Final Review/Revision Report of MLF Programs.

(July-December 2009)

Report author: A.M Ajab, Revision Manager (RM), MLF, S/L.

Report Recipient: Zainab Mohamed, Director/Owner, MLF, S/L.

Date: 30 December 2009.

Section-1: Back Regression of MLF’s Past Activities:(2004/5-June09).

Apart from monthly totals of sales and expenses in table-1a+1b (below), the revision
manager (RM) found no other written documents and farm/field records of past activities,
production and financial records in particular. The data in this table were recorded by
previous manager of MLF, Ismail Mohamed.

Table-1a:Shows monthly expenses between Sep-06 to Feb-09 in US Dollars

Monthly Expenses
Staff (2006-9) Fuel Food Others Total
Month 06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09
Jan 0 380 497 274 0 784 812 0 0 225 170 151 0 75 122 48 3538
Feb 0 370 568 0 0 724 1133 40 0 215 190 109 0 94 74 35 3552
Mar 0 382 567 0 0 759 1048 0 0 227 348 0 0 111 136 0 3578
Apr 0 390 568 0 0 857 336 0 0 198 340 0 0 30 80 0 2799
May 0 349 575 0 0 608 251 0 0 213 264 0 0 0 119 0 2379
Jun 0 545 685 0 0 63 369 0 0 0 295 0 0 110 180 0 2247
Jul 0 473 623 0 0 63 349 0 0 194 430 0 0 54 192 0 2378
Aug 0 666 613 0 0 621 295 0 0 167 450 0 0 113 151 0 3076
Sep 338 516 578 0 144 253 395 0 166 186 157 0 342 0 123 0 3198
Oct 360 609 513 0 796 466 268 0 199 115 327 0 168 0 180 0 4001
Nov 336 509 374 0 627 633 234 0 176 186 242 0 126 0 89 0 3532
Dec 369 509 364 0 735 775 80 0 225 139 143 0 79 175 37 0 3630
Totals 1403 5698 6525 274 2302 6606 5570 40 766 2065 3356 260 715 762 1483 83 37908
Source: MLF’s previous manager, Ismail Mohamed.

Table-1b: Shows monthly milk+VEG sales between Oct-06 to Feb-09.

Month Sales of Camel Milk and Vegetables/Fruits
Milk (2006-09) VEG/Fruits
Month 06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09 Tot
Jan 0 983 1461 269 0 35 82 0 2830
Feb 0 919 1398 172 0 27 57 0 2573
Mar 0 1004 1280 - 0 83 30 - 2397
Apr 0 980 1051 - 0 241 0 - 2272
May 0 1337 1273 - 0 269 0 - 2879
Jun 0 1476 1690 - 0 94 0 - 3260
Jul 0 1359 1422 - 0 159 390 - 3330
Aug 0 1577 1079 - 0 70 819 - 3545
Sep 652 1805 1463 - 200 48 283 - 4451
Oct 988 1539 1587 - 200 8 90 - 4412
Nov 1048 1473 670 - 123 35 175 - 3524
Dec 968 1484 301 - 112 37 60 - 2962
Totals 3656 15936 14675 441 635 1106 1982 0 38435
Source: MLF’s previous manager, Ismail Mohamed.

Key point, notes and Analysis:

-The above entries did not give specific details/explanations about quantity/amount
sold/produced, type of VEG/Fruit, unit prices, number of staff/camels and so on.
-Therefore, the RM was forced to come up with a strategy to trace back the origins of
above monthly totals. This was particularly needed to find out quantity of milk produced
and number of Camels during above period.
-The best strategy was to collate/gather relevant data/Information from manager and staff
of MLF at the time in order to trace back the origins of above totals.
-As result, the RM collected the following information based on their (staff)
recollections:
i)Exchange rates, USD to Old Somali Shillings (locally called Giinbaar). 1 USD = 15,000
so.sh
ii)Unit price of milk, pint, was 12,000 so.sh

Hence, above figures/information was used to manipulate or regress back monthly totals
to find out corresponding monthly milk output by using simple maths’ techniques.

To minimize or avoid biased reporting, the RM decided to use above table, figures and
other relevant information obtained from staff during revision period in the following
sub-headings in this section. So familiarize yourself with data/entries in above table/s
before reading the remaining of this section. The RM will also reconstruct MLF’s past
production activities to streamline present conflicting held views or opinions of the
director/past-managers/staff and others. Below sub-sections contain tables, brief
comments and analysis to highlight key points and issues for all concerned.

1.1- Camel production/rearing:

This sub-section contains two tables,2 and 3, to trace MLF’s past camel production
activities on the ground
Table-2: Shows the number of camels bought, sold and produced between 2004/5 and
June 2009. (before the current revision Jul-Dec09.

Year No. bought No.produced Totals No sold No owned

(Off-spring) Each
year/total
2005 56 16 72 0 72
2006 14 14 28 0 100
2007 5 31 36 15 121
2008 0 12 12 18 103
2009(to J 0 0 0 0 103(*)-1
Totals 75 73 150 33 183(*)-2
(*)-1: According to this figure/INFO, 34 Camels are unaccounted for.
Either the above INFO is wrong or perhaps camels were lost/died/sold and forgotton.
(*)-2: A total of 183 Camels, including above 34, went through the system. Or a whole
combination of 499 camels (yearly-sums).
Source: Local Representative (LR), Fadumo Hassan.

Key points and issues:

-More information is needed to establish accurate numbers.

-Figures in above table must be treated with caution.
-The RM suspects some double count as well. I will revise them if new NFO come to
light before I send the report.

Table-3: Shows periods when camels were in the farm and/or in Haud
(pastoral). F=farm, P=pastoral and FP,PF= farm+pastoral,
pastoral+farm. Period1=Jan-Mar, period2=Apr-Jun and so on.
year Period1 Period2 Period3 Period4
2005 P P P P
2006 P P PF F
2007 F F F F
2008 F F F F
2009 FP P PF FP
Source: Table-1b and RM.

Key points and issues:

-Its not clear which period in 2005 the camels were bought and why they were not
brought to the farm/field base before Sep 2006.
- The camels stayed in the farm between Sep-06 to Feb-09 as records in table-1b indicate.
It’s difficult to know if there were pastoral ones in the same period.
-Ground managers/officials gave various reasons, below, to justify their sudden decision
to remove camels, 43/33 and their calves, from the farm in Feb-09.
i)Too much pest in the field base ii) camels failed to mate due to lack of rains in Burao
area iii) Lack of fodder to feed the camels
-

1.2 Camel Milk production and Sales:

Please refer back to relevant entry in Table-1b.

For example, if we take Jun-08 milk sales ($1690) we can deduce corresponding total
milk produced in pints as follows:

Number of pints = 1690 divided by 0.8 (12000/15000) = 2113 pints/month. Divide by 30

days gives approx. 71 pints/day and dividing by 2 gives 35.5 pints/session. Since there
were 43 camels in the farm in Jun 2008, the average milk output was 0.8
pints/session/camel. According to camel keepers/herders, very few camels (3-5) were
producing the maximum output per camel (around 3 pints/session). Most camels were
producing between 1-2 pints/session and few even less than that.
Needless to say, this is in line with my field observations in early June 2008. If I
remember correctly, I noted total milk output 45 and 41 pints on two separate occasions,
morning and evening.

Clearly, it is very obvious that milk yields were not only extremely low and difficult to
maintain. But field officials also failed to recognize and highlight this critical and
ongoing problem issue. Besides, milk output took a nose dive in Nov-08 ($670)
compared to Oct-08 ($1587), see table-1b, and continued to do so to Feb-09 ($127). The
RM strongly suspects that this was a major factor, if not the only reason, to remove
camels from the farm. What caused sudden reduction of milk output from Oct-Nov 08
and why field officials failed to inform the director/owner about their decision to remove
the camels is a mystery. Needless to mention, there are some other unexplained
fluctuations and irregularities in both table-1a+1b which need to be looked at.

1.3- Camel Feed production and activities:

Table-4: Shows the types and areas of fodder/grass production on irrigated land in
the farm.
Size of areas in square metres (approximate)
Type Area-1 Area-2 Area-3 Area-4 Total
Alpha G 400 18,000 2,000 0 20,400
Sudan G 0 0 0 600 600
Haqaro(L) 0 0 0 500 500
Majeen(L) 0 0 0 200 200
Totals 400 18,000 2,000 1,300 21,700
Rain-fed grass production along the southern perimeter,
Type Area-5
Alpha 3,500 sq.m
NB: grass produced in this area is not harvested and freely graced by Camels during the day.
Source: farm Supervisor and RM.

Key points and issues:

-Despite its critical importance to MLF, fodder production program was not given a
priority and neglected too.
-For example, large areas around staff HQ which can easily be watered and protected by
staff were not selected for folder cultivation. The size of these areas is approx. 60,000 sq.
metres.
-A lot of empty space in present fodder production areas.
-Not using effective irrigation methods and equipments despite their availability (water
sprinkles and system)
-No one knew quantity of feed produced/harvested in the past.

1.4-Vegetable and Fruit production:

There are no detail records-type, quantity, unit price etc- for fruit and vegetable
production as indicated in table-1a. Although, it was not possible to trace them back, but
the figures in above table-1a gives some general information and idea about past
activities. For more details, please refer back to it.

1.5-Water production and sales:

Apart from few entries indicating water sales in 2006, there were no other records for
water consumption, sales and free scheme for both livestock and pastoral households
(HH).

1.6-Program management, documentation and records:

Putting aside Camel sedentary and related problem issues, the main set backs for MLF’s
field activities were lack of proper management. The fact that there were no
documentations and basic farm/field records, apart from table-1a and 1b, shows the
serious oversight regarding above. This was a major problem for revision program and
RM in more ways than one. The RM had to spend a lot of time and efforts to find basic
data and information about the past from director, staff and previous managers.
Section-2: MLF’s revision program and activities (July-Dec 09)

In the light of section-1, the revision report/activities in this section will address the same
topics and take the same structure/format.

2.1-Camel Production and Rearing.

According to Camel professionals and past studies, a sedentary adult camel require the
minimum inputs per day (half for young ones) i) 12 kg of feed/fodder ii) 20 litres of
water iii) various minerals/vitamins-calcium, iron, phosphates, sulphates, molibdinum,
oxy-tocin, vitamin-E etc. Though it was not possible to quantify and costs
mineral/vitamin inputs. But for revision purposes, minimum sedentary costs for ten
camels were modelled as follows.

Table-5a: Shows basic recommended needs of camels (N=10) per day and month.
inputs 10 Cam Unit price Cost per/d Cost per/m
Feed 120 0.17 20 600
Water 200 0.0025 0.5 15
Staff or other 40 0.21 8.33 250
Totals 28.83 665
Unit prices were based on whole sale prices of feed/water in Sept.
Source: College of Animal Science and past camels studies.

Key points and issues:

-If we assume milk is the only product and its unit price is $1. Such camels must produce
around 30 pints (29) per day to cover costs.
-For meaningful or small profits. Camels need to produce at least twice that figure (60)
pints per day.

Since the Camels were in Haud at the start of revision program, July 09. The RM decided
to bring Camels to the field base in order to check and test sedentary Camel rearing and
production, milk or otherwise. This took few weeks and they arrived on 18 August. Their
type and numbers are summarized as follows.

Table-5b: Shows Camel stock and type in July 09.

Type Female Male Total No.

Adults 40 6 46
Young 12 10 22
Male Bull - 1 1
Totals 52 17 69
NB: The six male camels were sold en-route to the farm.
Adult female category: (N=40)
Number Comments
Milking 13 Middle/end of lactating P
Barren 22 Including three that terminated
their in-borne calves.
In-borne Calves 5 Expected to give birth in Nov.
Source: Revision Manager (RM).

Key points and issues:

-The RM decision and efforts to sell barren and young camels was obstructed by the local
rep (LR) rather needlessly.
-The LR justifications were based on purely sentimental reasons which were against MLF
business interests
-Although some were later sold and a compromise was reached to remove all camels
from the farm, apart from 5 due ones.
-But such delays and misplaced interventions were very expensive and caused
unnecessary confrontations between the RM and LR.

Summary of total number of Camels sold since July 09.

Table-6: Shows number of camels sold during revision

period.

Month Female Male Total

Aug 0 6 6
Sep 7 0 7
Oct 8 0 8
Total 15 6 21
Source: Revision Manager (RM)

At present, MLF has two sets of Camels, one in the farm and the other pastoral.

Table-7: shows MLF’s stock of Camels at 31 Dec 2009

Sets Female Male Total
Farm
Adult 5 0 5
Calves 1 2 3
Sub total 6 2 8

Pastoral F M Tot
Adult 19 1 20
Young 12 10 22
Sub total 31 11 42

Grand total 37 13 50
NB: One due Camel is yet to give birth. Very late and unusual.
Source: RM

Key points and issues:

-The milk output of the four camels which gave birth recently (December) are also very
low, 4 pints/session. An average of two pints/day/camel.
-There is no business logic to leave them on the farm and they should be removed as
quickly as possible.

2.2Camel milk productions and sales:

When Camels arrived in the farm, 13 were milking and majority were camels which gave
birth on May 2008 (Gu season). Though they were at mid/end of their lactating period.
But their combined milk output was recorded for 45 days.

Table-8: Shows combined milk output (N=13) for 45 days, 19 Aug – 3 Oct
2009.
Milk Output Milk Sales
Period AM PM Total Unit price Total
First 15days 5 5 150 $ 1 USD 150
Second “ 7 7 210 A/A 210
Third “ 10 10 300 A/A 300
Totals 330 330 660 660 (*)
(*) The actual amount sold was $560, 495 cash and 65 outstanding at 3 Oct.
100 pints were freely consumed by Family members, 18 percent of total
output. Very high.
Source: RM

Key points and issues:

-MLF hidden problems started when present low milk yielding or unproductive camels
were bought in 2005.
-MLF must get rid off present stock and obtain high milk yielding camels in order to test
and explore viable camel milk business.
-It was not possible to obtain suitable camels during revision period for various reasons
mentioned in earlier reports.

2.3Grass/Feed resource production.

At start of revision program, there were grass in all areas in table-4, sub-section-1.3. For
convenience, I will reproduce part of its contents below.

Size of areas in square metre (approximate)

Type Area-1 Area-2 Area-3 Area-4 Total
Alpha G 400 18,000 2,000 0 20,400
Sudan G 0 0 0 600 600
Haqaro(L) 0 0 0 500 500
Majeen(L) 0 0 0 200 200
Totals 400 18,000 2,000 1,300 21,700

Key points and issues:

-A total of six loads of fodder, worth $3,600, were harvested and 4.5-5 loads (worth
$2,200-3,000) were consumed by camels between 19 Aug to 15 Oct 09.
-In return, camels produced around 760 pints of milk worth $ 760 in the same period.
-Though the RM managed to start the larger sprinkle for the first time since it was
obtained few years back.
-But appropriate electrical connections- wires, sockets and plugs- were not locally
available and various attempts (since Oct) to obtain them from Dubai failed to
materialize.
-Since late October staff is using the old method using heavy or cumbersome pipes to
water grass. This method is time and water intensive and impossible to reach some areas
due to lack of pipes.
-At present, if Xareedda or one of the machines is not working, fodder cannot be watered
due to lack of water. It became more frequent lately and farm staff encountered it more
than four times since Oct.
-The main culprit is fuel costs, according to X’s manager, and unless MLF obtains
sprinkle connections, it should pay fuel costs when X is out of service.

2.4-fruit and vegetable production/sales:

Vegetables:

Vegetable production is a controversial program and its past successes hotly disputed. On
one hand, local representative and staff are claiming profitable veg. production in 2006-
7/8. On the other, the director/owner stated that this not only distracted staff from
feed/milk production, but also never received/saw claimed profits. The question is what
happened to the money/profits?

The RM failed to find any proof and evidence to support above local claims. Besides, the
VEG/fruit sales records in table-1a are inconclusive and impossible to interpret.

Fruits:
 The same is true for past fruit production and sales. However, there are hundreds of fruit
trees in the farm which are summarized in table-9.

Table-9: Shows fruit trees in the farm in December 2009.

Type No of trees No BF No FL No GR No FA
Guava 134 60 50 14 10
Banana 19 0 0 5 14
Sweet oranges 41 0 30 11 0
Large orang 2 0 2 2 0
Lemon 6 0 6 0 0
Maderines 28 0 18 10 0
Mango 13 0 0 13 0
Mango-caad 2 0 0 2 0
Mango-shog 7 0 4 3 0
Papaya 8 0 0 8 0
Bemograna 3 3 0 0 0
Vimto 3 0 0 3 0
Xamar 2 0 2 0 0
Totals 268 63 112 71 24

Source: Former and Present Farm Supervisors (FM)

Key points and issues:

-Apart from some trees, majority of trees are covered by the new irrigation method
established late August and responding to it.
-Most of them are growing and flowering. Many are even bearing fruits, Guava trees in
particular. A basket on every three/four days.
-However, the cold weather stalled their growth and very difficult to say what will
happen next or in few months time.

2.5-Farm/Field water consumption and sales:

Consumption:

Table-10: Shows farm and pastoral water consumption between July to December 09, in
litres.
Water Consumption.
Internal consumption External
Month Adult Young Fruit trees Folder Pastoral Tot
July - - - 0 600,000 600,000
Aug 9,020 2,420 72,000 0 600,000 683,440
Sep 24,600 6,600 1,080 0 300,000 332,280
Oct 16,120 6,600 1,080 0 0 23,800
Nov 3,000 0 1,080 97,600 100,000 201,680
Dec 3,000 0 1,080 97,600 50,000 151,680
Totals 55,740 15,620 76,320 195,200 1,650,000 1,992,880
Figures were obtained from rate of water flow(l) from pipes per minute.
Source: RM

Sales:

Table-10a: Shows water sold to pastoralists from 10-30th December 09, in litres
Month Quantity Unit price Total
Dec 50,000 25 1,250,000 (*)
(*) Actual cash formally recorded/received was 1mn so.sh. The RM detected some
irregularities, but no major concerns so far.
Source: FS and RM, Date: 2 Jan 2010.

Key points and issues:

-Clearly, external water consumption is six times more than internal one. The actual
figure is probably higher.
-The RM’s efforts to reduces and control external consumption and related problem
issues, staff distractions, met stiff resistance and was undermined by local staff and rep.
-For example, I gave written and clear instructions to FS not to service external service
users, pastoralists, other than Thursdays and Sundays. But I saw the FS servicing them on
Saturday morning and asked him why. He stated that “LR (mum) has instructed me to
service them as they come”.
-Though I didn’t discuss this with LR, but this was not the first time LR reversed my
orders and instructions.

2.6-Management, documentations and records:

Unlike the past, MLF has now adopted suitable/formal management and recording
system/s. This is to ensure all field programs/decisions and activities are written and
recorded at all times. The RM not only managed to write/log all revision activities both
inputs and outputs. But also tried very hard to trace back and reconstruct MLF’s past
records and activities in order to conduct and achieve a meaningful review/revision.

At present, all relevant program and organisation documents and records are in place and
up to date which are summarized as follows.
Table-11: Shows MLF and CLASS’ developed documents and records.
Y=Yes and N=No.
Records/documents
All done Some done Not done
Production(Buss. Component)
Milk records Y
Folder Y
Water Y
Fruit N N Y
Camel Y
Staff N Y
Work Y
Work plans Y

Financial (Buss. Component)

Sales records Y
Expenses Y
Quarterly/monthly statements Y
Annual “ (Oct08-Sep09) N Y
Balance Sheet “ N Y
Revision reports Y

Structure/program (Dev Com)

Constitution/rules Y
Policies(staff,vol,bank, finan) N Y
Partnership/s Y
Proposals (CLASS+UB) N Y (5 props)
Source: RM date: Jan 2010.

However, there are some lingering and teething problem issues in maintaining records.
Most locals don’t appreciate/keep written records and all MLF’s present local
staff/officials are illiterate, can’t write or read. Hence, they need to be encouraged and
monitored on regular basis (monthly) as I did with the current FS.

Present ground staff and/or officials:

Table11a: Shows MLF’s staffing level during revision period. (July-Dec 2009)

Staff/officials P Manager F Workers C Herders Volunteer/s Totals

Number 1 3 2 2 8
Source: RM.
 Table11b: Show CLASS’ present volunteers and officials.

Staff/Officials Management Volun Assistants Totals

Number 5 2 7
Source: RM.

Section-3: Revision program’s development components:

Despite encountering many and unforeseen problems, the RM managed to set-up and
established MLF’s development structure. As already mentioned, this structure is called
CLASS, Camel Livestock Animal Support Services, and registered with Togdher’s
regional authority institutions. CLASS’ management committee (MC) secured formal
partnership with University of Burao (UB) which is currently assisting both CLASS and
MLF to attract common development resources. So far this partnership managed to
facilitate the following.

Table-12: Show number of developed program proposals and submitted to funding institutions.
Development Institutions/Orgnaisations
Proposals FAO UNDP AU/IBAR OIM USAID DRC EC Others Total
1-Animal feed 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 5
2-Animal health 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
3-Market Facility 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3
4-Train + CB 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
5-Program Deve. 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 4
Totals 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 19
Source: RM

Although the CLASS and UB managed to convince and influence key authority
ministers, livestock and planning, to support and push above proposals through relevant
development structures. But there are some other barriers, processes and bottle-necks to
overcome in the next few months. It is therefore very important for UB, CLASS, MLF
and others to maintain regular follow-up and press both development and authority
officials in Hargeisa and Nairobi.

Securing the approval of meaningful number of proposals, 5-10, will certainly depend on
applicants lobby activities in the next two months. Of course non-approval of all
proposals is a possibility, though, it is highly unlikely. I’m very confident at least 2 will
be approved. But a lot of resources and efforts were put into those ventures, hence, we
must demand and target a lot more than 2. Contacting and engaging MO Planning and
senior development managers is a key in achieving meaningful number, 5-10.
Section-4: Wider and relevant livestock production and development issues:

4.1-Sedentary livestock production (range system):

This system is mainly practiced in wet regions, US and EU, where local producers attract
and access government public subsidies and services in more ways than one. Although
the economic benefits and successes of this system are widely promoted, but there many
hidden costs and biases which most people are now aware of.

1-This system requires large area/s of rangeland.

2-It’s very expensive due to various costly inputs- fencing, hi-tech facilities, services etc.
3-Need favouring authority policies and protection to access markets.
4-Meat and NOT MILK is the key production objective. Demand for camel meat is very
low and supply is plentiful, locally or otherwise.
5-Finally, such system is not recommended in dry and arid lands. Unless the motive is
purely on sentimental/cultural grounds and needs, as in the case of Gulf States.

4.2-Milk dairy farm/productions:

Likewise, milk dairy farms also require substantial investment and costly inputs. As well
as producing and selling various milk by-products. At present, there various constraints
against MLF’s intentions to develop camel milk dairy farm.

1-Most Camels in Somalia/Land are low milk yielding camels.

2-Local people prefer raw or untreated milk.
3-Competing against very cheap milk and unregulated local producers managed by
dubious traders.
4-Lack of access to basic LS services.

4.3-Feed production and resources:

At present, there are severe shortages of animal feed in the region as whole. Therefore,
folder or animal feed is extremely expensive and more so in dry seasons. Besides, LS
export ban was recent lifted and this will further increase local folder demand and prices.

Since camels need lot of folder on daily basis and MLF has to produce required feed. Sky
rocketing feed prices will make any camel milk business a lost making one. So if MLF’s
motive is profit and economic oriented, folder business is where it should be. Unlike
camels/livestock, feed production is hassle free and lot easier to handle.
Section-5: Recommendations.

5.1-Milk production or program:

a- Both revision and past milk records clearly indicate that camels were
unproductive. Hence, MLF must freeze this program and get rid-off present stock
as soon as possible.
b- Despite the evidence against profitable camel milk business, if MLF is still want
to test or pursue such venture. MLF must obtain high milk yielding camels, if and
when possible.
c- Pastoralists produce livestock because of their milk and rarely sell productive few
to any one. So MLF need to take due care or seriously consider obtaining such
camels elsewhere.
d- Most importantly, MLF must stop thinking about LS production unless first
securing favouring policies and subsidies from common public resources. This
issue is not only hidden, but a contagious global LS development problem as well.

5.2-Feed production:

Since folder is valuable and expensive local resource, MLF need to

a- Prioritize and concentrate in developing feed production business by

strengthening its present capacity.
b- Organise and utilize all available field resources and equipment by setting up
large water sprinkle as soon a s possible.
c- But additional water rubber pipes similar to current black ones. 500-1,000 metre
long pipe will do the job.
d- Of course, removing camels from the farm is a pre-condition to increased folder
production and sales.

5.3- Water consumption and sales:

Water is a precious and priceless local resource, and it should be controlled and used
efficiently. I will recommend/suggest the following.

a- Deploy water sprinkle system as it is both cost efficient and effective folder
irrigation. Make sure that current fruit tree drip watering system is maintained and
repaired regularly.
b- Strictly control and monitor established water sales and service for pastoralists.
Limit access to two days only to minimize staff distractions and misuse/abuse.
c- A night guard/person to stop wild creatures and protect plantation areas and pipes
will be useful. Or explore suitable strategy to prevent hyena intrusions at nights.

5.4-Vegetable production:
Test and find out whether ongoing local claims of profitable vegetable production are
true or not. The program started in December, but not in full swing yet.

5.5-Staff

In order to test a non-family manager and reduce costs I will suggest the following

a- Replace RM with mentioned local manager and admin. Assistant (present

volunteer) to handle electronic records and web based communications/sites. (A
total cost of $200 per month)
b- Three farm/feed production workers, including FS. (A total cost of $115 per m)
c- A night guard to stop wild creatures, hyenas. (Costing $30 per month)

5.6-Management and records:

Make sure that present setup and records are maintained and complied with.

a- Ensure the manager enforces rules and keep accurate records by

b- Demanding written monthly reports and records, both production and financial.
c- Make sure that family members on the ground/field don’t interfere with
manager’s decisions and field operations.

5.7-Development programs, activities and related issues:

I strongly suggest and advice MLF’s director and manager to

a- Maintain present level of contact, support and co-operation with CLASS’

management and UB officials.
b- Engage and encourage them to follow-up proposals, press authority and
development officials.
c- Direct lobby and advocacy campaigns targeted at top authority officials in
Hargeisa, MO Planning among others, to secure submitted proposals.
Section-6: Financial and related issues:

6.1-Revision program/activities: (July-December 2009.

Table13: Shows MLF’s revision finance, USD. (Jul-Dec 2009)

Total income and expenditure
Period Income Expenditure Balance
Jul-Sep 2009 18,370 9,522 8,848
Oct-Dec 2009 1,072 7,075 2,845
Totals 19,442 16,597 (*)
(*) Balance on 10 January, USD 2,845. For more details see revision finance.
Source: RM.

6.2- Revision extension, if approved: (Jan to June 2010)

Table13a: Shows predicted income and expenses of revision

(Jan-Jun 2010), if approved.

Items
Income/expenses Feed water Vegetable Totals
Income
Present 1,000 0 0 1,000
Predicted 6,000 1,000 ?? 7,000+?
Sub total 7,000 1,000 ?? 8,000+?

Expenses Staff Food+fuel Others Totals

Predicted 1,800 1,250 500 3,550

Source: RM

Comments:

This provisional financial forecast for revision extension period (Jan to Jun) is not only
self financing. But also profit making one, $ 4,000 plus if above are true. Clearly, a 50
percent reduction of predicted income, will still cover predicted expenses in full. This is
an incentive to extend the revision program and get rid-off current RM. A win, win
situation for both RM and MLF