug Satellite ! ! Ina Qawle ! Goljano Qori Dheere ! Gumburaha Saynla Bari ! ! ! ! ! Shaxda ! ! ! Karin La!bi Balli-Da!lab Laf Weyne H! ah Suga ! Laanta Qalloocda ! ! Caraale Ismaciil ! ! ! ! Buq-Dheer Balli-Cabane ! ! Muraayada Tukub ! ! ! ! TALEEX Libow Kulule ! Bali Ciise Qoton-Dabo Geel-Didis ! ! ! ! Gorofley Kal-Cad ! ! ! Kurxunta Aroor ! Naqdhibiijo ! ! ! ! Beebeega ! Xudun ! ! Bali-Mataan ! !! !Gaydhka ! ! Qalloocan XUDUN Maysamo Kal Khaliifo ! ! ! ! ! Qoton Weyne ! ! !! Docolaha ! Shire Sut Balli Kaliil ! Balli Caraale ! Gumbur Libaax Gowsa Weyne ! Godoble ! Ceelbuux Gumbura ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Magacaley !! ! ! ! Ballaadhis ! Xananley X Halin Kaabada Qoqol Habateh ! ! Shinbiraaley Taleex Togdheer ! ! Adan Abokor Carraale Bidaar Geel Caseeye Satellite Darimoh ! ! Cali-Aadan Goroyo Ood ! Gaatama Qawlo ! ! Sabawanaag ! ! Kundul!ah Geedi Haan !! ! Darya Geesa-Wayn ! ! ! ! ! ! Fadhiyar ! Car Weyn Durdura Baha Dhamal Maxamed A!xmed ! ! ! ! Balli-Gubadle ! Ceeg ! Higlo Ulasan God Heeri Yibaal Baar Madoobeye Oisame ! Salaxley ! Sanyare BURCO ! !! ! Qudhac-Kudle ! ! Ina-Higire Baraagta Rooble Duur-Cad Xaaji Khayr ! ! Xangay ! ! ! Adego Xerta ! ! Jaamac Liibaan Dhooba Weyne Farahgeri Qabaal ! Kaabada Qunyardaga ! ! Balli Abokor ! ! Caynabo ! ! ! Lafa Wayne Kam-Tuug Bilcilweyso ! Sheikh Aboyonis ! ! Dib-Shabeel Dhariinbaar Ina Guuxaa ! Wacays Oodane ! Caynabo ! ! ! ! Hol-Hol ! ! ! Boodhlay Yasir ! ! ! Komboye Gaas ! ! ! Laan Qayrla ! Xayndaanle Wadaamagoo Ceel-Dhaab Oog Dhtmay Timir Qundhed ! ! Gedihan ! ! ! ! ! Xaydh Ducato !Baarcad Waraabeeye ! Gorayo Gaad Layaal Garbo Qabad Laanqayrta Celico ! ! ! Wad ! ! ! Ismail Diiriye Beli Adaax Balanbaal ! ! Dauli Qool Buulale !! Guumays Tuur Subag Arooley ! Habari Heshay ! ! Caanalskax ! ! Dare ! Libaax Qawdhama Higlada ! ! ! Laas Dalbshan ! ! Laanle ! ! Nar ! ! ! ! Xuseen Xamar War Cibraan Dhuur Cillaan ! Cuun !Uusgure Ismaaciil Diiriye ! ! ! ! ! Damal Samale Labi-Sagaal Ah Jeenyo Laaye ! Baliga Dullo Carcaraaf ! ! ! ! Kalax El Chebed Falfalax ! ! ! ! Kelyexeed ! Gud Ado Harada Gubatoxil Harada ! ! Gebi Cas ! !Bali Ugaadh Gola Fardod ! Buq-Dharkayn Yagoori Sool Calan Dabe ! ! ! ! ! ! Hai Dirir ! Saha-Gebogebo Siiga Dheer Bihiyo Dangoroyo ! Nasiye ! ! ! ! Daba-Goroyaale Obsiiye Daahir Oogle Bisiqa ! Hadh Wanaag ! ! ! ! ! Shaaxid Yeyle ! Dhira Doba Isghibil ! ! Libaaxle Dabaqabad ! Tuulo Samak!aab ! ! ! Gocandhaley ! ! Adhicadeeye Meereysane ! Heere ! ! across Somali Society. Raydab Khaatumo ! ! Shansha Cadde Balli Scillin ! ! Suuj ! Rarmotiil Mulaaxo Cagararan Ceegaag ! ! ! ! Shululux Bilcijab!e Maxamed Ugaas ! Xaaji Saalax ! ! B!allicalanle Canjiid Diilinmaxato Waxari Ka Ciday ! ! Horufadhi Laasodaar ! Laas Magugle Garac Lagu Dhal Geida Debabo Xasbahale !! ! Jama Qamar ! ! ! Tuko Raq ! ! ! Goroyo Sare ! Caro-Baalanbaal ! ! Ceel Buh ! ! ! Taallo-Buur ! Beras !! ! ! ! !! ! ! Qorilugud Carro Weyn ! God Qaboobe Faleeryale Sinujif Farxaamud Qool Goodire ! Ceel Bilcile ! Kala-Jeex ! ! ! ! Burowadal !El Goddumei ! Baarweyn Duruqsi Galgal Cabaale ! Higlo-Fiqi ! ! ! ! ! Qaloocan Qabri Huluul Garac-Laqu-Dhal ! ! ! Konoco ! Yucub Yabooh Rayaare ! ! ! Dhoqoshay ! ! ! ! ! ! Sange Jabiye ! Laas Caanood!! ! ! ! ! Hodol Dabab Sibidhley LAAS ! ! Kalis ! ! Riyo Xidho ! ! ! Cag ! Laas Caanood ! Cajin ! !! ! Garowe Lanta Hawada ! ! Kabal Daryaleh ! !! Boocame ! ! ! ! ! ! Af Gadud Xidh Xidh Gudgawobeh Calahargo ! Balli Dhiig ! Dhallaamo Cune ! ! Reebanti ! ! Dhariyalay ! Sarmaan Tuugo ! ! CAA! NOOD Aftugweyne Garmaal Sool Joogto ! ! Darayle Ga ! ! Muusa Qudaar Laaso-Ceel-Berdaale Akuule ! ! ! Lugo ! ! !Dhammay ! Maraya Coodanle ! ! Halhaliye ! ! ! Nugaal Cudanlay Xadhaadhanka ! Shangale ! Ra!bbaable Gocondhaale ! Uar Ueiten ! ! ! ! Buuhoodle ! ! Birta Dheer Dilin Mahato ! ! ! ! Geed Dheer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Warwayteen Ilma Dandan !Buulal Las Anelot! Buuhoodle ! ! ! Darin Tog ! Diriye Kubaal ! Laas Burre Laa Qararrooyin ! ! ! ! Xaliimo Dheer Dhalinraqas ! Dan Timirka ! Qararo ! El Uaesed Dudumaale Xamxamaa ! Birfadheer ! ! Xamar Lagu Xidh Karin Gorfood ! Gabdho Haways Daba-Taag Karin Dabayl ! Ladega ! ! ! ! Bali Cad Fardhidin EYL Gabac ! Tuulo Ooman ! ! Jibagalle ! ! ! Kabaalwaq ! God Cad Dogob Dhooba-Canutug ! ! Dhagaxlaha • The pastoralist life of many Somali people and its traditions. Biriqodey ! ! Yoonbays Il Maradi ! Dharkeyn-Genyo Qoriiley ! ! Diinkudhac ! ! ! Ina Irman Ad Bedey ! ° N Kalabayr! Gori Rit ! Dihlil ! ° N Sahdheer ! ! !! !!! Abaaray X! amur Bacad Weyn 8 Qarxis ! ! 8 Xas Bahale Moraro Cileyli Baaley ! Cagaare ! Hayanle ! Balli Gobob Diran ! ! ! Eyl! Mudulka (Aragoo) Dhoobo Can!tuug ! Xam Xam !Magacley ! Berin Cad ! ! ! Qulule !Meygaagle Jalam Baqbaq !Kala-Rog ! ! Baarbacadle Reemanti Dheganle Arisimo ! Qalan-Qal !! ! ! Dhiganle ! ! ! Dhabancaddo Suubanlaged !Illig Cee! l Qaanso ! ! ! Jiingada ! Mayle ! ! ! !Ceel-Wayn Sanaag ! Balli Ahur Barre BURTINLE Ceelweyne ! ! ! Suule ! ! ! Wargaduud Sinujiif Godbalayskutumay ! Godob-Yar Hayaanle 2 Hayaanle 1 ! Iaud Godob Addon ! ! ! ! Gogol Weyn Burtinle ! Laqla!ajis ! ! ! !! Budunbuto ! Qoryaale ! ! Gosol Bahaley Xaaji Kheyr Libaaxo ! Farjano Dhanaane ! Khuuriley Gaalacoodday ! Gaala-Ood ! ! !Cadaygabgabo Faratooyo ! ! ! ! Jifle Far Xamur Madlooyin ! Lebi-Lamaane ! ! ! Usgure !Gadobjiran Winiiq!l!e Sallax ! Buq ! Heded ! Faratooyada Oalaa!nqale ! Bilcil ! Dhinowda ! ! !Beer ! ! Cara-Caso Guraladig ! Jidlabe ! Cel-Xagar • The highly influential role that Islam has in Somali life. ! ! Areri Lalamod Beer-Dhagaxtur Raxan-Reeb ! ! Buuryaqab ! ! Tuulo Xabiibo !! Laan-Madow ! Dhinawda Dhigdhigley ! Catoosh ! ! Labo Warood Xarfo !Salax Darandoole

!Doomariyo

Jariiban ! Riig-Oomane Roox ! ! ! ! Bacaadweyn ! ! Jariiban Il-Foocshe ! ! ! Bashka Bursaalax Semade JARIIBAN Dhagaxfur Goodirwaaxis ! Af-Weyn Buubi ! ! ! ! Heema ! ! Gofei Qansaxle Darasalam ! ! Tira Assu ! ! ! Las Inedigh Taro-Casso !Guuco Ballibusle ! ! Bissig Gundere Abaarey !Ceel-Berde Ceel-Lahelay !! ! ! ! Kulub Diriye Roble ! ! Mareer ! Tuurdibi GAALKACYO! ! B!ayra Balli Lama Adi Balli Hagagari Garcad ! ! Godod ! ! !

El Las Derder Semudde ! ! Sarjimaale ! ! ! Aliwal ! ! ! Cinjire Jaandheer Saaxo Xananweylood Celhamar ! ! • The enormous impact that the has in the and ! ! Gaalkacyo ! El Engir ! Lamadhucdh ! !! ! ! ! Qaidarre ! ! ! ! ! Cinjirecade Xasasalo Khalifcabd ! !Qarqoora ! Sciander Dhinoode Erir Ooman ! ! ! ! ! Bitaale Urur ! ! ! ! Faarax Geedi ! ! Cali Kabwn ! !! ! ! ! ! Tulo Qorax! ! ! !Xingaras !S!h Ali Docolle Farale Higlalemac !Higlaale ! ! ! Sangadud ! ! ! ! Qorosaynrc Maskaray ! ! ! Kala Foge ! ! ! Lama Dhere ! ! Galgalad Tawfiiq ! Deeqlo ! Gowlalo ! Rasan ! ! ! ! Xaaran! Laaso Cadale Sh Abdulahi Ceel Dhahanaan Xoosh Ugabiye ! ! ! ! Shanbarrin Fayuka L Caligodi ! Dagaari ! ! ! ! ! ! !Nuur Afrax ! ! Qarsoni! Miro Cowle ! ! Ciinl Bagahar ! ! Karin ! Lankadawa Iskaashatad Dawaf ! ! !Laba Warod ! Qob Dheer Shire ! Xindugan ! ! Af-Barwaaqo ! Bandiidley Sadax-Higlo Bandiiraaley El Af Gumasorrei Salid Laan Weyn ! ! ! ! Yamaarugley ! Surio Kalcad ! Balaquay ! Dibijeed ! Docol Habad! Galinsoor ! Jiite ! ! ! Ceel Bacduur ! Balliiano ! Gillab Rugis ! ! Ximcadlabiley ! ! Hangut !Baldheere Duubin Isgowrac ! Scian Cora ! ! ! Jilable Bandiiradleey Moqor ! Galmoyar Daborow Dudun Gallo Wad-Galinsoor ! ! Hilmo Maygagqalo!! ! ! ! Booso ! ! Xurfada Heeco ! ! Lanweyndoc ! Laqu-!Raqsay Indhabus Sabacad ! ! Dejimaale Gurasaare Cirai Cheli Dere ! ! ! ! ! Laasdabacd Lazada!le ! G! urifandho ! ! U! arah Cabudwaaq Wanakiir Wargalo ! ! !Gopsor ! ! Lsbalanbal Hule ! !Xajow Sufi Xingod ! ! Balli Cad Galm!aygaag Macalimrob! Xajubjamac Madow Endo Iero ! ! Bahdogaabo !! Washiir ! ! ! Lababulscio ! Ceelamood Qalqalocan ! !Garasley Guba Arar Budbud Safsaaf Huurshe !! ! Higlo Waran ! Buru!rug ! ! Or Ghielleis ! Hogdugaag ! Iidoole ! ! ! ! Subagle Biiadera Somaliland, and its politics. ! Docolay Sermanle Jirriqale ! Gal Gorum ! ! ! Dongaab ! !Fataxarug ! ! ! Balli Hat ! Mxamedgut ! ! Hilalaye Galbarwaaqo/Sax-Qurun ! Higliga Caagta Cadaado ! ! Caday Bubal Idhan ! ! CADAADO ! Garoowale ! Gidhays Toore Ceelguula HOBYO ! ! ! Boholqurun ! ! ! ! Qaradhi !Qaruoonka Ortalis ° N Dol ° N ! Kaxandho Qallad ! Kalasoc ! CABUDWAAQ ! Hadile 6 Kurtun Gadoon 6 Mirroon ! Bacgel ! Olol Xanan Buro ! ! ! ! ! Dameero Qaad Miiracad Xinjilab Dhagax Dheer Cada Kibir ! ! Sangooye ! ! ! Gadudaba Ceel-Dibir Wabarka ! ! ! Laasdheer ! ! Gubad Farax Ardo ! Unisom Xuunshaalow ! ! Dofarqod Godin Labe ! ! Balanbal (Elgula) Balli Howd Afwaax ! Qalanqalle El Bogofier ! ! Qarsooni Xa!aro ! ! Baxdo Qaydarrey Bajeelo ! ! ! Laz Aer ! ! ! ! Afgaduudle Mareer Guur Uarandi ! Bohol ! Marsamage Laso-Ceer ! Haf Gudud Mahan ! Bacaha Faryaraweyn ! ! ! Gadoon Geeddi Bac Lasxadow ! ! Hero Caralei El Gorei ! Balanbal ! Mirig Afweyne Banaan ! ! Ko!oragoys ! ! Delenle ! ! Cali Jir Garsaalo Las Cadid ! Degagou ! ! Gian Der ! Mareere Qanbob ! Las Eldit ! ! ! ! Duurgale Baarleef Shiikhaley Lulubsho ! ! Lebed ! Baragcise !Baraagtawn ! ! ! Diiriye Xassan ! ! Xero Dhagaxleey ! Cali-Xassa!n ! Hem Auare!Lulubsmo ! Oodaale ! ! ! ! ! Galxagare ! ! • The creativity and resilience of Somali people to survive and work in adverse ! DH!UUSAMARREEB ! ! ! ! ! ! Qaayib Balli Galad Garcadde Qanrar Liibaangalle ! Bilhelli Riigawisil ! Galxagarre Salamaco ! Cincle ! ! ! Sankuyal ! ! ! Cel Garas ! Ceelgaalaad Faragoo ! ! ! Dhu! usamarreeb Jicdhere Wisil Geeri Jir! ! ! Ceel Dhiinla Weyne!! ! ! Goodwiil Seko! Xinlabi ! Labaceel Lamaxarar ! Laandaer Goragiahor ! Buulo Shiiq ! ! ! ! Shabelow ! ! ! Seego ! Gira Sanan-Weyne ! Tuulo Cali Xasan ! El A!vor ! ! Barbarcad ! ! Tuulo-Caano ! ! Sirgo ! ! Baaduin Biyomaal Hobyo Cabdi-Gorod ! ! ! ! Mirodeebshe ! ! Dadle ! Bacadwayn Cadad Lowl !Hobyo ! ! ! ! ! Bole Lebi Duulo Guudoole ! Waniiqle ! ! Galgaduud ! ! ! Faddhi Tehele ! !Xingadud ! Boobdheere Guri-Ceel ! Qofey ! Faarax Daab !Guble Hodan Gawaan ! !Faarax Buley ! ! Saqira ! Geedaley !!Ceeldheer Cammaara ! ! Buuhood ! ! Salaxdhadhaab ! ! Elhele ! Ilix ! Dehi Qararow ! Sheeq Nuur ! ! Takaraale ! ! ! Lebi-Hiiraan Dadale Ceelgaras Day ! ! !! ! Dabare ! ! Gorfo ! Matabaan ! ! ! ! Gumar Oohaale !!! ! Debatcile ! Hanro ! Dega-Yar ! Hen Daier ! ! Warshubo ! ! ! Xin Barwaqo ! ! Bil!cile Elbur Ambalio ! Kaneecaale Galqoryaale ! ! Feerfeer Beer-Gadiid ! ! ! ! Laamo ! Camaara Laalaadshe Qod Qod !Goxoo ! Ceel-Laheley Libimaay Jiracle ! ! Miliqo ! Oonreeb ! Caad War Qumayo !Walamog ! Hariyo Sheekh Nuur ! Ceel-Huur ! Omad Yibirsuge ! ! ! ! Maalin Nuqur Coomaad ! ! Figta ! Elosoro Ferdehe ! Qurac Joome Ilgule Beruged Miroon ! War Wiin ! ! Ghel Medoi ! Walamoogo Aual Afra M! ussa ! ! ! Kuusaw ! Kalabeyr Jawiil Garbo ! ! Aual Alas Dabagalo Qosol Tire El-Magad ! !! !! Daba-Yoodley ! ! ! Sal-Kudhooble ! ! Madhooy ! ! Daaddaale ! ! Goddhurwaay Duddum Har ! Oodweyn Galcandho circumstances. Ahmed Korey !!!Q!!oy!do Garab Den ! ! ! Farlibaax ! ! ! ! Dhagaxyale ! Bartir Qumayaror ! ! ! ! Lam!bar ! Ceel Abdalla ! ! ! ! Ceel-Qooxle ! ! ! ! Gubet Lafole Ceel Barde ! Aw Iley ! ! Goof Ganaan ! Sh. Axmed Nur Faax Sal Doonyaale ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! T!uulo Hiiraan ! ! ! ! ! !!! Ceel Baxan ! Quracle !! ! Ruunqorax ! ! Ceel Ballei ! ! !!! ! ! ! Hiirey Burcadey Elbarde ! ! ! Caduuro ! ! Baadikeen ! CEEL ! Lawareeg/Qeyre Haboon ! Be!let Weyne! G Goonle XARARDHEERE ! ! ! El Gomo Uen !!! BELET ! ! !! Caag Sibiri ! ! ! ! Banbar Shab!ellow!! ! ! Deegaan Ceel Caboq ! Kirkiri !Iarmoghe ! ! ! Ceel Buur Levi Fartag ! Uascen El Edat ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Dugsi ! BUUR Garable ! Tarabi ! CEEL Quracle!y ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !A!ri-Coogeys ! ! Ceel Tegavei ! ! Ceel-Shiil Jowlo ! Xaaji-Shiikhow ! Ceel Idaad !! WEYNE Cali Ganeey Xaraf ! Doonka ! ! ! ! Teedan !Ceelgod Aual Giohar Xarardheere Ato ! ! ! Dab Xarar ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Cehan ! Ceel Dego Gos ! ! ! Astaani Dab Nar Cad!ayo Marai Ascia Mussa ! BARDE ! ! ! ! Xarardhere Area El Gunier ! ! Raqso Dac ! ! Shimbiro ! !! ! ! Daafeed !Dhaameel Hareeri Maalinwarfaa ! El Peccolli ! ! Maxamad Xasam ! Dhalwo !! ! El Ghan Ye!! ed ! ! ! Kaynaan ! ! !! Sulmo Dhaydhabe Capanne Gal-Hareri ! Buq Koosaar Sug!o!w ! ! Wabxo ! Dhega Gaab ! ! Balli Adde Far Fima ! ! Cadiimo ! ! ! C! ali Cadi ! Baari-Wiine/Gendiyeer ! !! ! ! Cali Buubaal ! Habow Yar ! ! ! Seddex Boqol(300) ! Jarad ! Ceel Cabdi ! God Colow ! ! Gambaale ! ! Jaadle !!! ! Barkadii Xaaji Xasan Ulajaran Ceganloo ! ! Goobo ! Habow !Q!urdhun ! Muqlayaryar ! ! ! Galdhabo ! Elqalaw ! Qolow ! ! Gudoqor ! ! ! El Baccai Jacar Ceel Ableey Bur Carrowlay ! ! ! ! Nuur Fanax ! Guninbad Gabodayo ! ! Cagacade ! ! ! ! Taranbi !! ! !El Garap Ted Cheli Gu ! ! ! ! Calaame ! ! Hareeri-Gaw!aan Gof Gorioueine Durdur ! ! ! Ideed Tuuri ! ! Lac Bissigle ! ! Raangaabo ! !Xarartiir Juujuule Bargaan Dermangit Far Aqable ! Maxaas Al-Wakiil ! Marjaan Uaha Ier ! ! Rab Dhuure ! ! Doolo Biciid ! ! ! ! !! ! Derri Wahweyn ! Quraclle ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Aboore ! Shaway Burdir Harxoday ! ! Samataro !Darcheimo ! ! ! ! Caag Xoog ! ! Garweyn ! !! ! ! Muuse Geel Dhuurey ! Garas Wiine ! ! ! ! ! !! El Gargaro • The rapid expansion of urban areas with poor policies on urban growth and service ! ! Qaydar Edi Waraabaale Buscad ! ! ! Xiirey Suubo RAB ! Giara Abarou Dharilgada ! ! El Cabobe ! ! ! Calasow Aadan ! Goriale Rakaale!! H! iraan ! ! ! Rahaman ! ! ! ! Aveno Gal Laghet ! ! Ceel Cali ! ! El Dehtal ! ! Yabyab ! ! ! Waregto ! !Bud Bud ! ! ! Moro Gabey ! ! !! ! ! ! Garaashka Bar Ballei ! ! ! ! ! Burdho ! ! ! Habiino Muqla Axmed D!oolow ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! El Uared ! !Ilimey ! Xaashimeey ! ! Reidabal Gubadka ! !!Habas Weyn ! Nooleeye DHUURE ! ! ! ! ! !! Damairor ! ! ! ! ! ! Buulo Qalooc ! Eeygadhalay Mal-Mal Sh.Abdule ! !! Quraala !XUDUR ! ! ! ! Gubataay El Ghelda W! ar Hinshile ! Xu!dur/Buulo ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xoofow ! Barkad Walow El Garable ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel Qallooc ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Kheyraale ! Gheriale Oswein ! Dhuuma Dhuumaay ! ! Qooney ! ! War Kulunle ! Dalhis ! Waareeyle ! ! ! Tubooy ! ! ! ! ! Galwasuge ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel Gorof ! Hagi Barro ! ! ! ! !! Labi-Gaduud Gal Gaafow Garsala Avascia El Medei ! ! ! War Uumoow ! ! ! ! Urvein ! ! Jiibow!! Lafowacayis ! ! Cabdi Looxow Garasoo!w-Boore ! ! ! ! !! Moqokori ! Aggherar W! ar Ya!r Yar ! Xudur ! ! Buqda Jicibow Ceel Gumar ! Ceel Juqow ! ! ! ! ! ! Uusa Diiqa/Bur Sagaar ! Shii!dle Ge!do ! ! ! W!ar-Wiin K!amiisle ! ! ! !! ! ! Hul Caduur ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! !Y!owkoyow !! ! ! ! Ceel-Cali-Axmed ! ! ! ! War Lowiley/Kidhikoy ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mar War Gaduudo Saafi Rooble! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Ta!ye! e! g! low Ceel Ci!id ! Gaba Uen ! ! anga ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! Aboorey ! ! Uusi Yereey ! ! Ceel Dhooble ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Howlwadag M ! Galcad Barked Aliid CEEL Hasanley ! ! ! ! Ramidey ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !Xararla ! ! ! Xaawo Gadiid Ceel Hareri ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! C/Saleeban ° N !! ! War Bukrey !! ! War Macaln D ! Gahood Weeyn ° N ! ! ! ! ! Wa!r Lowi ! ! ! ! ! BU! LO !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Wariiriyaale ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Fagi Cismaan ! ! ! ! ! ! K!ukay ! ! ! Wasiila !! ! 4 ! ! DOOLOW ! Shishibow ! !! ! Moolo Cad Jaan Yare 4 ! ! ! Madhoweey ! War Orogle Orogley ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Qorof ! ! Gal-Libaax ! Qurac Ijaabo ! !!! ! ! ! Qadid ! ! !! !! ! ! ! Gumarre ! ! Suu!low Sh!iir Galoole ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wiyil ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Kormari Ghel Magal DHEE! R ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Mubarak ! ! ! Mada ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sarta Nuur Caw!aale ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! Cel Qoxle ! !! ! ! ! Oor-Gaafin ! ! ! ! BU!RTO Quractur Ceel Cali Geedi Wari!irya!le! !Yarey Qurac ! Kulunjerer Uunka Maadi ! Rer Aw Hussenow !! ! X.Gaabow ! ! ! ! ! Sharify/Masirka Jebel ! ! Hareeri Kalle ! ! ! ! Shaatilow ! ! ! ! Oorar !!Jimaali/Doon Mundili Buriyga Ceel-Yaaquub ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W!ar Aw Baarow/Madoha ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Eeltuumad S!!e!dax Haaw!o ! ! Ce!el Dheer Tuulo Qallooc ! ! ! ! !! Seynilow ! ! ! ! ! Ceel-Cali Muuse Ceel Maxaad Weheliye ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bulo Burto ! Messagit Mohamed Omar ! ! Saalow ! ! !! El Dagno Ven !! ! Ceel-Bacad ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Waajid ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Xun Turrey ! Washaqo ! ! ! ! ! War A Thile !! ! ! Noi ! ! ! ! Waniinle ! ! ! T!oosil!ey Shadiiley ! ! ! ! ! ! Laandhi ! ! ! Showligga !! ! Nawi ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Yup Grab! le Wp! ! ! Mukalye X!a! aji Xoor Adan Yabaal Garas Afra Lere ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Mad Ibra! him/Mad Ibraan ! WAAJID Xuseen Maleesiyo Buur Yarey ! ! Ceel ! ! Lagadiimo TAYEEG! ! LOW Gulaalamey ! ! ! Ceel Dheer ! ! Luuq ! ! ! ! Gal-Haruur ! ! ! ! ! Kawo ! !!! Alud ! Sanka Xaamud ! ! ! ! ! Caracase ! Madax Maroodi Waki 1 L!ibaanow ! ! ! Maray Suulay Belet Xaawo ! ! ! ! ! !! Subai ! ! Ar Gummo ! ! ! ! ! !Sheybow ! ! Sarmaanjab ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ibrahim Kolow Jeelo!w ! Cali Axmed Mareeg Hareri Hosle 1 ! Maygaag ! ! Mag Doore ! Roose ! ! ! Loojar Soglow ! Garsaale-Gaab Xaaji-Xaamud ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S!or!ogley ! ! Al-Kowsar ! ! Xabadaale Maganey ! ! W! eele!y ! Wajid ! ! Sciaule Ali Mai Ceel-Ware ! ! ! Leba Hurow ! Mesegawayn ! Xaydibi !!! ! ! ! Odomow ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Masirkaa ! ! ! Qoracdheer ! Hareri Hoosle 2 !!! ! ! ! !! ! Dhariyow ! Taw!akal ! Towsiile ! Warka Waayi ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Hilowle-Gaab ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Janno Gaabo ! ! War Garasley War Ribo ! Qa!rimey ! ! Qajawlaha! !! Mirta Cali Armed! ! ! ! El Bascialeu ! Qural Giir Giir ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! El Endanane management. (Mogadishu alone hosts almost a quarter of the total population of Khadijo Hagi/Bulo Haji ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Qomari Xamiir Gaab !Agar Gul ! ! ! ! Harere Bon Ir-Weer ! ! Miiro ! ADAN ! Mudooley War Bilile Wp ! ! ! ! !! Tido! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Laaf Maakade ! Moho W!eyn ! Mug!i-Aarow! !! !Midhowe! y/Dudumay Magdaad Magagan ! Manyo Dayeer! !Ceel-Abaaji ! ! Saaxuul War Cilaan Bashiiro ! !! !! ! ! ! Soogodo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hilo Owmaxamed El Uaro Tuulo Barak!o Shabel Duulaq ! Lafaale ! ! Galoole Raso ! ! Xirkadheerde Ruun-Nirgood ! !! Godow! ! ! ! ! Dumaaye ! ! Waday Roma ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qob Yaxaas !! Waro-Cadcad Fadhi Weyn Libaaxle/Funuja Goiweyn Mad Hasan Wp ! ! ! !! !Mo!olmad Wein/U!!d!ule ! Olomal ! ! YABAAL ! Yurkud ! ! ! ! ! ! Buniyo ! ! !! ! Zauel ! ! Ceel-Cali Weyd Kabis ! ! ! Xa!bsac !! ! Q! ur!acii Tallal !Bur-Dheere ! ! ! ! ! Walaq ! Ceel Dheere Qof Qof! ! ! Hareeri Qaashaaley ! ! Jameeco Alin! di ! ! ! Boos-Caduur ! ! ! ! ! S! iiboy Bari ! Tuulo Barwaaqo Tubaalo Ba ! Tabarow Gabaa!nyale ! ! ! ! Ceel Shiif Wp ! ! ! ! Xaliimo! Xiiran Cad-Caddey Saar Saare Bar Baar Ees ! Suunteylli Nageeye Raaxool!e ! Ceeldheere-Maalin ! ! El Calidat ! Burje J!iic ! Maykaareebi ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel-Maxamed Ali ! !!! Magaaoole ! ! Eibecher BELET Salahlo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bur Qodow Caddaan Laxey Tuubo/Lowi-Nasro Roobay ! Ruruch Shaw !! ! ! ! ! Kurteele ! ! ! Karmale ! !! ! ! Maracade ! ! ! ! !! ! Wariiri ! ! ! ! ! Haluul Kuud! ! War Yaqub Wp !! !! ! ! ! ! ! Carmo Yucubl!ey! ! ! ! ! ! !Waney ! ! ! ! Saxa Guduud ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Shawki! ! ! Saydheelow ! ! Ris Nuur Dugle ! ! ! Sabool Kori!ye!! Xumbo Weyne ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lan Dheer El Geldes !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ber-I Cobogori Mooro Bullei JALAL! AQSI ! ! Qoond Hood ! ! ! ! ! XAAWO ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Maxamed Saciid ! ! !O! lda ! ! ! ! ! Webiyow ! !! ! ! !! ! Guulane ! ! ! Reys Qode! ! ! Kuus ! ! ! ! Wabiyow Fodel ! ! !Tuugaareey ! Warta Dibisamatar ! !! ! ! ! Dyay Gaab ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Gaddoondhowe ! Laan Quarac ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !War Yuub!le! ! Xassan Geedi ! ! Leuhomene ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Buulo Marer Digto ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Jalalaq!s!i ! Yaqa!ay! !! ! ! ! ! Ubale Ohh ! ! Xudaley Dhuman Cadow Hara Buti Gu!ddama ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! Iacle Garbahaarey ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! Yageg ! Karre Deb Gorum ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! Ukure ! ! ! ! ! Suriya ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Gal-Xawaal Dhegale Nus Dariiq ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!Gaagaha ! Qadiidda ! Daghaye ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Geedi-Xeyr Dadabli ! ! Xawal-Bilaw ! !!!!!! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! Ceel Adde Luktooley Shirk!a!dda ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !!! Surwey! n B!uulo Wacalim ! ! ! Berdale !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ceel-Barwaaqo ! ! ! ! ! ! Lebi-Goley ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! B! A!!! Y!D!! H! ABA ! ! Ceel Mageed ! ! ! Disboole 1 Diboole 2 Daabley/Farleysaan ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! X!al!meey ! !! Shabeeleye! ! ! ! ! ! ! Rabanaggi Maraayle ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Tayeegleey ! ! Ubbur-Gaduud ! War-Y!eroy ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cali-Gaudud El Gharum ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! Dudufodlei ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! Afar D! aar ! ! ! !! Wargaadhi ! Dhamaso Gubei ! Tuutee!s ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! Tayeg Bakoy ! ! ! Eeg Sheegow ! GARBAHAAREY Raaudoola ! War-Umurow ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !U! !bur !!! !! ! Corfon ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! Scec Avicher Raxan Jabeere Aqallo Aar !! Qeydo Sarmalable ! ! W!ar Diin!!le ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Gobanle ! Ka!b Daydale ! ! ! Gar Dabeel Weyn ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! Bur-Buro Qaraale ! Guul-Ijaabo ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Ubaale! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Likooley ! War Dugsi ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qeyraamiso Teesow Yereey ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! Oobaale ! ! ! Dhubaa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! Baid! oa! ! ! Tile ! Ceel Guduud ! !! !! ! ! ! W!ar!ir!i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Wegelow Gaduudow Deb Arar Doon-Kaxarow ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Maquudaale ! ! Qayla Dheere ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kuniyo !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Um!urow! ! ! Don Kahare ! ! J!ameco ! ! Ajaaw ! !! ! !!!! ! ! W! iinl!e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Wa!raabe-Jiif CADALE !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! W! araji !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Daba ! ! ! !Iska-Reh !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! Xawaal Dhere Laqaadi Waay ! ! Faqayaalo Baqdad ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! Warqadey ! !! ! ! ! El Atful ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qasacley/Jiiqley ! ! Miiro Carood/Cel Cosub Wiiqaad! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qariib ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tuugay ! ! !! ! ! Darusalaam(Cabdi Jilib) Somalia.) ! Madhaayte Ceel Burro Edain Caboba War-Ashoo ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! !!!Waa! ma ! !! ! ! Quraca Indhicad Ceel-Muluq ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Q! awanka ! Burcalaan ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! W! abelida/Sorma!d! ar!i ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Rabo R!a!bo ! ! Xawaal-Makay Shantarale!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! Suruq! li !S!huun-!Qa!yli ! ! Corair Geelgub Yado I ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Shanta Garas ! ! JOW!!!! H! AR! ! ! Ceel Carraale ! ! ! ! W!ar G! aduud ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Yado 2 ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Bursha-Shiikh ! ! ! ! ! Sila! at!a ! !!!!! ! Waa!gle !!! Tuullo! Yabadheele ! Lebelow Uenti Digo Uar Lebi God ! ! ! !! !! Xiyaa!d Yarey Wariish!i/!M! adi-Wiini ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Q!!u!raca Sh!iinaha Xud!ur-Ciise ! ! !! ! Xasinow Aam!in ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! Xudili !! ! ! ! ! Faan Weyn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Uar Bunle ! ! !! !! ! ! Xaaji-Cali ! ! ! ! ! Ta!r!a!sh ! Raydable! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !War!fa !! ! ! ! Wantey Haramandheera Bogo Balleey ! ! !! Xagarka ! ! ! ! ! ! Xab!aal-Alu!undi ! ! ! ! ! !! Wanaay ! ! ! ! Dh!aso ! ! ! Qansax Dheere ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tarede X!aans!!hool!e!y! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! Libi Saar ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! Tiye!eg!le ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! Degta Reidab ! ! !!Riikoy ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Jamal Warstisaraage ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Zabit ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Warbenle El Godgod ! ! ! Xussein ! ! Ugaari! !! ! ! ! ! Saha Uen ! ! !!!!! ! ! Towsi-Libee ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xaan Dawaco ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! Caddow-Uul ! Hilo Ari Baarbadan !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! Waraaboole ! ! ! ! Qamuudo ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Dheenjo ! ! !! ! ! Sabiyo ! ! ! ! ! !B!!! ! uu! r! Hakaba ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kogar Warxoor ! Far Weeyn Dur ! ! !! Wee! l Harare ! Xanyayi ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! Garsaal QAN! ! SAX! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Soo!l ! ! ! !! Jow!!! har ! ! Deg-Ti Alima Lafa Gheri ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WANLA ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Oxolo Roobay Hu!le ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M! iddle ! ! ! ! Warmod ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! Ceel Waaq ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U!urwey!ne ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!X!a! an!o! ola!!y !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cadale Horbaati Samaroole ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Yarey ! ! ! ! Roobey Aw! soomow/Wadajir ! ! ! ! Watariiriya! ! Too!!r-Toorow ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Sheebow ! Sheek Mad !Umurey ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Waab!-Cade!!y!!! ! Baar Jabi !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Bur Dhagaxie ! ! Meigach Mada ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Washaaqo ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Shillow ! ! ! ! ! Qardho ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Malable Komorsido DHEERE Xabaalo Barbar ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sh!amenlo ! Daduma Addi ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Oroow WEYN! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Ramo Derti ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! Ood Cad ! Seddex Jiirood I ! Dag Mareer ! Ma!n!suur ! Xaliimay! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! Xaskule ! ! ! ! Leego Qaandole ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Yoma Ba!laa!w ! !! ! ! ! !! ! Ra!q! ayle! ! ! !Buulo Kashiidde Xawaal Bila!n! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! Mu!olaar Sh! abelle ! Seddex Jiirood 2 CEEL ! Komari/Fuurka ! ! ! ! ! Gardo-Maale ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Xeyle Martiile ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! Sandacaar Buusaar Labi Cade ! Buulo Garas S!hibe!lle! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xero Jeeran ! Jambiile ! Bulo Godut Debweyn Ir Werk/Buulo Jadiid ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !Tuugaarey ! Rage-Ceelle ! ! El Dudu ! ! Cabdi Afey ! ! ! ! Waraabo Bedow ! Wan! !l!a!! W! ! ey! n ! ! ! ! Maareey ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Tufka ! ! ! Reebay ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! Dec Curbes Dheenle Yaxaasow ! ! !Yuubka !Yaaq Yaaq Biri Weyne ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Daar ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !X!andu!low Xawaadley ! Shiid WAAQ ! ! Turgodut G!!ember Sh!aambu! row ! ! !! ! ! !! ! Y!!a!r!!ow !Qala!!a! y ! ! ! ! ! ! Tugaar-Hoosle ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Doolaawle Xarianta ! ! Leheley! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xawaal Barbaar ! ! Buro Burdhesa ! Ceel-Abaq ! ! ! ! ! Uar G!olol Au Ahmad ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Muudaale Gabri Sero Ali Lebi Addi ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! X! uss!ein !Saalax ! !! ! Waab-Doore ! ! Uel Cobon ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! X! awaal-Huday Meyraaley Isack Yaal Bililscia Ras-Cade ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Suuban Gaduud ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! Yaaqle ! ! Bakada Madow Balan Baal Waamo Yarey ! ! ! ! ! Xawaal Aymeynuuni !! ! Aminey Xarb! iga ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! Kunaso/Meeri Caasha Cad ! ! ! ! ! Jafaay ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! BUUR! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! Xagaa-Deg ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Xabaal !Fi!iley ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Abro!ne Ideeda !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! Lafa Geri ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Xaluushin ! Xa!nle!y ! ! ! ! Celbashaqley ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Cursi Siidimo !! ! ! War-Garas ! Qoorbule!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Gologolsceval ! Mugdiile ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Saraar Goobo ! ! !Y!a!rasda!ay 2! !! ! Sa!!yg!a BALC! AD Curao ! War-Midow ! Bay!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Kuunyo-Burow !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Buraaga ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! Gantamaa ! ! ! Ufurow ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! Xaaji Xasan! ! ! !Xiba!!an Yaqa-Toley ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D! ii!!nsoor Raydabti ! !!! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Muktar HAKABA !! ! ! Xabaal Suran ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mitaanti ! Reer Xaajow ! !! ! Yaage Arurso!oy ! ! ! Sigaal!e ! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! Xayesilow ! Ware Jalle ! ! ! Xafata ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!! ! ! Indhaceel ! ! ! ! ! ! Yaroow Faallow! ! Waayeel Diinle ! ! • Despite the fragility of Somalia since 1991, the current Federal Government is making ! Bakal ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Towfiiq ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! Baar!dheere ! ! ! Mad Shantaay! ! ! ! ! !!! !! Leheleey ! !! ! ! ! ! ! War Dhagax Iialo ! ! !!!! !! ! ! Safar-Nooley Misaari ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! S!oomow ! !! ! ! ! !! ! Beer Gawaan ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Shimbiroole !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Qalaaliyow! ! ! Balcad ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Weelbisigle ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Galolca ! ! ! ! Wehelo!w ! ! Sarman-Dheere Dugule ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! Warshiikh ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! She! e!!kh! ey ! ! ! ! S!aa!bdo!ro ! !! ! ! Lebi Gambeh BAARDHEERE Zo! w! ta ! Weel Tugar Qod-Qod Ramo Dheer ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! Shirkada Gumar ! ! Y!aq-Toley ! ! War! Gaduuda Galooloonle ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Taraka ! !! ! ! Iidaw Ad!ow ! ! !! ! ! T!ortoorow !! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Cows Qurun ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! W!!!a!rir!i-Shiikh Cumar ! 2 U!usla! Warkuuri ! Xagarow ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Faafax Dhuun ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! War Albab !! ! ! ! ! !! ! AFG! O! O! Y!!!E! War-Gaab ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! Huley Xa!aji !M! ad! ! ! !! !! ! Mallable ! ! W!ereg ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! Yaaqlow R! aimog ! ! ! Shiraa!w ! ! ! ! ! We!el Lowi!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! Horoflillo ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! !Hara Cadera Shiid Kuus !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Xirmo-Waamo ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! Weheloow ! ! ! ! N! usb!i!!ile! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DIINSOOR ! ! ! Nikraa!re ! ! !Qaydheer ! ! !! !! !!! !! Tajalaq ! ! Xab!aal Soomaali ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Afg!oo!y!! e ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Wanayki ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! BANADIR Mintaana ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Shanta Mundulle ! ! Yeel Dhaayow ! ! ! ! ! Tugar Dheer ! !! ! ! Waraabow! ! ! ! ! ! !!! Y!umbis ! ! ! ! ! X.Xassan Buu!lle ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Raaxoole/Buulo Gaduud Waraabiley/Dha-Dhaab ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tuulada Waraabow ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Qabaale ! ! ! W!argodka ! ! ! Madhakali Dhoomale ! ! ! ! Ceel Baari ! Dharqa Baidoa ! ! ! !!! El Mergis Waaba ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Sarmaanley !!! !! Muuri ! Gal Gal Onlay ! ! Shaan \! ! Booshol Goloole Bar

° N Hawal ° N Qasalow ! Rama Caddey ! ! !!! ! ! ! A!f Ed !Madax Warabe ! ! Banadir ! ! ! Daarasalaam Tak!ad! Juwaarey Turkarey ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! !!! ! Sh. Usman ! 2 ! ! Yaaq Braawe Alol Lamma Gad ! ! ! ! ! Gaaguure Reydaba! Adeile !! ! ! Nimoow ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! Uacalla Iero !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! Uar Lechin ! ! ! !! ! ! !! QORYOO!LE! Y ! ! !!!!! ! ! Wa Bashir Muudey Weel Hareeri Omane Hemin Gurei ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! Uar Girgirin Dhegari !! ! !! ! ! Waabo Libi Buul ! ! ! ! Yarasiey ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Arbohiray !! ! ! !! Yaras Weyno! w! ! ! ! ! S!oo!n!!i! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! Uel Doden ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! Yaniis ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! Towsi ! ! Kadyow ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Goombir ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! Salagle ! Qoryooley ! ! !!U!!ra!ay ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Xumaan Diid ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !! ! Wakaala Weyn ! ! !!!!! ! ! !!!!! !! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! Balow ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! Caragleey ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Batuuto Xusey!n Ca!w!aale! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! significant efforts to enhance governance and the rule of law. Ooro ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! Dhaweynta ! !! ! ! !! ! ! Bakhtiti ! ! ! ! !!MA! R!KA ! Kurtun ! ! Xaaj!i Faarax ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ghesso ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Sako Basra ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Saakow ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! KURTUNWAAR!E! Y Uro Urow ! ! ! Kut Kapan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M! arka ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! Chenaf ! ! ! ! Haroris ! ! ! Uar Au Seigou Maalimiinta ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Egha Roba SAAKOW ! ! ! ! !! I N D I A N O C E A N ! ! Yaaq-Baraway Gubi Coude ! ! ! ! ! Sagarey ! ! ! Ku!rtun!waarey ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Middle Buulo-Ooma!ne Waambato Low! er ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! Xaranka Wareegta Kore ! ! ! ! Buulo-Fuur Donca ! ! ! ! ! Deerow Sanle ! ! ! Arabow ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! ! Tosilei ! Merefle Gumer !! !! ! !Mariin-Gubaay ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! Juba S! ! !! h! abelle ! !!! ! ! Yaaq Kunto Gola ! Xalag Waab Arye ! ! ! ! Webi Nu!urow Esgudut Jabi SABLAALE ! ! Tugaarey!! Mojemereer ! Dudundher ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Uel Merer ! Watarow ! ! ! ! !! Uar Esgudud ! ! ! ! !! !Sab!laale !! !! !! Wanamog ! ! ! !! !Lug! nale ! ! ! Bu'aale Shiikh Cabdi ! ! !! ! Tiiroow ! ! ! Warqiao ! ! ! ! BU'AALE ! ! Cadduudo !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! Soj!ii!do Duqiyo Ereey Haawaay ! ! !! Lebi ! Gumarta ! ! Uar Gallo Xasanbaraki ! ! Duqiyo Weyn ! ! ! ! ! !BARA! AWE Duguia Iantar ! ! ! ! ! Warqiam Qummayo ! ! Ya!!ad Jile ! • Articulation of the federal system is still weak, and tensions and conflicts among states ! ! ! Kansane !Yataan ! ! Q!ardhaale ! Cadi ! ! El Ho!re Ghelghel Bur Foli Welharey ! ! ! ! Baraawe Gaba-Gabo ! ! ! ! Kud Ela Mahallim Saarey Korohirey Kafiinge ! Dhokaal ! ! ! ! Irmaanley ! Egahore Doygaab ! Dif K!afing/Adesheg ! ! ! !! Garas-Wayn Ceel Borduel !Uar Corah Irai Soomba ! ! ! Hawa Oonlow Savaro ! Uacavo Bilal Weel Mereed Uar Dalado ! ! ! ! ! Xagar Geel ! Aiifelle ! ! ! Ishawa!rt!a !! ! Washaan ! ! Al Medou ! Ur!ufle ! ! Gura Arba Xagar ! Deg Hiray ! ! ! ! ! Daad Jerow ! !! ! Heejo-Maxaad Culume Dagaga Culume Allango Hagar Uagio ! ! Kuko ! ! Yaaqtoole ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mada Uarsisa Midey !!! ! ! ! Qalawiley ! Xaso!!w Fafdo Uel Gori ! ! ! ! ! Girma El Fangal Munfuudhi Traba Dhoble Arbadinle Ceel Andalle Meschetti ! ! ! Kuunyo-Barrow ! ! ! ! !! T!ansaani Araroba Qalley !! Elahano ! ! ! Qale ! Muudey Kut Barrey ! Godaya ! ! ! ! ! !Balley ! Urungu ! Reidab Dere ! Wagade!y ! Tarri ! Jiirta Anzubsit!o ! !! ! Xaliima Caddey !!!!! ! Fur Fursa Anateel Afmado ! !! Giara El Magar ! Garase Yoon!toy ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! Xaramka ! !! JILIB Qaba ! ! Dibi Iach Monis ! Welmaro !! ! ! ! ! !! Caw ! ! !! ! ! Yaagle! ! ! Dile !! ! Dicu ! ! !! ! Hagar Daba Taag ! ! ! ! ! Sencor Melbe ! Afmadow ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sencor Gherbic ! !Afmadow Omanspara Muu!n!a !!!Jilib AFMADOW ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! Obey Tubaako Jilabdo Dabader !! ! Xatal Baraka ! and the Federal Government are frequent Kudkudaale ! ! ! Didimess ! !! !! ! Xayo !! ! ! ! Nasiib Dheer ! Arbo Abdi Dhobley !! ! !Marmuus ! Aboli ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Hararoba Shangal Duniya! ! ! ! ! Magado ! Girma Diacatti ! Riqala ! ! ! ! Miido !! Sheekh Cabdi Muudey Gheldezza ! !! ! ! ! ! !! El Ghescud Bilis Qooqaani Diriye ! ! ! ! Tabta ! ! ! Hawindha Harbole ! ! ! Cuis Dera To!r!o ! ! ! !!!!! ! !Shungul Mafuula ! !! !!!! Gale Bussi ! ! ! ! ! ! Rama Guda Camora Bali ! Bibi ! ! ! Baddana ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Galgaso Taka Wuungu! ! !! ! Danis Sipi ! !! ! ! ! !! ! Solola ! ! Gul Cali !!! ! ! ! ! Elalan Abu Gala Beled S! a Iuba Booka ! ! ! Urungo ! ! !!! ! Lower ! JAM! ! ! AA! !ME Sooyaac ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Ting!uduud ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! Lababaar ! ! ! !! ! ° ! !! ! ° ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ja! maame ! ! 0 Maro Daltu ! ! ! ! 0 ! ! ! ! !!! Guba Geeriya ! ! ! ! Qu!uley ! ! Juba Weeltuweer !! ! !! Uel Mur ! ! ! Sararrow Ceel Sai Gobo Kibir ! ! !Seira ! ! Turdho Mola Gersey Agodi !! ! ! Sheek Xuseen ! Haafko ! Hoosingo ! • Dependence upon international assistance and its influence has shaped and ! ! Xaaji Cali Dad Gumbi Yaaq Shiniile Mukamaani ! ! Dib Ul Chena ! Scimberrei Caba ! Biyo Yare ! ! ! Xerada Dhalinda Kacaanka ! ! Gol Bah Goob Weyn ! Jumba ! Eil Ad ! ! Xaar-Xaar ! Allanga Gurrow Ditta Sara Abdi Dhore! ! ! ! ! Cormale Dubri ! ! ! Yaaq! Bulle ! Ramate Laheley !! ! ! ! Kaadw!eyn Gansagur Warta Gedaqor Golo Giacaro ! Iach Bulle !! KISMAAYO Qandal Iscora Qalaangalley ! ! ! Gurmadka! ! Mangab !! Baalgudde Saydey ! ! Boia Fuuma Golosha Matrooba ! ! Godeia Cauitti ! Corio !! Licchitore ! Meida ! Guraru Buulo Xaaji Jiroole ! ! ! ! Yedi ! Koyaama !Beermaasi Cascia Debin ! Garsay Ku!usa Corbes Wadajir ! ! Goba ! Osboda ! Gacaan Maroodi conditions life and governance in Somalia Sara !! ! Yaman Istanboul ! Tita ! ! Anole ! ! Hida Haro Mare ! ! BADHAADHE Ulaaul Z Kolbio! ! Dambala ! Rassini Bora ! ! Juula Doola ! ! Badhaadhe ! Mudawa Tulic Naghessariga ! ! !Badhaadhe Dhunfa Lalofto ! ! Giu Scidlei Kolbiyow ! ! Kidi Faani ! Fiila ! ! ! !Iach Ari Navava Buscbusc Buur Gaabo Wajeer ! ! !

Sariirle ! Tuweer Dama ! !Meesa Nebso ! Sheeka Lassay ! Madero Didir Lafcad ! ! ! ! Sciam Cu ! El Habla Cororo Manaaraani • Corruption in public and private environments, as well as the humanitarian system, is Habo Gulo Baabo ! ! ! Dirdir Muso Cala ! ! Billada ! Comauala ! Mado! Qoddo ! Kaambooni ! ° S ° S still a serious problem 2 / 2

40°E 42°E 44°E 46°E 48°E 50°E Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors

• The presence and control of ANSA in vast areas of South Central Somalia Map reference: 170731_Somalia_Administrative_Map_A0 Legend Creation Date: 31/07/2017 Map data source(s): Projection/Datum: Geographic/WGS 1984 Administration layers.: UNDP Somalia (1998) \! National capital Coastline Roads and Stream network: FAO SWALIM Web Resources: http://www.unocha.org/Somalia !! Regional capital River Email: [email protected]

! District capital International boundary Disclaimers: Nominal Scale at A0 paper size: 1:1,600,000 The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion • The growing interests of China, Turkey, and the Gulf countries in the country and its ! Settlement Somali disputed border whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Major road Region boundary 0 50 100 150 200 250 kms natural resources influences the humanitarian agenda Secondary road District boundary

15 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Humanitarian crisis: massive famine due to the improvement of presence of UN agencies and their complex humanitarian response that as timely and humanitarian machinery. The humanitarian crises in Somalia and well resourced. • The enormous presence of INGOs with Somaliland are recurrent, involving human- • Extremely low human development high operating costs due to insecurity and made crises, (mainly armed conflicts) and indicators: very low ratios of educational access challenges natural crises (droughts, floods, cyclones, enrolment, income below $2 per day for • Hundreds of Local and National NGOs operate pandemics), being among the most complex and the majority of the population and one of across the country longstanding humanitarian crises in the world4. the lowest health indicators in the world. • In terms of Humanitarian access, four (No official data available for Human different areas could be distinguished5: • The cycle of drought and flooding is regular Development Index (HDI)) - South Central Federal Government in many parts of the country, making • Due to ANSA presence there is a lack Controlled Area (FGCA); livelihoods (crops and livestock grazing) very of humanitarian access to hundreds of - South Central Non Government Controlled vulnerable and dependent on rain cycles. thousands of people in South Central Areas (NGCA); • Devastating famines affected the country Somalia. - Puntland in recent decades, most recently in • Humanitarian system: - Somaliland. 2011; the 2017 drought did not create a • The influential dominant role and vast

4 OCHA: “In 2018, an estimated 5.4 million people require assistance. Of these, some 2.7 million need urgent life-saving assistance. Over 1.2 million children are projected to be malnourished in 2018. More than 1.2 million people, mostly in the rural areas, were driven from their homes last year by drought and conflict. This brings the total number of the internally displaced persons to nearly 2.2 million and constitute 40 per cent of those in need.” 5 Juba region and other emerging political regions are here considered under the South-Central Region for the purpose of humanitarian analysis.

16 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

5. Humanitarian Capacity in Somalia and Somaliland

The humanitarian capacity of Somalia and Somaliland is analysed at two levels: the global contextual capacities of Somalia and Somaliland, and the detailed capacities of some key Somali humanitarian stakeholders. This report identifies some of the changes in the contextual capacities and focuses more on the evolution of some key Somali humanitarian actors, particularly Local and National NGOs and state humanitarian agencies.

5.1. Overall Global Context Capacities in Somalia and Somaliland

The global contextual analysis has been reviewed based on the analysis done in 2014.6

Capacity- Capacity/ Strengths Weaknesses Block Thematic area A. Society A.1 Strength and • Clan leaders and elders play a very important • CSOs are often articulated along clan and social division lines, strength power of civil role in maintaining peace and cohesion conditioning access to some social groups society among clans and communities • The large number of LNNGOs does not correlate with quality • There is a rich fabric of Civil Society • Some minority groups are marginalised and this is also reflected in the Organisations in Somalia and Somaliland: humanitarian system Religious groups, the diaspora, LNGOs, • Increasing constraints from authorities on CSOs and their freedom etc. National staff from CSOs and NGOs to move between Somalia and Somaliland has taken place in recent (national and International) are contributing months, making LNNGOs more reluctant to speak and participating more actively in public administration capacity development • There is an increase of Women’s Rights Organisations, some of them playing a role in the humanitarian sector • The diaspora is very influential in socio- economic and political life

6 The table is an updated version of the one presented in 2014, based on interviews, consultations and documentary review

17 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Capacity- Capacity/ Strengths Weaknesses Block Thematic area A.2 Human • Somali people are very resilient, with • There are very low levels of development and no systems to track Development initiative and creativity development indicators. There is no official census, (total population • Somali culture has strong values of solidarity, is estimated to be 14-15 million); and there is no official data available charity, forgiveness and attention to the on most UN Human Development indicators. The estimated HDI in 2016 most vulnerable individuals was 0.344, one of the lowest in the world • Customary law supports solidarity among • More than 71.3% of population work for less than $3.12 a day clans • 25.3% of children under five years old suffer malnutrition • More women are accessing university • Women are marginalised in society • Even if more women are graduating from university, there are not enough job opportunities for them • Lack of government capacity and resources hampers the systematic and gradual development of Somali people

A.3 Human • FGS has a Ministry of Women and Human • Still significant violations of human rights and international Rights respect Rights and there is a Ministry of Women’s humanitarian law (IHL) are taking place in Somalia, affecting mainly Affairs in Puntland IDPs, women and children • Authorities are taking some slow progress to • Freedom of media is conditioned by political interests, particularly reduce gender-based violence affecting local media • Concern for environmental rights is growing • In several States only 5% of the theoretical 30% quota for women and some states and organisations are parliamentarians has been implemented taking initiatives in this regard7 • Cultural barriers make it difficult for women to access leadership roles • A 30% quota for parliamentarian women has • Gender justice has a long way to go, even within several Local National been approved NGOs • More Civil Society Organisations are entering • The deterioration of the environment and plastic pollution is gradually into the field of human rights, citizenship affecting quality of life for people and livestock and democracy

7 Somaliland has a Ministry for Environment (combined with social affairs and family). Puntland has conducted a campaign to stop the use of plastic bags.

18 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Capacity- Capacity/ Strengths Weaknesses Block Thematic area A.4 • Somaliland has good humanitarian access • Humanitarian access in general is conditional on the affiliation of Humanitarian across all provinces8 LNGOs to dominant clans in each specific area. Access • Humanitarian access is severely restricted in many areas of South Central Somalia. • All South Central NGCA have serious problems regarding security and humanitarian access even for Local and National NGOs and CBOs • Road checkpoints impose serious restrictions for free humanitarian access • Conflicts among clans limit humanitarian access sporadically B. State and B.1 Governance • All Somalia Member States have been set up • Governance is progressing very slowly politics and Institutional as per the Federal Constitution, each one • There is no clear articulation of federalism within Somalia nor how to structures having its own ministries balance powers and responsibilities between the FGS and the states • In general, there is a discreet improvement • is still particularly unstable, as articulated in their state of governance and institutionalisation of competencies government structures in the three main • Security remains the main issue in most parts of Somalia. areas • South Central NGCA is out of any recognised governance. • Puntland has a good degree of stability and high decentralisation from the Central Government • Somaliland has a good level of governance and security B.2 Public • Public administration capacity is increasing • Reported corruption in electoral process is affecting the health of the Administration slowly thanks to the entry of qualified parliamentarian system Efficiency diaspora in all states and ministries, • Public services are extremely limited in most parts of Somalia, due to and improving local human resources. the lack of resources and weak governance in most states • Somaliland is setting good examples of public administration, particularly in the Departments of Planning, Development and Environment • Puntland is evolving positively in its public administration capacity. Some road improvements are taking place.

8 Somaliland has a Ministry for Environment (combined with social affairs and family). Puntland has conducted a campaign to stop the use of plastic bags.

19 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Capacity- Capacity/ Strengths Weaknesses Block Thematic area B.3 Rule of Law • There is a growing institutionalisation of rule • Rule of law still not in place in most parts of the country of law across the three main regions • Corruption is present at different levels of Somali society • Somaliland has an acceptable respect for • Customary law, sharia and civil law can conflict, creating a lack rule of law with well-defined division of of guarantees for equal access to justice; this affects the most legislative, executive and judicial vulnerable groups, including women • Customary law, sharia and civil law co-exist and are used depending on the nature of the claim-case B.4 International • FGS has wide international recognition • NGCA remains a blind area for the international community legitimacy • The New Deal for Somalia9 is a driver of international support • Most International Agencies and INGOs have registration in Somaliland, in Somalia states and centrally in order to operate in all territories, despite the limited international recognition of Somaliland C. Country C.1 National • Some airports have had improvements • Overall there are no significant improvements on transport infrastructure infrastructure • Telecommunications infrastructure including infrastructure (with some exceptions), the road network is not the mobile phone network is reliable and improving or is badly maintained, airports and harbours in most expanding very rapidly, with good quality locations are deteriorating across most of Somalia and Somaliland • Telecommunications infrastructure is developed by private companies with no overall direction from the government • In general, infrastructure development is more in the hands of private company interests than public interests managed by the government • National infrastructure is very weak in most parts of the territory, making humanitarian logistical access complex and expensive in many areas.

9 http://so.one.un.org/content/unct/somalia/en/home/what-we-do/new-deal-for-somalia.html

20 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Capacity- Capacity/ Strengths Weaknesses Block Thematic area C.2 National • The creation of the MHADM by the Federal • The international humanitarian system is dominated by English Civil Protection Government is a good step forward in taking speakers that excludes national humanitarian systems from a more services a more comprehensive and long-term active role. This affects National and Local NGOs without English responsibility on humanitarian issues fluency • Recognition of the role of the MHADM and • Humanitarian ministries and state agencies such as MHADM, HADMA or state agencies is growing among the NADFOR have very limited operational capacity, while even with limited humanitarian community resources, coordination efforts could significantly improve • Somaliland has reinforced its Humanitarian agency (NADFOR), has a legal framework (Law #25) for disaster management and has a five-year strategy in place. • Puntland has a legal framework for humanitarian response C.3 Human • Somalia and Somaliland have strong • Disputes, including violent conflicts, among different clans is a major Geography societal structures based on clans which feature of Somali’s history and culture. could become a more positive factor if well • There is rapid growing trend on urbanisation (44.4% of population live integrated to reinforce social cohesion in urban areas), and related loss of traditional pastoralist culture and and strengthen cultural unity, including ways of life. This affects poverty levels, unemployment among young language, which generates opportunities for people and conflicts in urban areas mobility and conflict resolution • IDPs and refugees are becoming a “second class” of Somali citizens in 10 • Common language and culture are important both Somalia and Somaliland factors of unity across all clans • More than 98% of the population are Sunni Muslims, offering a basis for social cohesion

10 Somaliland has thousands of people displaced by drought (IDPs), settling in urban areas with very limited humanitarian assistance. Refugees from countries such as Yemen and Ethiopia are also in Somaliland.

21 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Overall the most significant changes on the There is positive evolution in terms of contextual The analysis has been divided into the three contextual capacity of Somalia and Somaliland humanitarian capacities but new challenges geographical areas, which also reflects political from 2014 to 2019 are: need to be confronted in terms of urbanisation, and historical dynamics within Somalia and conflict and security, climate change, influence Somaliland. This analysis is intended to provide • Governance has increased moderately of external powers, and cultural changes in the more accurate information on the Humanitarian • Public administration efficiency is improving Somali society. Unless there is a faster evolution capacities, and does not reflect any political • CSOs are gaining more relevance but also in overall contextual humanitarian capacities, position. suffering some pushback from governments the gap between needs and response capacity • International commitments with the Federal will rise. 5.2.1 Somalia (South Central) Non- Government of Somalia continue and are Governmental Organisations’ gradually more articulated 5.2 Somali Non-Governmental Humanitarian Capacities • National infrastructure is improving, more on Organisations Humanitarian telecommunications than transport Capacities This chapter presents the analysis of the • State humanitarian institutions are Local and National Humanitarian Organisations improving and increasing their capacity, This chapter focuses on the changes and (LNNGOs), working in South Central Somalia. Five particularly in relation to humanitarian evolution in the humanitarian capacities of Local LNNGOs were assessed;11 of those, two were institutions in the Federal Government of and National NGOs, and sets a comparison with also assessed in 2014. Somalia and Somaliland the results obtained in 2014.

Standard Average Average 12 Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 in 2019 Strengths Weaknesses (South central) (0-5) (0-5) 1. Identity and 1.1 1. Values 2.6 3.0 1.4 • Most organisations know the • Humanitarian and development identities are Mission Mandate*13 core humanitarian values but do not clearly defined in most LNNGOs not “live” them • Humanitarian organisations do follow 2. Purpose* • Gender Justice has become core humanitarian values in a “donors’ more embedded as a core value requirement driven” mood in several NGOs • Participation of communities is raised as a common value

11 A selection of LNNGOs were made taking into account continuous humanitarian record, variety of typology and geographical coverage 12 Low Standard Deviation means little dispersion of data analysed; while high standard deviation will signal significant differences of data among the LNNGOs assessed. 13 Asterisks (*) denote critical competencies; (scoring below 3 in these competences will compromise overall organisational humanitarian capacity)

22 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Standard Average Average 12 Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 in 2019 Strengths Weaknesses (South central) (0-5) (0-5) 1.2 3. Leadership* 2.1 2.6 0.9 • Strong leadership to move • Concentrated leadership in senior members humanitarian agendas in of the organisations 4. Attitudes* several LNNGOs 2. Managerial 2.1 1. Finances* 2.2 3.6 0.9 • Some LNNGOs have developed • Financial accountability is still weak in many Capacities good financial systems organisations. This is exacerbated by the (Hard How) based on their programme fact that international donors and INGOs management expertise working in partnership with LNNGOs do not have access to many geographical areas, preventing a double accountability check on the ground • Financial management processes are led mostly by donor requirements 2.2 2. Human 2.2 3.4 1.1 • Most NGOs have HR manuals or • In most cases HR manuals are administrative Resources* policies HR procedures rather than integral HR • Some organisations have management policies very qualified staff in senior • Staff are normally generalists rather than positions humanitarian experts 2.3 3. Logistics 2.0 2.6 0.9 • Some NGOs have found very • In many cases, logistical processes such flexible ways to have enough as procurement are dependent on donor 4. Time logistical capacity without requirements management increasing their central • Limited logistical infrastructure capacity is management costs a common factor for most NGOs because of a lack of regular funds and dependency on programmes supported by donors 2.4 5. Analytical* 1.8 2.1 0.7 • Most organisations have a • Analytical and strategising capacity is weak strategic plan in place • Strategic plans are more programming 6. Strategising* documents than a set of institutional strategic choices 7. Planning and Programming

23 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Standard Average Average 12 Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 in 2019 Strengths Weaknesses (South central) (0-5) (0-5) 2.5 8. Programme 2.7 2.4 1.1 • Most NGOs do have regular • M&E is not linked with systematic Management programme monitoring and management of knowledge and institutional * (includes evaluation systems or collective learning monitoring and evaluation (M&E))

9. Knowledge Management 2.6 10. Governance 2.4 3.0 1.0 • Formal structures are in place in • Key institutional decisions are mostly and decision all LNNGOs conditioned by donor requirements making*

11. Organisational Structure and processes 2.7 12. Networking 2.7 3.4 0.9 • Increasing participation of • Networking, usually remains at the level of and alliance LNNGOs in forums and more information sharing or joint activities, less building* networking is taking place such so at the strategic level as the SOSCENSA14, SNC (Somalia / Somaliland NGO Consortium); and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) 2.8 13. Communica- 1.7 2.8 1.3 • Communications among LNNGOs • Humanitarian advocacy component is still tions is improving; IT and social very limited among LNNGOs, dependent media are used to bolster on networks and focused on instrumental 14. Advocacy communication capacity aspects such as finances and localisation, rather than on core humanitarian issues such as humanitarian access and IHL

14 SOSCENSA: Somalia South Central Non State Actors: http://www.soscensa.com

24 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Standard Average Average 12 Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 in 2019 Strengths Weaknesses (South central) (0-5) (0-5) 2.9 15. Risk 1.3 2.8 0.4 • Staff risk management and • Little awareness exists among LNNGOs Management political risk management is well on broader institutional risk management embedded in LNNGOs (finances, reputation, sustainability, etc.) 16. Institutional and how to build institutional resilience Resilience 3.- Approach, 3.1 1. Gender 1.6 3.2 1.8 • Some women’s organisations • Gender justice is still more rhetorical than Commitment Approach* are entering into the practical (Soft How) humanitarian field 3.2 2. Conflict 2.3 3.6 0.5 • Most LNNGOs are aware on the • Rights based approaches are far away from sensitiveness conflict sensitive approach and practiced in many organisations practice it 3. Rights based Approach 3.3 4. Connected- 2.7 3.3 0.4 • Most LNGOs work in a broad • No clear distinction on the different phases ness, Resi- spectrum of humanitarian and of the humanitarian cycle lience & DRR development work 3.4 5. Highly 0.3 2.8 1.3 • There is an increased • The most vulnerable groups are frequently Vulnerable awareness of selection criteria not reached due to armed conflict, or Individuals / for recipients of humanitarian political and clan divisions Groups assistance based on needs

25 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Standard Average Average 12 Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 in 2019 Strengths Weaknesses (South central) (0-5) (0-5) 4.- Technical 4.1 1. Water, 2.3 2.8 1.3 • Some organisations are • Limited institutional, sectorial and technical Expertise sanitation and generalist and hire specialists competencies are available within the (What) hygiene (WASH) on ad-hoc basis organisations Competencies

2. Emergency food security and vulnerable livelihoods (EFSVL) Competencies

3. Other Competencies 4.2 4. Standards’ 2.1 2.2 1.3 • Some NGOs are familiar in theory • Some LNGOs are working in the humanitarian compliance & with Sphere Standards and Core field without any reference to international accountability Humanitarian Standards (CHS) humanitarian standards

5. Quality Control management 5.- Size 5.1 1. Organisational 2.1 2.8 0.8 • Some organisations have a • Organisational volume and related capacity Capability (How volume significant annual budget fluctuates significantly, depending on much) ($US4-10 million) programmes approved by donors 2. Financial • Financial autonomy is almost non-existent autonomy in almost all organisations, affecting funding capacity and organisational management 3. Sustained investment

4. Human Resources

26 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Standard Average Average 12 Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 in 2019 Strengths Weaknesses (South central) (0-5) (0-5) 5.2 5. Geographical 1.9 2.6 0.9 • The areas covered by LNNGOs • Most LNNGOs have a limited geographical outreach are stable in the long term, outreach, linked to their clans’ affiliation helping them to get community • Large numbers of people living in NGCA are recognition in many cases out of reach for Local and National Humanitarian NGOs Average 2019 2.9 1.0

2019 Somalia SC LNNGO Assessment

AVERAGE NGO SC SOMALIA S. DEVIATION SC SOMALIA The graphical representation of the 1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* results of 2019 for South Central Somalia 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* 5.1 Organizational volume, Financial capacity is as follows: 2.1 Finances* /autonomy, Sustained investment and… 4.0

4.2 Standards’ compliance and accountability, 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* Quality Control Management

2.0

4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other Competencies 2.3 Logistics, Time management 1.0

0.0 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, Planning and 3.4 Highly Vulnerable Individuals Programming

2.5 Programme Management (incl. M&E)*, 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience & DRR Knowledge Management

3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, Rights based 2.6 Governance and decision making*, Approach Organisational Structure and processes

3.1 Gender Approach* 2.7 Networking and alliance building* 2.9 Risk Management, Institutional Resilience 2.8 Communications, Advocacy

27 ! Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Some conclusions from the survey: • Gender approaches shows the highest in highly adverse circumstances than five years variance between assessed organisations ago, but the lack of strategic direction and • In general, LNGOs in South Central Somalia • The Technical Cluster, (technical sectorial quality control of their interventions is a serious have sufficient capacity (2.9) to deliver competencies, and standards compliance) obstacle for further development. The way in quality assistance in most humanitarian shows diverse results across the assessed which international actors relate and partner areas. LNNGOs with LNNGOs largely influences the development • The strongest areas are humanitarian • There was little variance in institutional of more autonomous and qualified LNNGOs. mandate, financial management capacity, risk management, conflict sensitivity and human resources management capacity, resilience building, likely as a result of the 5.2.2 Puntland Non-Governmental networking and alliance building, conflict environment’s high levels of risk and armed Organisations’ Humanitarian sensitivity approach and rights-based conflict Capacities approach, resilience, and DRR. • When compared with the 2014 review, there • The weakest areas are analytical and is a remarkable increase in most areas and a This chapter provides an aggregated analysis strategising capacity, knowledge positive evolution in all of the four Local Humanitarian NGOs that were management, standards compliance, assessed in Puntland; of these four NGOs, three financial autonomy and geographical LNNGOs in South Central Somalia are more were assessed also in 2014 outreach capable of managing humanitarian programmes

Average Average Standard Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 Strengths Weaknesses in 2019 (Puntland) (0-5) (0-5) 1. Identity 1.1 1. Values 2.2 2.3 1.0 • LNGOs are generally • Women’s justice is not a core value and Mission Mandate* knowledgeable of humanitarian • Some NGOs know about humanitarian values values but these values are not at the heart of their 2. Purpose* • Environmental care is coming identity up as a core value in some • Core humanitarian values such as organisations impartiality or independence are getting less • Instrumental values such attention than instrumental values such as as transparency and transparency or accountability accountability are becoming more prominent

28 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Standard Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 Strengths Weaknesses in 2019 (Puntland) (0-5) (0-5) 1.2 3. Leadership* 2.7 2.8 1.0 • Some LNNGOs in Puntland have • In general, there is a tendency to act as a prominent leadership role in followers and subcontractors of the main 4. Attitudes* the humanitarian sector international humanitarian agencies and donors 2. Managerial 2.1 1. Finances* 3.0 2.7 0.5 • Several NGOs are used to • Continued high dependence on foreign Capacities (Hard managing large budgets and funding directly and indirectly, even as How) have strong financial systems new avenues for other funding sources are • Some LNNGOs are developing explored their own income activities • LNGOs do not have their own emergency to cover core running costs funds to respond, or if they have them, (rental of offices, etc.) they are not significant for the scale of the • Fundraising through diaspora responses needed and local communities is a • Some NGOs have not improved financial growing trend management mechanisms despite an • Some NGOs have got access increase in the volume of funds managed. to the SHF15 and have a good This weakens their overall financial capacity diversification of donors and increases funding management vulnerability 2.2 2. Human 2.3 2.3 1.0 • Specialised staff are gradually • Poor HR management in several NGOs Resources* being incorporated by LNNGOs • Unfair competition of INGOs offering much in Puntland better salary packages to qualified staff hampers good HR policies • High turnover of qualified staff 2.3 3. Logistics 1.3 2.3 1.1 • Some NGOs have significant • Logistics are based on donor interests and operational logistical capacity needs 4. Time • NGOs do not have pre-stocked equipment for management rapid response

15 Somalia Humanitarian Fund

29 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Standard Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 Strengths Weaknesses in 2019 (Puntland) (0-5) (0-5) 2.4 5. Analytical* 2.3 2.4 1.3 • Some organisations have • In general there are poor analytical support from Puntland State processes 6. Strategising* University for their analytical • In most cases, strategic plans seem to be and research works filed and forgotten documents 7. Planning and There is more quality in the Institutional strategies seem to be imposed Programming • • strategic planning processes by donor interests in several NGOs 2.5 8. Programme 3.2 2.2 1.0 • Baseline surveys and needs • Poor monitoring and evaluation, due to lack Management* assessments are conducted of resources (includes M&E) by several LNNGOs • Knowledge management is poor due to lack of systems and high staff rotation 9. Knowledge Management 2.6 10. Governance 2.7 2.6 1.0 • Formal governance structures • Institutional decisions are mostly guided by and decision are in place donor conditions making*

11. Organisational Structure and processes 2.7 12. Networking 3.2 3.0 1.3 • LNNGOs in Puntland participate • Networking is ad-hoc and on a project basis and alliance in several platforms, clusters, building* etc. 2.8 13. Communica- 2.5 2.8 1.2 • Some organisations have • In general, there is an absence of structured tions specific advocacy frameworks humanitarian advocacy strategies and communication strategies, • Often little to no documentation or visibility 14. Advocacy producing regular bulletins and of LNNGO activities, successes, et. situation reports • NGOs articulate advocacy messages through platforms

30 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Standard Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 Strengths Weaknesses in 2019 (Puntland) (0-5) (0-5) 2.9 15. Risk 2.2 1.8 1.4 • Staff risk management is taken • Institutional resilience is a missing concept Management into account

16. Institutional Resilience 3.- Approach, 3.1 1. Gender 2.0 1.8 0.6 • Some links with women’s • Little practical commitment to gender justice Commitment Approach* organisations in Puntland with (Soft How) some humanitarian actors 3.2 2. Conflict 2.7 3.4 0.5 • LNNGOs are well informed and • Some LNNGOs see the populations affected sensitiveness have expertise on practical by crises as passive beneficiaries or conflict sensitivity approaches recipients 3. Rights based Approach 3.3 4. Connected- 3.3 2.8 1.2 • Some organisations do • No well structured connections between ness, Re- connect humanitarian work emergency response and other humanitarian siience & DRR with resilience building, phases especially in rural areas and • Some organisations are exclusively focused with pastoral communities on emergency operational response 3.4 5. Highly 1.0 2.7 1.0 • Some NGOs have the most • Lack of humanitarian access to NGCA in Vulnerable vulnerable groups as their top Puntland, limits the capacity of most LNNGOs Individuals / priority and this is translated to reach the most vulnerable people in those Groups into ways of working, which areas sometimes includes working with a low profile to avoid security risks 4.- Technical 4.1 1. WASH 1.7 2.8 1.2 • Some organisations have • Institutional competencies are weak Expertise (What) Competencies developed some technical in general due to the high turnover of sectorial expertise as a result competent expert technical staff 2. EFSVL of donor policies Competencies

3. Other Competencies

31 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Standard Cluster Score in Score in Deviation # Thematic area 2014 2019 Strengths Weaknesses in 2019 (Puntland) (0-5) (0-5) 4.2 4. Standards’ 1.8 2.7 1.0 • Most NGOs do have knowledge • Limited use in practice as there are no compliance & about the Core Humanitarian resources for monitoring, evaluation and accountability Standard and Sphere quality control Standards 5. Quality Control management 5.- Size 5.1 1. Organisational 3.0 2.7 0.6 • Several LNNGOs have a • Staff are dependent on projects and usually Capability (How volume sufficient financial volume on under-resourced for the volume of work much) yearly basis 2. Financial autonomy

3. Sustained investment

4. Human Resources 5.2 5. Geographical 1.8 2.0 0.5 • A few LNNGOs are expanding • Generally limited to some specific areas outreach their work to conflict areas within Puntland reaching the most neglected communities • LNNGOs are more open to working across borders with Somaliland than other political organisations

Average 2019 2.5 0.9

32 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

The graphical representation of the results for Puntland in 2019 is as follows: 2019 Puntland LNNGO Assessment

AVERAGE PUNTLAND

1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* 5.1 Organizational volume, Financial 2.1 Finances* capacity /autonomy, Sustained investment… 4.0

4.2 Standards’ compliance and 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* accountability, Quality Control Management 2.0

4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other Competencies 2.3 Logistics, Time management 1.0

0.0 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, Planning and 3.4 Highly Vulnerable Individuals Programming

2.5 Programme Management (incl. M&E)*, 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience & DRR Knowledge Management

3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, Rights based 2.6 Governance and decision making*, Approach Organisational Structure and processes

3.1 Gender Approach* 2.7 Networking and alliance building* 2.9 Risk Management, Institutional 2.8 Communications, Advocacy Resilience !

Some conclusions that could be extracted: moving from information sharing to activity communities sharing and joint advocacy • CHS and Sphere standards compliance is • Puntland LNNGOs have a good awareness • Puntland NGOS are knowledgeable and increasing and management of conflict sensitivity practice connectedness and resilience • In general, technical competencies in approaches building. Puntland have increased in the last 5 years • Networking and alliance building is quite • They have increased their commitment and • Knowledge management is still weak due significant, and gradually organisations are ways of working with the most vulnerable to limited capacity on monitoring and

33 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

evaluation and rotation of staff, among Overall, the LNNGOs analysed in Puntland institutional resilience and gender approaches, other issues. This is an area that has not show limited progress compared to 2014. do not get more attention and investment. progressed positively since 2014, and it This stagnation is more visible in some could hamper future LNNGO capacity areas (identity, management) than others 5.2.3 Somaliland Non-Governmental • Institutional risk management is quite (technical capacity). A lack of motivation by the Organisations’ Humanitarian low, and in some cases extremely low, humanitarian sector during the last five years Capacities making LNNGOs very vulnerable because of could be behind this apparent stagnation. dependency on donor funding There is also a risk of declining of humanitarian This chapter presents the analysis of the • High staff turnover is affecting humanitarian capacities in the following years if critical Humanitarian capacities of the five humanitarian capacity institutional development areas, including LNNGOs working in Somaliland that were strategic management, knowledge management, assessed.

# Average Average Standard Cluster Thematic area Score in Score Deviation Strengths Weaknesses 2014 in2019 in 2019 (Somaliland) (0-5) (0-5)

1.- Identity and 1.1 1. Values 2.7 2.5 1.1 • In general humanitarian • Some organisations put managerial values Mission Mandate* core values are known ahead of essential humanitarian values and integrated into the • Some small CBOs do humanitarian work with 2. Purpose* organisational work by very limited knowledge of humanitarian values LNNGOs or humanitarian mandate 1.2 3. Leadership* 2.9 2.8 1.1 • There are very committed • A “passive acceptance” of international humanitarian LNNGOs humanitarian leadership seems to be present 4. Attitudes* in Somaliland playing in several LNNGOs a prominent role in the humanitarian sector 2.- Managerial 2.1 1. Finances* 3.1 3.0 1.2 • Some have strong financial • Institutional emergency funds are absent in Capacities (Hard managerial mechanisms all LNNGOs How) including external auditing • Dependency on a small pool of donors affects • Regular fundraising through several LNNGOs the diaspora is emerging in Somaliland

34 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

# Average Average Standard Cluster Thematic area Score in Score Deviation Strengths Weaknesses 2014 in2019 in 2019 (Somaliland) (0-5) (0-5)

2.2 2. 2. Human 2.9 2.7 1.1 • Some organisations count • High rotation of specialist staff takes place in Resources* with qualified specialised several LNNGOs humanitarian staff and have increased their surge capacity 2.3 3. Logistics 2.4 3.1 1.5 • Several LNNGOs have a • Pre-stocked humanitarian equipment is not presence with offices available in most organisations 4. Time and vehicles across all of management Somaliland 2.4 5. Analytical* 2.6 2.2 0.9 • Some LNNGOs have improved • Some LNNGOs are more oriented to donor their analytical and requests and projects than their own 6. Strategizing* strategising capacity strategic analysis and institutional choices 7. Planning and Programming 2.5 8. Programme 3.4 3.1 1.5 • In general, good programme • Knowledge management is weak in all Management * cycle management LNNGOs, based mainly on “paper documentary (includes M&E) archives”

9. Knowledge Management 2.6 10. Governance 2.7 2.8 1.1 • Most LNNGOs have well • Autonomy to make institutional decisions is and decision defined and regulated weak making* structures as well as formal decision making mechanisms 11. Organisational Structure and processes 2.7 12. Networking 2.9 3.2 1.1 • Strong networking by • Relationships are based more on information- and alliance most organisations, with sharing and courtesy than on strategic building* participation in key networks, content clusters, committees and some in the HCT

35 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

# Average Average Standard Cluster Thematic area Score in Score Deviation Strengths Weaknesses 2014 in2019 in 2019 (Somaliland) (0-5) (0-5)

2.8 13. Communica- 2.9 2.7 1.0 • Use of websites and social • Humanitarian advocacy is still not well tions media platforms are common articulated nor strategized communication tools • Little to no documentation or visibility of 14. Advocacy LNNGO activities, successes, etc. 2.9 15. Risk 2.4 2.3 1.2 • Some organisations have • Some organisations are very dependent on Management introduced risk management donor funds and interests tools • Most organisations do not have a solid 16. Institutional • Staff risk management is institutional risk management framework Resilience taken into consideration by LNNGOs 3.- Approach, 3.1 1. Gender 2.9 2.2 1.1 • Gender approach is Included • There are generic gender commitments but Commitment Approach* as a crosscutting approach in these do not seem to be reflected in daily (Soft How) most LNNGOs practices of several LNNGOs, at management • Most LNNGOs work with level and in project implementation women’s organisations16 and are part of NAGAD17 3.2 2. Conflict 2.7 2.6 1.1 • LNNGOs are aware and use the • Rights-based approach seems to be known sensitiveness conflict sensitivity and rights- in broader terms but is not clearly translating based approaches into empowerment mechanisms 3. Rights based • They know how to move Approach according to clan structures and community elders 3.3 4. Connected- 3.0 3.2 1.3 • Good knowledge and work on • Emergency projects frequently do not have ness, Re- Resilience and DRR follow-up financial resources to link with silience & DRR • There are several LNNGOs development programmes doing relevant work on resilience building and linking emergency response with development

16 Such as WAWA (We Are Women Activists) 17 NAGAD is a platform of NGOs working on Gender Justice

36 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

# Average Average Standard Cluster Thematic area Score in Score Deviation Strengths Weaknesses 2014 in2019 in 2019 (Somaliland) (0-5) (0-5)

3.4 5. Highly 1.6 2.4 1.1 • In general, target population • In some cases the conflict sensitivity Vulnerable selection is based on approach overrides the humanitarian principle Individuals / vulnerability criteria of needs basis, as sometimes the selection of Groups targeted populations or individuals are based on social balances and control of conflicts, rather than on assessed needs • Highly vulnerable individuals such as IDPs in urban areas do not get support from LNNGOs 4.- Technical 4.1 1. WASH 2.4 3.2 1.3 • Some LNNGOs have • Education in emergencies is worryingly Expertise (What) Competencies developed concrete areas of absent, taking into account the low specialisation and have got educational ratios in Somaliland 2. EFSVL specialised staff Competencies

3. Other Competencies 4.2 4. Standards’ 2.4 3.0 1.7 • Sphere and CHS is widely • The implementation, in the local context, of compliance & known and used Sphere Standards poses some problems for accountability • Specific sectorial standards LNNGOs (cash Transfers, etc.) are 5. Quality Control known and used management 5.- Size 5.1 1. Organisational 3.1 2.8 1.3 • Some organisations are quite • Some CBOs have very limited capacity to enter Capability (How volume significant in terms of the into the complex “humanitarian machinery” much) volume they manage 2. Financial • Access to SHF has increased autonomy the capacity of some LNNGOs 3. Sustained investment

4. Human Resources

37 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

# Average Average Standard Cluster Thematic area Score in Score Deviation Strengths Weaknesses 2014 in2019 in 2019 (Somaliland) (0-5) (0-5)

5.2 5. Geographical 2.3 2.1 0.7 • Most of Somaliland geography • Generally restricted to Somaliland only, outreach is covered by Somaliland NGOs despite the reality of nomadic Somali • Some organisations have populations and their needs across borders of expanded their work to border neighbouring countries areas of Somalia and Ethiopia (Somali Region) Average 2019 2.7 1.2

The visual representation for Somaliland LNNGOs humanitarian capacity is as follows: 2019 Somaliland LNNGO Assessment

AVERAGE SOMALILAND S. DEVIATION SOMALILAND

1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes*

5.1 Organizational volume, Financial… 4.0 2.1 Finances*

4.2 Standards’ compliance and … 3.0 2.2 Human Resources*

2.0 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other Competencies 2.3 Logistics, Time management 1.0

0.0 3.4 Highly Vulnerable Individuals 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, Planning…

3.3 Connectedness, Resilience & DRR 2.5 Programme Management (incl. M&E)*,…

3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, Rights based… 2.6 Governance and decision making*,…

3.1 Gender Approach* 2.7 Networking and alliance building* 2.9 Risk Management, Institutional… 2.8 Communications, Advocacy

!

38 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Some conclusions for LNNGOs in Somaliland: The weakest areas are: people and women not at the centre The strongest areas are: of humanitarian programmes but in a • Humanitarian values are not fully explicit in “complementary additional group” category • Humanitarian leadership exercised by some several organisations • Rights-based approaches should be more LNNGOs in Somaliland • In general, LNNGOs in Somaliland have a developed in practice • Financial capacity in terms of systems limited analytical and strategising capacity. • Some CBOs entering into the humanitarian is good, despite inadequate financial Donor requirements and project demands NGO sector cannot fulfil all the requirements autonomy are “de facto” the guiding strategy for most that the “formal humanitarian sector” • Logistical capacity is very high in some LNNGOs imposes organisations (stores, vehicles, offices, • Institutional risks are not managed in etc.), despite the huge difference in capacity a systematic way, making LNNGOs very LNNGOs in Somaliland are becoming stronger in across the LNNGOs analysed. This capacity vulnerable and dependent on international terms of programme management but failing has increased significantly since 2014, likely donors in some central aspects of humanitarian work, due to recent humanitarian responses • In general, geographical outreach does not such as working with the most vulnerable groups • Networking and alliance building is go beyond Somaliland, despite the reality of or incorporating gender justice into their work. progressing among Somaliland NGOs, with nomadic Somali populations, who in some more structured and active participation in cases cross borders with neighbouring 5.2.4 Overall Local Humanitarian NGOs different humanitarian platforms. Also an countries area of relative increase since 2014, likely • Gender justice is not fully incorporated The overall capacity of Somali LNNGOs (Somalia due to recent humanitarian responses in the practice of most LNNGOs, despite and Somaliland) is based on an aggregate • Working on resilience building and linking a theoretical commitment. There is a analysis of the three territories assessed. with development is a strong point of several significant decline when compared LNNGOs with results from 2014. The discrepancy The graph provides the scores of each • More specialised competencies could be between commitment and practice, and the parameter of the 14 LNGOs assessed in 2019, as found across the LNNGOs in Somaliland when improvement of the tool for gender analysis well as the standard deviation is presented in compared with 2014 used in this assessment, could explain why the graph, to facilitate a better understanding • Humanitarian standards compliance is the 2019 assessment gives worse results of the diversity of scoring within each thematic conducted by most LNNGOs in Somaliland than 2014 area. and has increased, although in an uneven • Working with the most vulnerable is still a way, in recent years pending matter, with urban IDPs, disabled

39 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

The average shows the following profile:

Average Somalia SC - Puntland -Somaliland LNNGOS 2019

LNNGOs TOTAL AVERAGE LNNGOs TOTAL S. DEVIATION

According to the standard deviation results, the most significant variances (>1) among the 14 LNNGOs assessed are 1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* on: 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* 5.1 Organizational volume, Financial capacity /autonomy, 2.1 Finances* • Humanitarian values and mandate Sustained investment and 4.0 • Capacity to manage human resources evolution, Human Resources… 4.2 Standards’ compliance and and logistics accountability, Quality Control 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* • Programme management and Management particularly knowledge management 2.0 • Humanitarian advocacy 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other 2.3 Logistics, Time • Gender approach Competencies 1.0 management • Working with the most vulnerable • Level of sectorial specialisation 0.0 • Humanitarian standards compliance 3.4 Highly Vulnerable 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, Individuals Planning and Programming The areas where less difference was found (<1) are on: 2.5 Programme Management 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience (incl. M&E)*, Knowledge & DRR Management • Humanitarian leadership • Financial capacity 2.6 Governance and decision 3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, • Analytical and strategizing capacity making*, Organisational Rights based Approach Structure and processes • Networking and alliance building • Institutional risk management 2.7 Networking and alliance 3.1 Gender Approach* building* • Conflict sensitivity approach 2.9 Risk Management, 2.8 Communications, Advocacy Institutional Resilience

40 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

The strongest areas are those having a low standard deviation and a high average: Comparative results 2014 2019  Financial capacity 8 Common LNGOs assessed in 2014 and 2019  Networking and alliance building 8 LNNGO 2014 8 LNNGO 2019  Conflict sensitivity approach  Connectedness and resil- ience building 1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* The weakest areas are those having a low 5.1 Organizational volume, standard deviation and a low average: Financial capacity /autonomy, 2.1 Finances* Sustained investment and 4.0 - Analytical and strategising evolution, Human Resources… 4.2 Standards’ compliance and capacity accountability, Quality Control 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* - Institutional risk manage- Management ment 2.0 - Limited geographical out- 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other 2.3 Logistics, Time reach Competencies 1.0 management

When comparing the 8 LNNGOs that were 0.0 3.4 Highly Vulnerable 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, assessed in 2014 and 2019, the visual Individuals Planning and Programming representation is as follows:

2.5 Programme Management 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience (incl. M&E)*, Knowledge & DRR Management

2.6 Governance and decision 3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, making*, Organisational Rights based Approach Structure and processes 2.7 Networking and alliance 3.1 Gender Approach* building* 2.9 Risk Management, 2.8 Communications, Advocacy Institutional Resilience

41 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

On the positive side: progression Based in Mogadishu, the MHADM is a new • Humanitarian leadership has not evolved ministry of the Federal Government of Somalia • Humanitarian capacity of these eight NGOs significantly despite conditions for (created in April 2017). It integrates the previous has experienced an overall average increase improvement, including the localisation DMA (Disaster Management Agency) and the of 20.1% (from a total average of 2.4 to 2.9), agenda and the increased networking taking units working with NGO registration under the with variation in the three territories as place among LNNGOs, although significant Ministry of Interior. The old DMA is a Directorate discussed in previous sections leadership in advocating for localisation is within the MHADM. • With the exceptions of leadership attitudes evident and knowledge management, all parameters • Analytical and strategising capacity has The Ministry is headed by the Minister and has a have seen a significant increase increased in only a few organisations Director General who coordinates 6 Directorates, • Technical specialisation has increased, but • Logistical capacity has increased in only a being: not equally across the 8 organisations few organisations • Standards compliance has experienced a 1. Humanitarian Affairs significant increase, but with great variance Overall LNNGOs are progressing in their 2. Disaster Risk Management across organisations humanitarian capacities but essential 3. Policy and Planning components, such as leadership, analytical 4. Administration and Finances It should be noted that the significant increase and strategising capacity, and knowledge 5. Monitoring and Evaluation on working with highly vulnerable individuals management, require an urgent investment and 6. IDPs, Resilience and Durable solutions is due to an improvement of mechanisms for commitment to ensure a strong and sustainable 7. The analysis below focuses on the new targeting recipient populations, but also a local humanitarian system in Somalia and Ministry and compares the results with the widening of the parameters used in 2014, which Somaliland. results of the old DMA that was assessed was exclusively focused on working with people in 2014. It should be noted that the living with HIV/AIDS. 5.3 State Institutions comparative analysis is just a reference, as DMA and MHADM operate differently. Key areas for improvement: 5.3.1 Federal Government State institutions

• Knowledge management as part of Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster programme management has had minimal Management (MHADM)

42 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Score Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in in 2019 for from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (for MHADM to 2019 (MHADM FGS) DMA) (0-5) (0-5)

1.- Identity and 1.1 1. Values Mandate* 2 3 1 • They have a clear and • Traditional humanitarian core values Mission comprehensive humanitarian are not expressed clearly 2. Purpose* mandate that encompasses prevention, preparation, response, DRR and resilience building • Senior staff are familiar with core humanitarian values and IHL 1.2 3. Leadership* 1 3 2 • MHADM shows a clear • Being a new entity, it still lacks willingness and commitment enough influence and recognition to 4. Attitudes* to lead the humanitarian develop its role effectively system in Somalia • A lack of resources hampers effective • They show a constructive leadership development attitude to and positive relationship with other humanitarian stakeholders 2.- Managerial 2.1 1. Finances* 1 1 0 • Within the financial • Very limited resources, regular budget Capacities (Hard mechanism of the FGS below US$1.2 million, and only for How) regular operational and administrative costs • Dependent on donor contributions and approved projects 2.2 2. Human 1 2 1 • Some technical staff available • Not enough qualified staff and Resources* at senior level dependency on volunteers • Volunteers willing to support

43 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Score Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in in 2019 for from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (for MHADM to 2019 (MHADM FGS) DMA) (0-5) (0-5)

2.3 3. Logistics 1 0 -1 • Currently lacking logistical • No logistical capacity and a capacity for response dependence on private logistical 4. Time support for items such as vehicles management • Almost non-existent IT systems

2.4 5. Analytical* 1 1 0 • Has a Policy and Planning Unit • Very limited analytical or strategising • Committed to develop a capacity, and no policies or strategies 6. Strategising* humanitarian policy and NGOs in place policy within 2019 7. Planning and Programming 2.5 8. Programme 1 1 0 • Developed experience in • There is no systematic framework Management * conducting Drought Impact for M&E, and no systems to retain (includes M&E) Needs Assessments (DINA) knowledge • MHADM has a monitoring and • No resources assigned to fulfil this 9. Knowledge evaluation unit but with no function Management resources for implementation 2.6 10. Governance and 3 2 -1 • Organogram is in place and • Requires more development within decision making* basic definition of roles and the federal decentralised system functions and better articulation with state 11. Organisational humanitarian units Structure and • Setup of emergency operational processes centres at national and State level is pending

44 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Score Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in in 2019 for from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (for MHADM to 2019 (MHADM FGS) DMA) (0-5) (0-5)

2.7 12. Networking and 2 4 2 • Strong commitment on • Coordination mechanisms must alliance building* coordination and networking evolve to a more strategic level • Pushing for more “reality • Mostly focused on information sharing based” coordination approach and activity coordination based in Somalia and not • Several humanitarian actors have a Nairobi, as it was in the past minimal or no relationship with the • Monthly “humanitarian Ministry events” organised involving • Clear linkages with FMSs not yet key local and international realised humanitarian actors • Facilitates inter-sectorial meetings • Coordinates with the other FGS ministries • Coordinates with focal points in all states 2.8 13. Communications 1 2 1 • Has a communications unit • No systematic or strategic communication or advocacy agenda 14. Advocacy 2.9 15. Risk Management 0 0 0 • Enthusiasm to build up • Extremely vulnerable institution due resilience of the Ministry to dependency from donors for all 16. Institutional kinds of resources Resilience • No clear plan to reinforce the ministry and make it more robust 3.- Approach, 3.1 1. Gender 1 1 0 • Has some people trained on • Limited capacity to extend the gender Commitment (Soft Approach* gender approach rigorously How) 3.2 2. Conflict 2 2 0 • Aware of the sensitivity • No capacity to develop and implement sensitiveness of humanitarian aid in the the rights-based approach across different parts of Somalia, their strategies and programmes 3. Rights based MHADM works with LNGOs as Approach appropriate

45 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Score Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in in 2019 for from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (for MHADM to 2019 (MHADM FGS) DMA) (0-5) (0-5)

3.3 4. Connectedness, 2 3 1 • MHADM has a unit in charge • Lack of resources Resilience & DRR of resilience and durable solutions 3.4 5. Highly Vulnerable 0 2 2 • Aware and committed in • No strategy and no resources for Individuals / principle and showing implementation Groups commitment to accountability 4.- Technical 4.1 1. WASH 1 1 0 • Minimal technical expertise in • Dependent on expertise and Expertise (What) Competencies some areas resources from other ministries and organisations 2. EFSVL Competencies

3. Other Competencies 4.2 4. Standards’ 0 0 0 • Not aware of and not using any quality compliance & humanitarian standards accountability

5. Quality Control management 5.- Size Capability 5.1 1. Organizational 1 1 0 • Significant role as a ministry • Extremely limited resources (How much) volume

2. Financial autonomy

3. Sustained investment

4. Human Resources

46 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Score Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in in 2019 for from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (for MHADM to 2019 (MHADM FGS) DMA) (0-5) (0-5)

5.2 5. Geographical 1 2 1 • In theory, wide coverage • Limited to no more than 70% of the outreach across Somalia geography due to lack of access to some areas Average Results 1.2 1.6 0.4

These results are represented in the following MoHADM graph: 1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* 5.1 Organizational volume, Financial capacity /autonomy, 2.1 Finances* Sustained investment and 4.0 evolution, Human Resources… 4.2 Standards’ compliance and accountability, Quality Control 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* Management 2.0 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other 2.3 Logistics, Time Competencies 1.0 management

0.0 3.4 Highly Vulnerable 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, Individuals Planning and Programming

2.5 Programme Management 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience (incl. M&E)*, Knowledge & DRR Management

2.6 Governance and decision 3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, making*, Organisational Rights based Approach Structure and processes 2.7 Networking and alliance 3.1 Gender Approach* building* 2.9 Risk Management, 2.8 Communications, Advocacy Institutional Resilience

47

Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

• The MHADM is a big step forward within • They need to gain recognition and leadership 5.3.2 Puntland State institutions the FGS to facilitate humanitarian work in within the humanitarian sector quickly Somalia so that they are taken into account on Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management • The ministerial rank is positive and should humanitarian strategy design and resource Agency (HADMA) be translated into allocation of regular allocation, among other things, by the most resources and capacity to develop influential and powerful humanitarian actors HADMA is the main entity for humanitarian humanitarian policies and strategies for in Somalia affairs in Puntland. HADMA provides information Somalia and its humanitarian actors • Providing regular government budgets to implementing actors, and monitors and • The networking capacity of the ministry is a and qualified staff is a must if MHADM is to evaluates humanitarian work carried out within big asset that should be strategised in order succeed in its mandate Puntland. The analysis below focuses on to make it more impactful HADMA’s humanitarian capacity in 2019 and The MHADM is a significant opportunity that compares the results with those obtained in On the negative side: needs to be deeply resourced and supported 2014. if governance and humanitarian localisation is • They have very limited resources, nor a clear taken seriously in Somalia. strategic direction at this point

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (HADMA Puntland) 2019 for to 2019 (0-5) HADMA (0-5) 1.- Identity and 1.1 1. Values Mandate* 3 3 0 • They have clear humanitarian • Limited capacity to implement their Mission values and mandate humanitarian mandate 2. Purpose* 1.2 3. Leadership* 2 3 1 • They have increased their • Not enough recognition by some position as reference International actors 4. Attitudes* agency among humanitarian stakeholders in Puntland 2.- Managerial 2.1 1. Finances* 0 0.5 0.5 • Puntland Government may • Financial capacity is very weak and Capacities (Hard increase financial support to budget is around US$54,000 per year, How) HADMA following World Bank which is not enough even for operational recommendations costs

48 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (HADMA Puntland) 2019 for to 2019 (0-5) HADMA (0-5) 2.2 2. Human 1 1.5 0.5 • Database specialist and M&E • Team very limited with only 17 staff Resources* officer in place • Very few qualified staff available • Use of volunteers and committees 2.3 3. Logistics 1 1 0 • Has gained experience • HADMA has not retained any logistical through the management capacity after the drought of 2017, 4. Time of three “Drought Operation following withdrawal of OCHA support management Centres” (DOC) during the drought of 201718 2.4 5. Analytical* 2 2 0 • More knowledge of • Limited strategic direction and very data analysis, hazards, dependent on donor interests 6. Strategising* vulnerability maps and contingency planning 7. Planning and Has a disaster management Programming • plan done with the World Bank 2.5 8. Programme 1 2 1 • M&E unit is in place and • Lack of resources and comprehensive Management * Sphere Standards used as methodologies (includes M&E) reference

9. Knowledge Management 2.6 10. Governance and 2 2 0 • Basic structure in place • Lack of regular budget to support the decision making* • Structure revised in management structure consultation with World 11. Organisational Bank, pending approval of Structure and Puntland Government for processes implementation

18 The DOCs were established by OCHA to expedite the scaling up of the response.

49 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (HADMA Puntland) 2019 for to 2019 (0-5) HADMA (0-5) 2.7 12. Networking and 3 4 1 • Increased relations and • Lack of strategic agenda to set alliance building* coordination with all key relationship Humanitarian Stakeholders, • Agendas mainly driven by international local and international actors • Active participation in Inter- cluster group and all relevant coordination groups • Cooperation with Puntland State University 2.8 13. Communications 1 2 1 • HADMA provides humanitarian • Limited communication strategy and information systematically to implementation 14. Advocacy other humanitarian actors 2.9 15. Risk Management 1 1 0 • HADMA director is aware • HADMA is extremely vulnerable as an of their vulnerability as an institution due to the lack of resources 16. Institutional institution on almost all fronts Resilience • Unable to maintain capacity built during time of crises, lacking regular donor and government support 3.- Approach, 3.1 1. Gender 1 1.5 0.5 • HADMA includes 30% quota • Limited role of women or gender justice Commitment (Soft Approach* for women in humanitarian in programme design How) trainings 3.2 2. Conflict 1 2 1 • Increased awareness on • Lack of capacity for implementation sensitiveness conflict sensitivity within running programmes 3. Rights based Approach 3.3 4. Connectedness, 2 2 0 • Linking with other ministries • Limited to a few activities Resilience & DRR and working on resilience • Working with UNDP on climate change resilience

50 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 (HADMA Puntland) 2019 for to 2019 (0-5) HADMA (0-5) 3.4 5. Highly Vulnerable 1 2.5 1.5 • HADMA participates in • No resources to do more Individuals / selection criteria based on Groups vulnerability assessment 4.- Technical 4.1 1. WASH 1 2 1 • Increased competency in • No sectorial expertise Expertise (What) Competencies coordination and overall needs assessments 2. EFSVL processes Competencies

3. Other Competencies 4.2 4. Standards’ 2 2.5 0.5 • Knowledgeable on Sphere • No capacity for systematic compliance & standards and taken into implementation accountability account by the M&E unit

5. Quality Control management 5.- Size Capability 5.1 1. Organisational 1 1 0 • Some existing relationships • Very limited in all aspects (How much) volume with donors

2. Financial autonomy

3. Sustained investment

4. Human Resources 5.2 5. Geographical 2 2 0 • Reasonable theoretical • Limited in practical terms as they do outreach outreach and access across not have the transportation facilities to Puntland monitor all Puntland territory Average Results 1.5 2.0 0.5

51 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

This could be represented in the following graph: Over the last 5 years HADMA has gained knowledge and experience in many fields, HADMA Puntland including: 1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* • Logistical management 5.1 Organizational volume, • Technical skills (vulnerability analysis, Financial capacity /autonomy, 2.1 Finances* Sustained investment and 4.0 assessment and planning capacity) evolution, Human Resources… • Monitoring and evaluation and the use 4.2 Standards’ compliance and of quality standards accountability, Quality Control 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* Management • Networking and coordination with other humanitarian stakeholders and 2.0 authorities 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other 2.3 Logistics, Time Competencies management 1.0 Overall HADMA’s Humanitarian capacity continues to be severely hampered in 0.0 3.4 Highly Vulnerable 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, terms of resources, mainly: Individuals Planning and Programming • Lack of financial capacity • Lack of qualified human resources 2.5 Programme Management 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience (incl. M&E)*, Knowledge • Lack of basic logistical capacity & DRR Management Unfortunately, these gains could be lost 2.6 Governance and decision 3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, making*, Organisational if no investment is done to consolidate Rights based Approach Structure and processes the knowledge and experience acquired 2.7 Networking and alliance over recent years. More robust support is 3.1 Gender Approach* building* 2.9 Risk Management, needed from the Puntland Government 2.8 Communications, Advocacy Institutional Resilience and international agencies. This should be done under a clear strategic plan that helps HADMA to cope with their responsibilities and provides more solid

leadership to the humanitarian sector in Puntland.

52 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

5.3.3 Somaliland State institutions NADFOR (National Disaster Preparedness and to the president. The relation between these Food Reserve Authority), which has replaced two agencies does not seem to be strong in Somaliland has different ministries and agencies the previous agency NERAD and the Food coordination terms. NADFOR is the most relevant involved in humanitarian work, such as the Coordination Agency. It was created in 2018 and humanitarian state agency in Somaliland. Ministry of Planning and National Development, reports directly to the President of Somaliland. the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of NDRA (National Displacement and Refugees Below a more detailed analysis of NADFOR. Education. The most prominent agency is Agency) also plays an important role and reports

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 for 2019 for to 2019 (NADFOR Somalil- NERAD and) NADFOR (0-5) (0-5) 1. Identity and 1.1 1. Values Mandate* 4 3 -1 • Clear humanitarian mandate • Weakened by the lack of inclusion of Mission refugees and IDPs under its mandate 2. Purpose* 1.2 4. Leadership* 0 3 3 • Strong role in leading the • Lacks capacity and resources, and humanitarian sector within divides role with the NDRA 5. Attitudes* Somaliland at all humanitarian levels 2. Managerial 2.1 1. Finances* 1 2 1 • Building up specific systems • Incipient financial capacity Capacities (Hard with the support of the World • Needs to integrate different financial How) Bank requirements as per government systems and donor requirements 2.2 2. Human 1 2 1 • NADFOR has a significant • Staff do not have enough technical Resources* number of staff, some of them capacity, although there are capacity with specialised humanitarian plans under consideration for the trainings coming years 2.3 3. Logistics 0 2 2 • Warehouses are available and • Logistical capacity still limited to expanding their IT capacity Hargeisa 4. Time management

53 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 for 2019 for to 2019 (NADFOR Somalil- NERAD and) NADFOR (0-5) (0-5) 2.4 5. Analytical* 1 2.5 1.5 • Has a Strategic Plan for • Strategic analysis and planning needs 2019-2024 elaborated in to be further developed and further 6. Strategising* consultation with relevant integrated with other government humanitarian stakeholders humanitarian actors 7. Planning and Programming 2.5 8. Programme 0 2 2 • Started programme • Knowledge management systems are Management * management and has an area not yet in place (includes M&E) in charge of M&E

9. Knowledge Management 2.6 10. Governance and 0 2 2 • Well-structured and within a • Lack of good delineation of roles with decision making* strong legal framework NDRA

11. Organisational Structure and processes 2.7 12. Networking and 3 3 0 • Intensive coordination with • Limited coordination with a few LNNGOs alliance building* other government ministries, UN agencies and INGOs 2.8 13. Communications 0 3 3 • Active in launching emergency • No systematic or strategic advocacy reports and appeals agenda 14. Advocacy • Active website • Communication is managed proactively 2.9 1. Risk Management 0 2 2 • Building up a strong institution • Limited regular budget provided by the with strong government government19 2. Institutional backing Resilience

19 About US$400,000 per annum, mostly for food management.

54 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 for 2019 for to 2019 (NADFOR Somalil- NERAD and) NADFOR (0-5) (0-5) 3.- Approach, 3.1 1. Gender 0 2 2 • Gender is included in selection • Gender approach is treated as a cross- Commitment (Soft Approach* of the most vulnerable cutting issue, with limited prominence How) populations in policy formulation • Female staff are taking senior responsibilities 3.2 2. Conflict 2 2 0 • Aware of conflict sensitivity • Rights based approach not clearly sensitiveness approach formulated in strategy

3. Rights based Approach 3.3 4. Connectedness, 1 3 2 • NADFOR works together with • Limited DRR capacity Resilience & DRR other development Ministries in Somaliland in building up disaster management plans and early warning systems 3.4 5. Highly Vulnerable 0 2 2 • Included in its strategy • No detailed formulation of criteria and Individuals / no standards Groups • Limited attention to urban IDPs 4.- Technical 4.1 1. WASH 1 2 1 • Competencies on Food security • A more broad set of sectorial Expertise (What) Competencies and emerging on DRR knowledge and expertise is missing

2. EFSVL Competencies

3. Other Competencies

55 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Average Average Increase Cluster # Thematic area Score in Score in from 2014 Strengths Weaknesses 2014 for 2019 for to 2019 (NADFOR Somalil- NERAD and) NADFOR (0-5) (0-5) 4.2 4. Standards’ 0 0 0 • Limited knowledge nor use of the compliance & essential Humanitarian standards: CHS accountability and Sphere Standards

5. Quality Control management 5.- Size Capability 5.1 1. Organisational 1 2 1 • Organisational volume is • Not at the size required for the needs (How much) volume medium-low, but with plans to of Somaliland and the ministry’s expand rapidly humanitarian mandate 2. Financial autonomy

3. Sustained investment

4. Human Resources 5.2 5. Geographical 3 3 0 • All Somaliland • No cooperation at any level with HADMA outreach from neighbouring Puntland Average Results 0.9 2.2 1.3

56 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

This analysis is reflected in the following graph: NADFOR’s capacity is much higher than that of NADFOR Somaliland its predecessor NERAD:

1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* • NADFOR is playing a strong humanitarian 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* leadership role 5.1 Organizational volume, Financial capacity /autonomy, • It has established a strategic direction, 2.1 Finances* Sustained investment and 4.0 although it needs further development evolution, Human Resources… • Networking, coordination and 4.2 Standards’ compliance and communication have improved accountability, Quality Control 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* Management significantly 2.0 • Disaster Management has tentatively improved, and will develop significant 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other 2.3 Logistics, Time Competencies 1.0 management positive results if consistently developed On the weak side: 0.0 3.4 Highly Vulnerable 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, Individuals Planning and Programming • Engagement with IDPs and refugees is still unclear, leaving many vulnerable 2.5 Programme Management people struggling to access humanitarian 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience (incl. M&E)*, Knowledge & DRR assistance Management • Financial capacity is still very low

2.6 Governance and decision • Human resource capacity should be 3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, making*, Organisational Rights based Approach developed and specialised Structure and processes • Knowledge management mechanisms are 2.7 Networking and alliance 3.1 Gender Approach* not in place and not duly considered in building* 2.9 Risk Management, strategic plans 2.8 Communications, Advocacy Institutional Resilience • There is a lack of commitment to a “no borders humanitarian approach” with neighbouring authorities • Mechanisms for compliance with humanitarian standards are absent

NADFOR has extensive potential, shows leadership, and is taking the right action to set a clear direction for the humanitarian

57 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

system in Somaliland. More investment Comparative results 2014 2019 in quality standards, more openness 3 State’s Agencies assessed in 2014 and 2019 to cooperation with LNNGOs and neighbouring authorities, and more long- STATE’S AGENCIES 2014 State’s Agencies 2019 term government resources would deeply benefit NADFOR’s humanitarian capacity and the humanitarian system as a whole in

Somaliland. 1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* 5.3.4 Overall state institutions 5.1 Organizational volume, Financial capacity /autonomy, 2.1 Finances* Sustained investment and 4.0 The comparative analysis from 2014- evolution, Human Resources… 2019 shows a 63% average increase of 4.2 Standards’ compliance and 3.0 overall capacity across the three states. accountability, Quality Control 2.2 Human Resources* Management It must be noted that this is due to the 2.0 disproportionate effort in Somaliland and the FGS, as well as the low baseline of 2014. 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other 2.3 Logistics, Time Competencies management The areas of major growth are on leadership 1.0 and coordination, while the weakest areas 0.0 are humanitarian standards compliance, 3.4 Highly Vulnerable 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, financial capacity and logistical capacity. Individuals Planning and Programming

These good governance achievements 2.5 Programme Management 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience require qualitative and quantitative support (incl. M&E)*, Knowledge & DRR through standards, approaches and Management resources. 2.6 Governance and decision 3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, making*, Organisational Rights based Approach 5.4 Overall Organisational Structure and processes 2.7 Networking and alliance Humanitarian Capacities 3.1 Gender Approach* building* 2.9 Risk Management, 2.8 Communications, Advocacy This section presents an aggregated Institutional Resilience analysis of all the local and national humanitarian actors interviewed in the three territories; it includes government humanitarian actors as well as LNNGOs. Financial capacity, networking, conflict

58 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020 sensitivity approach and resilience/DRR are the strongest areas. Average Somalia SC-Puntland-Somaliland all LNHA 2019

Warning signs are shown in the substandard LNHA TOTAL AVERAGE LNHA TOTAL’S DEVIATION management of institutional risks and building of institutional resilience.

Standards compliance is diverse across the 1.1 Values Mandate*, Purpose* different LNHAs but very low overall. 5.2 Geographical outreach 5.0 1.2 Leadership*, attitudes* 5.1 Organizational volume, Financial capacity /autonomy, 2.1 Finances* LNHAs are growing in their humanitarian Sustained investment and 4.0 capacity but still institutionally vulnerable, evolution, Human Resources… due to lack of sufficient and stable funding, 4.2 Standards’ compliance and accountability, Quality Control 3.0 2.2 Human Resources* and require significant improvements in Management quality standards compliance. 2.0 4.1 WASH, EFSVL, Other 2.3 Logistics, Time 5.5 Gender Analysis of Competencies 1.0 management Organisational Humanitarian Capacities 0.0 3.4 Highly Vulnerable 2.4 Analytical*, Strategizing*, Individuals Planning and Programming Gender analysis and women’s role in the humanitarian system intersects with 2.5 Programme Management many aspects of the HUCOCA assessment 3.3 Connectedness, Resilience (incl. M&E)*, Knowledge 20 & DRR methodology. Below is an aggregation of Management data compiled in order to provide a specific 2.6 Governance and decision analysis on the role of women as actors in 3.2 Conflict sensitiveness, making*, Organisational Rights based Approach the humanitarian sector. The analysis is Structure and processes based on a model21 that takes into account 2.7 Networking and alliance 3.1 Gender Approach* four indicators: building* 2.9 Risk Management, 2.8 Communications, Advocacy Institutional Resilience 1. Inclusion of gender justice in organisational values

20 Particularly on 1.1 Values; 1.2 Leadership; 2.4 Analytical capacity: 2.7 Networking; 3.1 Gender Approach; and A1 Strength of Civil Society; A2 Human Development; A3 Human Rights; B2 Public Administration efficiency. 21 For details of the methodology see Annexes 2 and 5

59 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

2. Women in leadership roles in national or humanitarian work with a more inclusive organisational analysis (LNNGOs plus state local humanitarian NGOs, and within disaster gender perspective humanitarian agencies), as well as interviews management or civil protection authorities 4. Women’s participation and consultation with other stakeholders including INGOs, donors, 3. Women’s Rights Organisations’ as key designers of humanitarian policies, UN agencies and individual experts. engagement in the humanitarian system strategies and programmes. and their capacity to influence and shape The results from LNHAs and international These four indicators have been assessed agencies are presented in the following table: and compiled on the basis of the LNHA

Gender Average Average Assessment Score Score IHA Analysis LNHA (0-5) indicator (0-5) G1 Inclusion 1.9 4.6 Most LNHAs include gender justice values in their documents, but in most cases this appears to be more a rhetorical of gender exercise than a practical one. This commitment seems to be more explicit and generally more coherent among justice in international agencies. organisational values G2 Women in 2.5 2.8 Women are still marginalised within humanitarian organisations and society in general. Although some states are leadership roles increasing the number of women in parliaments, cultural issues related to clans and patriarchal social structures, religious precepts and the lack of organisational investment in capacity building keeps women in secondary administrative roles within humanitarian organisations.

Educational and traditional barriers are also a challenge for women to ascend to the leadership positions they deserve.

With the exception of Women’s Rights Organisations, LNHAs do not reach a 30% of women in senior positions. This also applies to several INGOs. G3 Women’s Rights 1.6 3.4 Women’s Rights Organisations are growing in Somalia and Somaliland, but most of them do not play a very significant Organisations role in the humanitarian field, and the few exceptions are not sufficient to make a major change in the sector. engagement Local women’s informal organisations play a self-organised role in ensuring social and humanitarian services across clan lines, such as ambulance services managed with collective women’s contributions.

International agencies seem to have a more proactive policy of engagement with Women’s Rights Organisations than LNHAs.

60 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Gender Average Average Assessment Score Score IHA Analysis LNHA (0-5) indicator (0-5) G4 Women’s 1.9 3.2 Women’s participation in humanitarian actions are mostly done at programme level, including needs assessment participation surveys, which frequently include differentiated needs assessments for women. Participation at a higher level of and contribution in the design of specific humanitarian policies and strategies, is still minimal. consultation as key designers Some organisations have started consultation processes with women at the community level to include their policy of humanitarian and strategy inputs. A limited number of humanitarian actors have safe environments for women’s participation. policies, International agencies seem to be more advanced than LNHAs in this area. strategies and programmes.

The results (as represented in the graph below) show that LNHAs 2019 SomaliaSC-Puntland-Somaliland LNHAs and IHA Gender Assessment AVERAGE generally score lower than the international agencies in all four Inclusion of gender justice in Organisational values. gender indicators, something that 5.0 should be addressed in any further localisation agenda. When it comes 4.0 to women in senior management 3.0 TOTAL AVERAGE LNHA TOTAL AVERAGE IHA roles, the difference is less acute. 2.0

Gender inclusion in the Somali 1.0 humanitarian system is still a weak Women’s participation, consultation as key designers of the Humanitarian Policies, 0.0 Women in leadership roles area as a result of many factors. Strategies and programmes. It is concerning that women are gradually taking bigger roles in the system primarily on the operational level, rather than on the strategic, policy making level. This will not address the consequences of an unbalanced contribution of women Women’s rights’ organizations engagement and men in the humanitarian system.

61 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

6 Organisational Relations and Power Analysis

This chapter analyses the relations among the How significant are their humanitarian The actors interviewed have been classified actors interviewed and their bearing on the programmes? according to their relevance, power and humanitarian sector as a whole. • Power: How far is the actor able to take influence. The results have been quantified its own decisions autonomously with a based on the answers obtained during the 6.1 Humanitarian Actors, Relevance, clear impact on the humanitarian sector? interviews. Power and Influence Capacities (In other words, the “hard power” of the actor imposing its own decisions and going Some of the conclusions that could be drawn The assessment has explored three key through with them.) from this analysis are: elements related to power analysis: relevance, • Influence: How far will other humanitarian power and influence. actors will follow the example of the actor? 1. In general, international actors have (In other words, the “soft power” of the more power, relevance and influence in • Relevance: How is the actor in the actor persuading, convincing or setting the humanitarian system in Somalia and humanitarian sector? Is it well recognised examples that are followed by others in the Somaliland, than their local and national and respected and legitimised by other humanitarian sector.) counterparts humanitarian actors and communities? 2. Some state actors do not have an influential capacity proportional to their potential power

62 10 Power Graph 9 UNICEF

OCHA NADFOR TASCO (TAKULO) SL 8 SSWC KAALO P CANDLE LIGHT SL CARE

7 IIDA HAVAYOCO SL

ACTION AID ADO SL 6 CED

Somali Red Crescent Society Somaliland 5 ASALP P HIJRA MoHADM SC

OXFAM HADMA P 4 SFS P NAPAD

3 DRDO P

Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020 2 SOSTA SL 10

Power Graph 1 9 UNICEF

OCHA NADFOR TASCO (TAKULO) SL0 8 SSWC KAALO P 0 2 4 6 8 10 CANDLE LIGHT SL Relevance CARE 7 IIDA HAVAYOCO SL International ACTION AID ADO SL LNNGO 6 CED

Somali Red Crescent Society Somaliland Local authorities 5 ASALP P HIJRA MoHADM SC

OXFAM HADMA P 4 SFS P NAPAD

3 DRDO P

2 SOSTA SL

1

0 0 2 4 Relevance 6 8 10

International LNNGO 3. Several LNHAs play a very relevant and extremely limited power and influence. theory than in practice. International actors, influential role in theLocal humanitarian authorities system, (Communities are not represented in the due to their financial capacity and their strong particularly in Somaliland graphs.) network are the main influential agencies in the 4. Local communities, the final recipients of Somali humanitarian system. LNNGOs have a the humanitarian assistance, could have a A more detailed and broad analysis should be high diversity in power and in most cases their strong influence over LNHAs through clan conducted to produce more solid conclusions, influence is more related to their operational leaders and elders. Other less represented but this preliminary analysis indicates that capacity than analytical and advocacy capacity. communities such as urban IDPs have some state agencies have more power in

63 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

The following graph represents the difference between the power and influence of some actors, as perceived by themselves.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 6. Power 1 7. Influence 0 t L P P L L E P L L F L S D P P A ID A D M S A C S en S C S E S O S A P A ID A R E H S c d R O W A F P L I IJ C FA T O s an A L O IC R T D S A A M H H M re C A O) SS N O S R N S D ON OC D D C lil L F D A A I OX IG A A a A U OC U O H T L d m K K Y D S C E e o A A A L R S (T VA N D MoH li y t O A N ma ie C H A o c S C S o A S T

6.2 Organisational relationships joint strategic parameters for their work can implement programmes directly. The assessment shows that: 4. Perception of relationships are asymmetric; The relationships between different actors has 1. Most state-based local humanitarian organisations generally claim stronger been analysed at three levels: organisations keep limited relations within relationships with other groups than what is 1. Information sharing: Actors share their own peer state LNGOs. Only national reciprocally recognised information without agreed or collective organisations develop broader relationships. 5. Relationships are frequently based on action 2. In most cases, relations are set on the basis information sharing or joint activities, with 2. Activity based relations: Actors do certain of acceptance and mutual understanding very few actors in relationships with a activities together, whether project level, to avoid potential conflicts, rather than on strategic perspective financial, knowledge or technical expertise content quality based debates. 6. International agencies generally perceive collaborations. 3. INGOs have an ambivalent relationship with themselves and are perceived as setting 3. Strategic Relations: Actors set their relations LNNGOs, who work as subcontractors in risky higher standards of relationships at the based on discussing priorities, policies, or areas and competitors in areas where INGOs strategic level

64 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

The following graph presents the average relationships between actors as they are perceived by others:

Average level of relations OTHERS PERCEPTIONS

3.0

2.0

1.Information 2. Activities 3. Strategic 1.0

0

A D A D C P P P P L L L L L L A F D D E R C S P S S S S S S E E I M II C J A W O P O S A H R A I P M L L F O O) A O T R IC A H A A D S M L T H O OC N C FA N SS D A S R D S D F ON ECHO A A A D A OC U O A IG U I OX K Y K L D T H A S E A C MoH VA (T L N A A O D H C N WORLD VISION S A A C T International LNNGO Local authorities

The limited analytical and strategic capacity humanitarian actors in Somalia and Somaliland. operations-based dialogue which maintains the of LNHAs shown by the organisational analysis International agencies do not seem to set status quo of the humanitarian system. previous chapters translates into the depth relations with their peer LNHAs in a way that of relationships between local and national could bridge this divide, instead perpetuating an

65 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

PART II: SOMALIA’S LOCALISATION AGENDA

7. Somalia’s Humanitarian Localisation Agenda: Opportunities and Barriers

Based on the results of the HUCOCA and 2. Technical and managerial capability of LNHAs 6. Results are presented in the table below, MORPA analysis,22 and the specific localisation 3. Funding autonomy, fundraising capability segregating results for LNHAs and questionnaires,23 the obstacles and potential and funding conditions (by donors) for LNHAs international agencies, with 0 equating to opportunities for the implementation of the 4. Mutual trust and relations between LNHAs no conditioning support for the localisation localisation agenda in Somalia and Somaliland and international agencies agenda and 5 equating to full conditioning have been assessed around five main factors24: 5. Political agendas of both LNHAs and support. 1. Humanitarian values and approach international agencies, including back donors

Localisation Average Average conditioning Opportunities LNHAs IHAs Barriers / Obstacles factors (0-5) (0-5)  Most LNHAs are aware and have subscribed to the - Although LNHAs implement key humanitarian approaches to varying degrees, internationally accepted core this is not raised as an impediment for the implementation of the localisation humanitarian values and agenda humanitarian approaches Humanitarian - There is a passive acceptance of international humanitarian values by some  In general, there is a good Values and LNHAs without enough quality discussion on the practical implications of their Approach understanding of the essential 1.2 1.7 implementation in the local context humanitarian principles and - Pressure by International donors on reporting and procedural compliance has approaches by LNHAs and diverted the debate from essential humanitarian values towards managerial international actors principles  Values of transparency and accountability are gaining traction among LNHAs

22 Annexes 3 and 4 23 Annex 6 24 For further details of the five main factors assessed, please refer to Annex 6

66 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Localisation Average Average conditioning Opportunities LNHAs IHAs Barriers / Obstacles factors (0-5) (0-5)

- In some cases, a lack of strong policies and managerial procedures is an obstacle to technical competence - The lack of objective mechanisms for real evaluations and learning creates an  A vast number of LNHAs have environment where errors are repeated increased their managerial - Attracting qualified humanitarian staff is still an issue as most LNNGOs cannot capacity thanks to capacity provide adequate salary packages for specialists strengthening programs from - In several cases, LNHAs are confined to an “activity Implementation” role, with International community no participation in the strategic design of programmes or overall humanitarian Technical and  Several LNNGOs have more strategies managerial humanitarian access to conflict 2.2 2.3 - The high turnover of staff in LNHAs, exacerbated by international agencies’ capability areas, and are more capable poaching of LNHA staff, is hampering the development of consistent and of managing conflict contexts technical institutional capacity within LNHAs than international agencies, - Access to reliable baseline data is a key limitation for international actors which cannot access most working with local actors conflict-affected areas - International actors transfer institutional risks to LNHAs, including staff security, monitoring and evaluation in risky areas, and funding with limited coverage of institutional core costs - Institutional capacity building by international agencies based on a “project training approach” is still in place and limited in terms of sustained impact

67 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Localisation Average Average conditioning Opportunities LNHAs IHAs Barriers / Obstacles factors (0-5) (0-5) - Lack of financial autonomy for LNHAs and state entities, is one of their main  Several LNNGOs have developed limitations, in some cases their most significant limitation robust financial mechanisms - The lack of co-funding capacity of LNHAs limits access to donor funds to ensure effective financial - Lack of flexibility in the use of donor funds and the lack of funds allocated for accountability institutional development hampers LNHA capacity Funding  Some LNNGOs are raising funds - LNGOs are fragmented and in some cases their outreach is limited to areas autonomy, through the diaspora or income acceptable to clans. This makes donor funding complex and expensive to fundraising generating activities monitor 3.8 3.7 capability  The SHF has opened more - Funding conditions on administrative costs and earmarked funds are not and funding opportunities for LNHAs. A 7% equitable for LNHAs and INGOs conditions allocation for indirect costs is - International donors rarely finance operational or administrative costs of helping LNNGOs to implement LNGOs, making institutional sustainability very challenging their programmes more - Conflicting interests and competition for funding among INGOs and LNNGOs efficiently has impeded progress of the localisation agenda - Financial issues are becoming the main driver of the localisation agenda

- Lack of access for international actors in vast areas creates mistrust, as there is no means for direct monitoring by international donors - Lack of shared strategic choices and priorities among donors, INGOs and LNHAs creates mistrust and lack of long-term commitments  In general, trust among - Double standards in terms of human resources policies including salaries and Mutual trust and international agencies and conditions, creates discord LNHAs has increased over the - The overall negative narrative about Somalia, mainly articulated around relations 2.8 2.7 last years because of greater stereotypes of generalised corruption, clan conflicts and poor management, accountability mechanisms hampers trust-building between the international community and LNHAs - Sometimes trust is hampered by discussions between international agencies and LNHAs that revolve around resources instead of human needs - Mistrust is greater from international actors towards national actors than the other way around

68 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Localisation Average Average conditioning Opportunities LNHAs IHAs Barriers / Obstacles factors (0-5) (0-5) - There is a lack of transparency and accountability on strategic choices and long-term priorities, from international donors towards INGOs and LNHAs, resulting in unstable investments and a lack of capacity in LNHAs, as there are no long-term expectations of continual support - Electoral processes lead to the politicisation of humanitarian programmes Political agendas 2.3 2.3 - Donors have political agendas that slow down localisation processes - The localisation agenda is driven globally and through the Nairobi locus, leading to the exclusion of local NGOs that cannot fully participate in or effectively influence discussions

- Political tensions between the FGS and the Government of Somaliland affects relationships with international agencies

The graph below summarises this data: 2019 Average Barriers for Localisation, Relative Importance LNHAs and International Agencies 5.0 Average LNHA Average IA

4.0 3.8 3.7 3.0

2.8 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.3

1.7

1.0 1.2

0.0 Humanitarian Values and Technical and managerial Funding autonomy, Mutual trust and relations Political agendas Approach capability fundraising capability and funding conditions ! 69 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

When it comes to perspectives on the core humanitarian values, thus justifying further 2. Although humanitarian values and principles localisation agenda, results indicate that: restrictions in funding mechanisms. are one amongst many obstacles for the localisation agenda, there is significant 1. International agencies and LNHAs have a Other data shown in the analysis indicates that: work to be done in understanding how these very similar understanding of the relative 1. The localisation debate is too focused on principles are implemented in the complex importance of the five factors analysed organisational issues and the interests of contexts of Somalia and Somaliland, and the 2. International agencies and LNHAs agree LNNGOs and state related agencies, rather practical dilemmas they raise. that funding is the biggest issue affecting than on increasing positive impact on people progress in the localisation agenda affected by humanitarian crises. 3. International agencies are more concerned than LNHAs about different understandings of humanitarian values and approaches, as The vicious circle of unfair localisation well as the managerial capacity of LNHAs 4. LNHAs are more concerned than international agencies about funding and trust issues Financial 5. Both international agencies and LNHAs have constraints a similar perception of how political agendas Technical and affect progress on localisation Managerial limitations The analysis could be summarised as the Values localisation deadlock, in other words, tough & restrictions on LNHA funding without flexibility or Trust relevance to LNHA strategies, based on projects and without funding for institutional building costs, directly affects managerial quality and technical competence of the LNHAs, who are left without the financial capacity to hire and retain competent staff and develop adequate Limited quality management mechanisms. This can translate to standards quality issues and delivery performance, which reduces trust and threatens engagement with

70 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Unbalanced atribution or results

3. LNHAs observe that international actors claim credit for successes, but often attribute failures to LNHAs. Broader risk transfer from international actors to LNHAs Sucesss further exacerbates this inequity. The graph IA on the right represents this unbalanced operating contexts and related attribution of results. International actors try to stay in “safe zones” with less connection to difficult contexts, while attributing to themselves Failure any positive result. LNHAs move in riskier LNHA zones, are closer to the hardest realities on the ground, and are lumped with all responsibility for any failure.

Safe Zone Risky Zone

71 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

8. UPDATE IN SOMALIA -SOMLAILAND HUMANITARIAN PROFILE

The Humanitarian profile described in Oxfam’s of Local NGOs. INGOs are still acting under the increasing the capacity of several LNHAs 2014 analysis is still valid overall. assumption that to be influential, power must • There is a sense of malaise within some be achieved by an aggressive growing strategy. parts of the humanitarian architecture, as From the 2014 analysis: “Humanitarian crises in This behaviour provokes a non-sense funding drought and armed conflict continue, thus Somalia: Each area has different humanitarian competition among INGOs among themselves hampering broader structural reforms of the crises and contexts and should be treated with and with Local NGOs. When it comes to system specific differentiated strategies, (Drought programme delivery there is an immoral obscene • Humanitarian crises follow the same and conflicts are the most relevant threats). cascade of transfer of risk from the UN Agencies patterns as before, but urbanisation Rural vulnerability will be gradually replaced down to the community level. This is also processes along with the climate crisis by urban vulnerability. The understanding of correlated with the perception of accountability and ongoing displacement due to violent Humanitarianism: Somalia is still under an and standards required: while risk is transferred conflicts, are increasing community old paradigm of understanding Humanitarian down to CBOs and LNGOs, accountability and vulnerability work as a “short intervention to feed bodies”, quality requirements remain invariable, despite • The stability and peace achieved in rather than as full set of actions to save lives the hard context in which some LNGOs and most Somaliland has a negative effect on with dignity, reduce vulnerability, increase CBOs have to operate…” humanitarian funding for Somaliland, with resilience and restore and protect Human more focus on South Central. The “peace Rights of people affected by crises. Stereotypes Below are some of the most significant changes dividend” of Somaliland has led to less of high efficiency of external “parachuted” since the 2014 analysis and some new aspects. humanitarian assistance for the people in international interventions are still alive in the Somaliland. humanitarian system. The Humanitarian Sector: 1. Humanitarian crises in Somalia and is dominated by UN agencies and International Somaliland 2. The understanding of NGOs. The International actors’ rhetoric of humanitarianism building humanitarian local capacity is in most • The drought of 2017 (and continuing today) cases empty of real content and it is reduced was a strong catalyser for the humanitarian • Humanitarianism and development work to a set of trainings and instrumentalization system in Somalia and Somaliland, continue to have blurred lines in Somalia and

72 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

Somaliland role in humanitarian work in terms of • Core humanitarian values are known and 4. Humanitarian sector roles, information, awareness, advocacy and understood but less often utilised responsibilities and coordination fundraising • • International NGOs still maintain a “risk 3. Women and humanitarianism • National and local NGOs are still quite transfer” approach towards LNNGOs, as they fragmented, making relationships among put their security as the top institutional • Women’s leadership and participation in the themselves and with the international priority humanitarian system is still very limited, community very complex • Clan structures and clan leaders play a although women have gained more space in • LNNGOs’ humanitarian management capacity fundamental role in Somali society and this leading positions within the humanitarian is mainly driven and conditioned by donor affects the capability of humanitarian actors sector requirements work, but the varying dynamics are often • Women’s organisations are active partners • International donors are likely to be more misunderstood or not properly addressed by of several humanitarian NGOs and have good inclined to support state humanitarian international actors recognition agencies and processes rather than a • At programme level, women are still proliferation of fragmented and scattered largely consulted on the basis of being local NGOs, with varying outreach “beneficiaries” and not as owners and co- • International NGOs are more vocal and visible designers of humanitarian strategies and in humanitarian positioning than LNNGOs programmes • Youth and diaspora are playing an increasing

73 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Recommendations system to assess the humanitarian 8. All Humanitarian actors should include impact of INGO and LNNGO actors. A a more robust environmental approach Recommendations addressed to all common framework of assessment of in their humanitarian interventions to humanitarian actors: impact, efficiency, risk management and reduce aggressive environmental pollution, accountability must be in place for all ensuring sustainability of resilience 1. All actors must commit and take action to humanitarian actors with no distinction building initiatives and creating a healthy genuinely address the persistent, structural between national and international actors. environment for the population. barriers to advancing the localisation 5. Humanitarian actors should collectively 9. Education in emergencies should gain more agenda, recognising that despite significant assess the different “value chain” options attention due to the extremely low ratios of progress in recent years, many of the issues and related costs attached to the different literacy and girls’ educational enrolment. highlighted in this report are the same as models. Humanitarian actors should five years ago. make decisions on how to make “value Recommendations addressed to Local and 2. The discussion on localisation agenda chain” options based on impact and cost- National NGOs: should be articulated around the greatest effectiveness. humanitarian impact and its efficiency, 6. LNHAs and IHAs should work together on 1. The debate on core funding or earmarked not on organisational interests or financial analysing and sharing how humanitarian funding is too generic, and generally LNNGOs needs. values and principles are implemented approach it with a grievance perspective: 3. Issues around women’s empowerment in the complex contexts of Somalia and that is, INGOs do have access to core funding and gender equality must be more clearly Somaliland, and the dilemmas they raise in including administration costs, while LNNGOs articulated and addressed throughout practical terms, particularly the principles of do not get these costs accepted by many the humanitarian architecture, including neutrality, impartiality and independence. donors or INGOs. The debate should be more addressing various issues raised in this 7. All humanitarian actors should revisit specific and related to institutional capacity analysis, such as the need to support their criteria and strategies to ensure that building and sustainability. women’s humanitarian leadership. humanitarian assistance is reaching the 2. LNNGOs should reinforce some critical 4. All humanitarian actors should agree on most vulnerable individuals including those areas of their humanitarian capacity, such one single common evaluation/assessment living in urban areas. as analytical and strategising capacity,

74 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

knowledge management, gender approach, that the status quo is inadequate, from 2. A common framework for INGO and LNNGO and standards compliance among others, project-based approaches that fail to deliver operational and administration costs should which should be adequately supported by broader institutional strengthening to not be agreed and controlled over the full chain funders. allowing sufficient flexible funding for LNHAs’ of financial management. 3. LNNGOs should make an effort to articulate operational costs. 3. Invest in collaborative learning and piloting their sector under an architecture that 3. International agencies should better value of tiered approaches to compliance and due allows big LNNGOs, CBOs and other actors and appreciate the importance of the diligence for smaller, local organisations to work together in a coherent and efficient clan structure in Somali society and its recognising that over time NGOs can build manner. role in peacebuilding, and should have a up capacity to meet requirements to access 4. The humanitarian identity of LNNGOs should deeper understanding of how to integrate larger funding amounts. be reinforced. Humanitarian LNNGOs should this reality into the implementation of 4. Institutional donors such as DFID, USAID be humanitarian above any other role they humanitarian work. and ECHO should remove political and may have as representatives of their own 4. International agencies should promote bureaucratic conditions preventing LNNGOs society. comprehensive and evaluable capacity from accessing funds. 5. LNNGOs should urgently increase their strengthening efforts, moving away from funding autonomy and capacity, following project-based approaches towards more Recommendations addressed to the Federal some of the initiatives already begun since robust and comprehensive plans that Government of Somalia: 2017 (online funding, diaspora support focus on broader, long-term institutional groups, etc.), in order to become more strengthening. 1. The Federal Government of Somalia should independent from international donors. 5. International agencies must rebalance the put more regular resources into MHADM and issue of risk and attribution of success and provide the ministry with a regular budget Recommendations addressed to failure towards a system that is much more that will allow them to operate to a sufficient International Humanitarian Actors (INGOs equitable for all actors. standard that attracts further support from and UN agencies): international donors. Recommendations addressed to 2. The MHADM must prioritise the development 1. All international agencies should disclose International Donors, UN funding of a comprehensive national Humanitarian evidence of impact, cost efficiency and mechanisms and International NGOs acting Policy and Strategy in order to frame and access to the most vulnerable to the as donors: give coherence to the different aspects that humanitarian community in Somalia and the MHADM must address. Somaliland. 1. Fair conditions for access to funds should 3. MHADM must be more proactive in seeking 2. All international agencies must reconsider be set for LNHAs based on impact and collaboration and coordination with LNNGOs how best to support LNHAs, recognising efficiency. and not incidentally reinforcing their

75 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

exclusion by prioritising engagement with NADFOR to ensure they are able to lead, 9.2 Investment Action Plan 2019-2020 international agencies. coordinate and implement efficiently and at the scale required. Based on the above analysis and the Recommendations addressed to the 2. The Government of Somaliland should recommendations made, the Investment Action Government of Puntland: consider integrating NADFOR and NDRA or at minimum enhancing coordination between Plan for 2019-2020 is proposed around five 1. The Government of Puntland should invest the two. areas of investment: more resources and a regular budget in 3. The government of Somaliland should HADMA to enhance their capacity in the most consider updating their existing 1. Setting humanitarian strategic direction critical areas as indicated in this report. humanitarian legal framework and ensure 2. Getting qualified humanitarian human 2. HADMA must be more proactive in seeking it is implemented according to the reality resources collaboration and coordination with LNNGOs of the LNHAs, giving enough space for CSOs 3. Providing sustained and strategic support to and not incidentally reinforcing their to develop their humanitarian potential state humanitarian institutions exclusion by prioritising engagement with alongside government efforts. 4. Common and fair capacity assessment international agencies. 4. NADFOR must be more proactive in seeking standards and related funding conditions for collaboration and coordination with LNNGOs all humanitarian actors Recommendations addressed to the and not incidentally reinforcing their 5. Articulating the humanitarian sector Government of Somaliland: exclusion by prioritising engagement with international agencies. 1. The Government of Somaliland should secure enough a regular governmental budget for

76 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

INVESTMENT MONITORING AREA OF INVESTMENT ACTIONS REQUIRED INDICATORS

A.1 MHADM and HADMA to define comprehensive humanitarian policies and strategies involving all To be defined A. Setting key humanitarian actors, under international norms and standards To be defined based on the humanitarian with MHADM A.2 LNHAs and international actors should co-design humanitarian strategies and humanitarian scope of the strategic direction and HADMA programmes. (There should not be any single humanitarian strategy developed exclusively by work designed international actors,) B.1 Ensure that senior politicians and public servants receive adequate education and training on essential humanitarian action principles, approaches and management B. Getting qualified To be defined To be defined humanitarian B.2 A fair recruitment and retention framework is agreed and in place for LNHAs and IHAs to avoid collectively collectively human resources “brain drain” and “knowledge drain” of LNHAs

C.1 State governments should allocate regular governmental budgets to their respective To be defined C. Providing sustained humanitarian institutions to ensure the adequate fulfilment of their responsibilities by the and strategic respective support to state C.2 State humanitarian institutions such as MHADM, HADMA and NADFOR, must have regular, governments To be defined humanitarian sustained strategic support by international agencies and donors to build institutional capacity and shared institutions in order to be able to play their role with responsibility and adequate capacity, while respecting with the whole the role of civil society organisations in the humanitarian sector humanitarian community D.1 A common framework for the assessment of impact, efficiency, risk management and D. Common and accountability should be developed and must be in place for all humanitarian actors with no fair capacity distinction between national and international humanitarian actors assessment standards and D.2 Fair and equitable conditions for access to humanitarian funds for LNHAs are put in place To be defined To be defined related funding based on impact and efficiency collectively collectively conditions for all humanitarian D.3 A common framework for operational and administrative costs is agreed and controlled over actors the full chain of financial management

E. Articulating the E.1 All humanitarian actors in their respective states agree on tailored support to LNHAs, CBOs, To be defined To be defined Humanitarian governments and the Red Crescent, so that the sector is strategically articulated and there is no collectively collectively Sector overlap or gaps in resources allocation

77 Breaking the localisation deadlock | 2020

ANNEXES

Annex 1 Interviewees

More than 30 organisations, platforms or individuals were interviewed on bilateral basis. Below is the list of interviews held from February 18-28 2019:

• 14 LNNGOs assessed (5 Somaliland, 4 Puntland, 5 South Central Somalia); of these eight were assessed in 2014 and re-assessed in 2019 • 1 NGO Consortium • 3 state Agencies (MHADM, HADMA, NADFOR) • 2 UN agencies (OCHA, UNICEF) • 3 INGOs (CARE, Acton Aid, Oxfam) • Red Crescent • 5 Individuals (1 Media, 1 Clan Leader, 1 NGO leader, IDPs, 1 Gender Specialist

Annex 2 Methodology

Full details of the methodology are available at the following link:

http://www.fernandoalmansa.com/Publicaciones/publicacion8.pdf

78

www.oxfam.org/somalia Ahmed Dhagax District, Hargeisa. Ph. +252 523119