Figures given are approximations as reliable statistics are unavailable

80% percent of the population live east of Hargeisa, 90% of the national revenue is generated east of Hargeisa but 80% of the aid delivered to Somaliland goes to the west of Hargeisa.

It is the pastoralist society which supports this country by the supply of livestock for export, the export tax of which provides 95% of government revenue. However very little aid goes to this all important sector of society both in terms of numbers and importance to the economic well being of the nation. On the contrary the current aid programmes seem to be detrimental to the pastoral society.

Hargeisa pre-war comprised of around 120,000 people, today this number has tripled. Many of these extras are from the rural areas. Many current aid programmes are directed toward alleviating the problems of this and other towns of the country and their excessive populations. These extra numbers are due to an urban drift. This drift is from the rural, pastoral, society. The pastoral society is being deprived of its strong labour leaving only old people and children to care for the nation's lifeblood, livestock. Rather than continuing to make urban life attractive, even where there is no chance of employment, aid should be re-directed to rural areas. It should be more attractive to live in the rural areas than to be in town and unemployed which seems not to be the case today.

VetAid is a Scotland based charity working in the livestock field in developing countries and has been working in Somaliland since 1991, firstly in Erigavo, later in Sool and is now based in Hargeisa. VetAid is currently working in both the Agro-pastoral sector and in the Pastoral sector.

In the programme there is a section entitled "Advocacy on behalf of the Pastoralist" and it is in this spirit that I present this paper today for your attention and perhaps discussion.

Somaliland is unique. All Somalis are aware of this fact. Though they do not understand it in the context of this paper. Somaliland is unique in that it is the only country, so far as

I am aware, which derives almost its entire national wealth, both government revenue and private, directly from the livestock population. 60% of the population of this country are pastoralists and as such their only means of support are their livestock. They have no other income source. 20% of the population are agro-pastoralists, the majority of whom consume their entire crop production and depend upon livestock and livestock product sales for any cash income. During the livestock ban imposed by the nation's main purchaser of livestock in 1998-99 the remaining 20% of the population realized how closely they were tied to the economic health of the livestock sector when their

businesses suffered due to the lack of cash available for commerce. The whole country is entirely dependant upon the livestock sector.

However 80% of the aid goes to Hargeisa and west of the town, supporting only 20% of the population who are almost unproductive in terms of export earnings. 20% goes east of Hargeisa to the much neglected 80% sector of the population, upon which the nation is fully dependant. This neglect has gone on for decades but cannot continue indefinitely, today the livestock sector is like a cow which is being milked without feeding it. It is not yet dead but it is seriously malnourished and extremely ill. If Somaliland is to become self sufficient, surely the vast majority of aid should be directed at this component?

Because of this uniqueness Somaliland should not be treated as other countries have been treated in the past by aid agencies. There is a need for a different approach. Other African countries have a diversified economy, livestock, crops, a fishing industry, mining, tourism, handicrafts, light or heavy industry, expertise for sale etc. etc. Of these Somaliland has only livestock. This fact needs to be recognised and any aid programmes should be channeled into this sector to enable Somaliland to get back onto its collective, economic feet as a priority rather than to use the same old tattered blue print that has failed so miserably in other situations. Today VetAid is the only agency working actively full time in the pastoral sector. There is a small input by UNHCR, Danish Refugee Council, Terra Nuova and other agencies but these activities are minor compared to their other aid programmes.

As stated above, the livestock sector is all important in the livelihood of the nation. This is the engine room of the country. This is where the strong labour is needed, where the decision makers should be active, where investment should be made to generate a steady flow of quality export material, i.e. livestock. Today a trip to the rural areas will show you that this is not the case. Today the strong men are leaving the rural areas, they are migrating to the towns. Only the old and the children remain behind to care for the animals. Life in town is far more pleasant than in the rural areas so that is where they head for. Today, other than the de-mining agencies, almost all aid programmes are trying to make the urban centres a nicer place to live. Today, even if unemployed, it is better to be in town than looking after sheep and goats in the pastoral areas. Is this what the nation requires?

Recently the Mayor of Hargeisa pledged that he would "make Hargeisa a better place to live in" (The Republican of Saturday July 8t".) I understand his motives but I question whether this is what is good for the country as a whole rather than from the resident's viewpoint. Making Hargeisa "a pleasant place to live will only encourage the urban drift, a drift which this country cannot afford. Today Hargeisa has roughly 350,000 inhabitants, prior to the war there were 120,000 people. Where have this extra 230,000 people come from? Pastoral areas via the refugee camps. Do we want them in town do we need them in town? Does Somaliland want legions of unemployed in the towns searching for non- existent work? I would prefer to meet them in the rural areas as livestock keepers.

Were the rural areas a pleasant place to live and work, if the returns were such that a good lifestyle could be assured from the livestock sector, if rural villages had the requisite infrastructure to enable pastoralists to exist in health and dignity surely there would be no inclination to migrate to town. However today the aid programmes seem to trying to make town life a highly desirable state with the net result that the quality workforce upon which the nation depends is deserting it's post and heading for the bright lights of town. Surely the priority of an international aid programme, a reconstruction programme, should be to stabilize the economy, to improve the resource base, ensure sustainable production, to ensure maximum employment, and to expand the potential for income generation at a national level? Are we doing this?

If the livestock sector were supported so that producers obtained a healthy income from keeping livestock as a business, far more income would be generated for the owner and for the national coffers. If the Somali had more cash in his pocket he would/could rebuild the nation in the Somali way, he would decide his own priorities and we would not see empty M.C.H. clinics, un-used hospitals, under utilized rural schools etc. If the community were to fund their own development they would ensure that nurses were available and that they could pay the nurse, supply drugs and equipment, they would know that funds to run a school were available before even starting on construction. The building would probably not be so grandiose but would be serviceable and constructed at much less cost than the present edifices. All they need is the funding which would be generated by a healthy livestock industry. This money would be their own, they would have pride of accomplishment, they would ensure that the structure was maintained because it is their own. Repairs would be carried out because "It is our school". They would not be running to an aid agency to say "Can you please come and repair the roof of your school because it blew away last night".

It is my contention that development aid should be directed toward the livestock sector. The livestock sector should be assisted to become dynamic, market oriented, healthy and the rural areas to be a good place in which to live. The livestock sector is based on the pastoral community, it is toward the pastoralist that the thrust of the aid programmes should be aimed. Education, livestock husbandry, life skills etc. Education to allow them to make the most of their livestock and to reap the benefits from their business. Aid should be directed to enabling Somaliland to meet O.I.E. regulations which relate to meat/livestock export standards. Aid should be directed toward enabling a wider market both geographical and product (frozen and chilled carcasses). Enable the livestock sector and the livestock sector will rebuild the country in "the Somali way".

As stated above, Somaliland is unique and needs a unique approach to development. Since the end of colonialism in Africa and elsewhere, aid programmes have inadvertently created major urban conglomerates with the resultant unrest, high crime rates, prostitution, shantytowns, slums, street children, and other social ills that we see over and over again. Do we have to make these same mistakes here? Can we not learn from past effors?

I do agree that this is perhaps an over-simplification of the problems of the country which the aid agencies are trying to combat but I do feel that much of the aid is mis-directed and would be better utilized in the livestock sector and the pastoral/rural areas. However most people in this room are engaged in other non-livestock activities, how many of you, after listening to this paper, and even if in total agreement would be prepared to write to your headquarters and say to the effect, I am not needed here can you please send a livestock man to replace me?"

Derek J. Massey C.P.C.