Final Revision Report

8/14/2019 Final Revision Report

1/18

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 MLFs Past Activities:(2004/5-June09).

Apart from monthly totals of sales and expenses in table-1a+1b (below), the revisionmanager (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 byprevious manager of MLF, Ismail Mohamed.

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

Monthly Expenses

Staff (2006-9) Fuel Food Others To

Month 06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09

06 07 08 09 06 07 08 09

an 0 380 497 274

0 784 812 0 0 225 170 151

0 75 122 48

353

eb 0 370 568 0 0 724 1133

40

0 215 190 109

0 94 74 35

355

Mar 0 382 567 0 0 759 1048

0 0 227 348 0 0 111

136 0 357

pr 0 390 568 0 0 857 336 0 0 198 340 0 0 30 80 0 279

May 0 349 575 0 0 608 251 0 0 213 264 0 0 0 119 0 237

un 0 545 685 0 0 63 369 0 0 0 295 0 0 11

0

180 0 224

ul 0 473 623 0 0 63 349 0 0 194 430 0 0 54 192 0 237

ug 0 666 613 0 0 621 295 0 0 167 450 0 0 113

151 0 307

ep 338 516 578 0 144 253 395 0 166

186 157 0 342

0 123 0 319

ct 360 609 513 0 796 466 268 0 199

115 327 0 168

0 180 0 400

ov 336 509 374 0 627 633 234 0 176

186 242 0 126

0 89 0 353

ec 369 509 364 0 735 775 80 0 225

139 143 0 79 175

37 0 363

otals 140

3

569

8

652

5

27

4

230

2

660

6

557

0

4

0

76

6

206

5

335

6

26

0

71

5

76

2

148

3

8

3

379


2/18

ource: MLFs previous manager, Ismail Mohamed.

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

Month Sales of Camel Milk and Vegetables/FruitsMilk (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: MLFs previous manager, Ismail Mohamed.

Key point, notes and Analysis:

-The above entries did not give specific details/explanations about quantity/amountsold/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 ofabove monthly totals. This was particularly needed to find out quantity of milk producedand number of Camels during above period.-The best strategy was to collate/gather relevant data/Information from manager and staffof 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 = 15,000so.sh

ii)Unit price of milk, pint, was 12,000 so.sh

Hence, above figures/information was used to manipulate or regress back monthly totalsto 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 andother relevant information obtained from staff during revision period in the followingsub-headings in this section. So familiarize yourself with data/entries in above table/s


3/18

before reading the remaining of this section. The RM will also reconstruct MLFs pastproduction activities to streamline present conflicting held views or opinions of thedirector/past-managers/staff and others. Below sub-sections contain tables, briefcomments 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 MLFs past camel productionactivities 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

(Off-spring)

Totals No sold No owned

Eachyear/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 tolight 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


4/18

2008 F F F F

2009 FP P PF FP

Source: Table-1b and RM.


-Its not clear which period in 2005 the camels were bought and why they were notbrought 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.Its difficult to know if there were pastoral ones in the same period.-Ground managers/officials gave various reasons, below, to justify their sudden decisionto 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 Buraoarea 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 totalmilk produced in pints as follows:

Number of pints = 1690 divided by 0.8 (12000/15000) = 2113 pints/month. Divide by 30days gives approx. 71 pints/day and dividing by 2 gives 35.5 pints/session. Since therewere 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) wereproducing the maximum output per camel (around 3 pints/session). Most camels wereproducing 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 Iremember 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 tomaintain. But field officials also failed to recognize and highlight this critical andongoing 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 removecamels from the farm. What caused sudden reduction of milk output from Oct-Nov 08and why field officials failed to inform the director/owner about their decision to removethe camels is a mystery. Needless to mention, there are some other unexplainedfluctuations and irregularities in both table-1a+1b which need to be looked at.

1.3- Camel Feed production and activities:


5/18

Table-4: Shows the types and areas of fodder/grass production on irrigated land in

the farm.

TypeSize of areas in square metres (approximate)

Area-1 Area-2 Area-3 Area-4 Total

Alpha G 400 18,000 2,000 0 20,400Sudan 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.


-Despite its critical importance to MLF, fodder production program was not given apriority and neglected too.-For example, large areas around staff HQ which can easily be watered and protected bystaff 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 (watersprinkles 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 vegetableproduction as indicated in table-1a. Although, it was not possible to trace them back, butthe figures in above table-1a gives some general information and idea about pastactivities. 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 forwater consumption, sales and free scheme for both livestock and pastoral households(HH).


6/18

1.6-Program management, documentation and records:

Putting aside Camel sedentary and related problem issues, the main set backs for MLFsfield 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 theserious oversight regarding above. This was a major problem for revision program andRM in more ways than one. The RM had to spend a lot of time and efforts to find basicdata and information about the past from director, staff and previous managers.

Section-2: MLFs revision program and activities (July-Dec 09)

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

2.1-Camel Production and Rearing.

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


-If we assume milk is the only product and its unit price is $1. Such camels must producearound 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 decidedto bring Camels to the field base in order to check and test sedentary Camel rearing and


7/18

production, milk or otherwise. This took few weeks and they arrived on 18 August. Theirtype 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 terminatedtheir in-borne calves.

In-borne Calves 5 Expected to give birth in Nov.Source: Revision Manager (RM).


-The RM decision and efforts to sell barren and young camels was obstructed by the localrep (LR) rather needlessly.-The LR justifications were based on purely sentimental reasons which were against MLFbusiness interests-Although some were later sold and a compromise was reached to remove all camelsfrom the farm, apart from 5 due ones.

-But such delays and misplaced interventions were very expensive and causedunnecessary 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 8Total 15 6 21

Source: Revision Manager (RM)

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


8/18

Table-7: shows MLFs 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


-The milk output of the four camels which gave birth recently (December) are also verylow, 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 asquickly as possible.

2.2Camel milk productions and sales:

When Camels arrived in the farm, 13 were milking and majority were camels which gavebirth 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.

PeriodMilk Output Milk Sales

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 totaloutput. Very high.

Source: RM



9/18

-MLF hidden problems started when present low milk yielding or unproductive camelswere bought in 2005.-MLF must get rid off present stock and obtain high milk yielding camels in order to testand 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. Forconvenience, I will reproduce part of its contents below.

TypeSize of areas in square metre (approximate)

Area-1 Area-2 Area-3 Area-4 Total

Alpha G 400 18,000 2,000 0 20,400Sudan 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


-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 wasobtained few years back.-But appropriate electrical connections- wires, sockets and plugs- were not locallyavailable and various attempts (since Oct) to obtain them from Dubai failed tomaterialize.-Since late October staff is using the old method using heavy or cumbersome pipes towater grass. This method is time and water intensive and impossible to reach some areasdue to lack of pipes.-At present, if Xareedda or one of the machines is not working, fodder cannot be watereddue to lack of water. It became more frequent lately and farm staff encountered it morethan four times since Oct.

-The main culprit is fuel costs, according to Xs manager, and unless MLF obtainssprinkle connections, it should pay fuel costs when X is out of service.

2.4-fruit and vegetable production/sales:

Vegetables:


10/18

Vegetable production is a controversial program and its past successes hotly disputed. Onone 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 fromfeed/milk production, but also never received/saw claimed profits. The question is whathappened to the money/profits?

The RM failed to find any proof and evidence to support above local claims. Besides, theVEG/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 fruittrees 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 FAGuava 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 0Vimto 3 0 0 3 0

Xamar 2 0 2 0 0

Totals 268 63 112 71 24

Source: Former and Present Farm Supervisors (FM)


-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 inparticular. A basket on every three/four days.-However, the cold weather stalled their growth and very difficult to say what willhappen next or in few months time.

2.5-Farm/Field water consumption and sales:


11/18

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 someirregularities, but no major concerns so far.

Source: FS and RM, Date: 2 Jan 2010.


-Clearly, external water consumption is six times more than internal one. The actualfigure is probably higher.-The RMs efforts to reduces and control external consumption and related problemissues, 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 onSaturday morning and asked him why. He stated that LR (mum) has instructed me toservice them as they come.-Though I didnt discuss this with LR, but this was not the first time LR reversed myorders and instructions.


12/18

2.6-Management, documentations and records:

Unlike the past, MLF has now adopted suitable/formal management and recordingsystem/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 bothinputs and outputs. But also tried very hard to trace back and reconstruct MLFs pastrecords 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 andup to date which are summarized as follows.

Table-11: Shows MLF and CLASS developed documents and records.

Records/documentsY=Yes and N=No.

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 YExpenses 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 dont appreciate/keep written records and all MLFs present localstaff/officials are illiterate, cant write or read. Hence, they need to be encouraged andmonitored on regular basis (monthly) as I did with the current FS.


13/18

Present ground staff and/or officials:

Table11a: Shows MLFs 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 TotalsManagement Volun Assistants

Number 5 2 7

Source: RM.

Section-3: Revision programs development components:

Despite encountering many and unforeseen problems, the RM managed to set-up andestablished MLFs development structure. As already mentioned, this structure is calledCLASS, Camel Livestock Animal Support Services, and registered with Togdhersregional authority institutions. CLASS management committee (MC) secured formalpartnership with University of Burao (UB) which is currently assisting both CLASS andMLF to attract common development resources. So far this partnership managed tofacilitate 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 4Totals 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 19

Source: RM

Although the CLASS and UB managed to convince and influence key authorityministers, livestock and planning, to support and push above proposals through relevant


14/18

development structures. But there are some other barriers, processes and bottle-necks toovercome in the next few months. It is therefore very important for UB, CLASS, MLFand others to maintain regular follow-up and press both development and authorityofficials in Hargeisa and Nairobi.

Securing the approval of meaningful number of proposals, 5-10, will certainly depend onapplicants lobby activities in the next two months. Of course non-approval of allproposals is a possibility, though, it is highly unlikely. Im very confident at least 2 willbe approved. But a lot of resources and efforts were put into those ventures, hence, wemust demand and target a lot more than 2. Contacting and engaging MO Planning andsenior 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 attractand access government public subsidies and services in more ways than one. Althoughthe economic benefits and successes of this system are widely promoted, but there manyhidden costs and biases which most people are now aware of.

1-This system requires large area/s of rangeland.2-Its 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 verylow and supply is plentiful, locally or otherwise.5-Finally, such system is not recommended in dry and arid lands. Unless the motive ispurely 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 wellas producing and selling various milk by-products. At present, there various constraintsagainst MLFs 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 bydubious traders.4-Lack of access to basic LS services.

4.3-Feed production and resources:


15/18

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, LSexport 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 MLFsmotive is profit and economic oriented, folder business is where it should be. Unlikecamels/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 wereunproductive. Hence, MLF must freeze this program and get rid-off present stockas soon as possible.

b- Despite the evidence against profitable camel milk business, if MLF is still wantto test or pursue such venture. MLF must obtain high milk yielding camels, if andwhen possible.

c- Pastoralists produce livestock because of their milk and rarely sell productive fewto any one. So MLF need to take due care or seriously consider obtaining suchcamels elsewhere.

d- Most importantly, MLF must stop thinking about LS production unless firstsecuring favouring policies and subsidies from common public resources. Thisissue 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 bystrengthening its present capacity.

b- Organise and utilize all available field resources and equipment by setting uplarge water sprinkle as soon a s possible.

c- But additional water rubber pipes similar to current black ones. 500-1,000 metrelong pipe will do the job.

d- Of course, removing camels from the farm is a pre-condition to increased folderproduction and sales.

5.3- Water consumption and sales:


16/18

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

a- Deploy water sprinkle system as it is both cost efficient and effective folderirrigation. 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 pipeswill 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 aretrue 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 (presentvolunteer) to handle electronic records and web based communications/sites. (Atotal 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 byb- Demanding written monthly reports and records, both production and financial.c- Make sure that family members on the ground/field dont interfere with

managers decisions and field operations.

5.7-Development programs, activities and related issues:

I strongly suggest and advice MLFs director and manager to

a- Maintain present level of contact, support and co-operation with CLASSmanagement and UB officials.


17/18

b- Engage and encourage them to follow-up proposals, press authority anddevelopment officials.

c- Direct lobby and advocacy campaigns targeted at top authority officials inHargeisa, MO Planning among others, to secure submitted proposals.

Section-6: Financial and related issues:

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

Table13: Shows MLFs revision finance, USD. (Jul-Dec 2009)

PeriodTotal income and expenditure

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.

Income/expensesItemsFeed 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+fue Others Totals


18/18

l

Predicted 1,800 1,250 500 3,550

Source: RM

Comments:

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

Final Revision Report

Documents

Transcript of Final Revision Report