Protection Analysis Somaliland 2019

Contents
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Context Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 4
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) ............................................................................................................. 5
Focus Group Discussions (FGD)............................................................................................................. 5
Observation........................................................................................................................................... 5
House Hold Data Survey ....................................................................................................................... 5
Respondents ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Protection Risks and Coping Mechanisms .................................................................................................... 6
Rape ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Forced and Early Marriage .................................................................................................................... 7
Domestic violence ................................................................................................................................. 7
Revenge killings and killings related to clan conflicts ........................................................................... 8
Issues related to privacy (lack of proper shelter, open defecation) ..................................................... 8
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) ......................................................................................................... 8
Evictions ................................................................................................................................................ 9
IDP/host community conflicts............................................................................................................... 9
Other risks: .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Falling into wells/drowning................................................................................................................... 9
Debt....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Animal attacks ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Qat....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Vulnerabilities to threats ............................................................................................................................ 10
Women and girls ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Men and boys ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Minority groups ...................................................................................................................................... 10
People with disabilities ........................................................................................................................... 10
Mapping of Actors and Referral Services.................................................................................................... 11
Community Structures ............................................................................................................................ 11
GBV Services ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Medical Services.................................................................................................................................. 12
Psychological/Mental Health Services ................................................................................................ 12
Legal Services ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Safe Programming....................................................................................................................................... 13
Selection processes/targeting................................................................................................................. 13
Information and communication ............................................................................................................ 13
Practical implementation ........................................................................................................................ 14
Complaints mechanisms ......................................................................................................................... 14
Needs and Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 14
Needs ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 15
Annexes ....................................................................................................................................................... 16

1
Introduction:
Oxfam has been operating and implementing development and humanitarian projects in
Somaliland/Somalia for over 16 years, with WASH, Food Security, Livelihoods and Protection
components. In March 2017, Oxfam began a humanitarian response to drought- and conflict-affected
populations in Elafwein, Ainabo and Lasanod Districts in the Sool and Sanaag regions in Somaliland. The
overall objective of the programme is to contribute to reducing acute humanitarian needs and increase
the dignity of the most vulnerable men, women and children affected by drought in Somaliland. The
organization has reached over 449,212 people so far since 2017.

This Protection analysis is carried out as part of an ECHO-funded project in Sool and Sanaag, with the
aim of informing and supporting programming, policy and advocacy work.

Context Analysis
Somaliland claimed independence from Somalia in 1991 (although it has never been officially recognized
by the international community, it has effectively governed its own territory since then). Sool and
Sanaag were part of British Somaliland when it became independent in 1960; however since 1998,
Puntland has claimed these regions based on the ethnic composition of their inhabitants and on their
clan ties to Puntland. The resulting border and governance dispute and historical clan conflicts have
meant that confrontations and violence are common, resulting in large-scale displacements of rural
civilian populations, limitations to movements and difficult access to resources, services and
livelihoods.1

The intense and persistent drought which began in 2016 has devastated Somaliland and wiped out
millions of livestock, the key to rural livelihoods. Erratic rains and abnormally hot and dry conditions in
the first half of 2019 further exacerbated the drought crisis, and over 700,000 people have been
displaced. Recovery remains elusive, as drought conditions continue and people lack the resources
needed to rebuild livelihoods. Protracted displacement and recurring clan-based conflicts amplify
protection risks, as competition for resources increases.2

The ECHO project targets 16 villages in the three districts of Ainabo, Elafwein and Lasanod, whilst a top-
up covers another eight villages. This study was carried out in nine out of the initial 16 villages targeted
by the project between July and August 2019, as illustrated by the below map:

1 Conflict in Sool region: A Rapid needs assessment (26-28 September,2018)

2 Eastern Somaliland Protection Briefing Note December 2018

2
The patterns of displacement in the target villages are as follows:

Location Areas of origin Length of Reasons for

displacement displacement
Fadhigaab Nearby villages – Wareeg, Most arrived in 2017 Loss of livestock,
Siigodheer, Saancaro, and 2018, but arrivals clan conflicts
Samaado have increased in last
three months
Huluul Nearby villages – Wareeg, Arrivals have increased Loss of livestock,
Balooley, Xaniin, Sugaale, in last three months clan conflicts
Xaladho
Ceel Lahelay Nearby villages – Most arrived in 2017 Clan disputes,
Karamaan, Ban Cade and 2018, but arrivals water shortages
Deexo, Macmacda, Cayn have increased in last
Daaddhere, Fadhigaab, three months
Sincaro, Dogoble, God-
dheere, Ceegaag
Shoodhe IDPs Nearby villages – Most arrived in 2016 Clan conflicts,
Dararwayne, and 2017, but arrivals people looking for
Dhabarmamac, Dogoble assistance

3
 have increased in last
three months
Maraalay Tabtaag, Dhumay, Most arrived in 2018. Loss of assets,
Dharkayn Genyo Disagreement between people coming to
adult women and find family
young women and men members
over whether there
have been new arrivals
in the past three
months
Dhagax Isku Row Dhumay Most arrived in late Clan conflict
2018. No new arrivals
Fadhiyar Wadhka, Salal, Cadceed Most arrived between Clan conflict,
Suxull, Marqacado, Laan 2017 and 2019. water shortages
Xalaal, Dandooyo, Jidhaan Disagreement between
Buur, Maraaga adult women and men
and young women over
new arrivals
Godheeli Waxari ka Ciday, Most arrived since Clan conflicts,
Bandcade, Caloolo, 2017. Disagreement water and
Daadheere, Kawsawayne between women and livestock shortages
men over new arrivals
– adult men said some
IDPs have left after
they didn’t receive
assistance
Oog IDPs Buurdhaab, Buurcaanod, Most arrived in 2017 Loss of livestock,
Godheeli, Fadhigaab, and 2018, but arrivals clan conflicts and
Fadhiyar, Gowsawayne, have increased in last water shortages
Ceel Lahelay, Tuulo three months
Caligari, Taygaro, Boho,
Sigadheer, Higlaale,
Marqa Cado, Ceeldeer

Methodology
The protection analysis employed a mixed methodology where both quantitative (HHD survey) and
qualitative (FGDs, KIIs) data collection was used. A desk review was carried out to gain an understanding
of the current situation and a preliminary analysis of the existing protection issues and gaps. This builds
on the protection analysis done in 2018, protection trend monitoring reports and other relevant reports
produced by other stakeholders operational in the areas.

All data from FGDs, KIIs and the household survey was documented with necessary ethical
considerations. All necessary data quality control measures were put in place during the field work,
ensuring data protection during collection, storage, transfer, analysis and reporting.

4
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
Key informant interviews were conducted at community and district levels. 3 KIIs were carried out in
each assessment site comprising one male village leader, one female leader and one Community
Protection Volunteer (CPV). In addition, 3 KIIs were conducted at district level comprising one male
authority representative and one female activist from district-based organizations or the district
authority; and the third KII respondent was chosen from an international or a local organisation
operational in the target area.

Focus Group Discussions (FGD)

FGDs were carried out in each of the nine communities targeted for the survey. Each group was
interviewed by a facilitator and notetaker of the same sex as the group. Each facilitator had a basic guide
to follow during the FGD, covering the key questions to be answered in the analysis. Each FGD lasted
around 90 minutes.

A total of 37 FGDs were conducted in target areas, with 426 participants (234 female). For the FGDs,
purposive sampling was used. This involves selecting a focus group sample with specific characteristics
determined as being able to supply the required information. For this research, the purposive sampling
looked at groups of adult men, young men, elderly men and adult women, young women and elderly
women all interviewed separately. The selection of the specific participants was done using maximum
variation sampling, selecting a group to represent a wide range of experiences within the population
category. The criteria were explained in the FGD interview guide to ensure diversity of the group
participants, and the FGD facilitators were trained. For example, the group of adult females consisted of
women heads of household, a disabled woman, a woman with children, a widow, etc. to ensure a wide
range of perspectives.

Observation
A walk through the community was made in each of the targeted villages to observe potential danger
zones (eg distribution points) and areas that have at-risk groups, such as women headed households.
The main aim of the observation was to identify potential problems or negative effects of humanitarian
interventions. The opportunity was also used to speak to members of the community who did not
participate in the FGDs. Brief notes were taken on the walk and a short amount of time was taken
afterwards to complete anything that there was not time to write down.

House Hold Data Survey

The household survey was conducted in nine villages under the Sool and Sanaag regions. A total of 348
respondents were interviewed, with the sample determined through taking 95% confidence level and
5% margin of error. Data collection was carried out using the Mobenzi digital data collection tool, which
allows for data capture in the field using mobile phones to minimize errors during data collection. A
team of eight enumerators (four male and four female) supported the data collection process.

Respondents
Respondents in this analysis are broken down by category and sex as follows:

HH Survey (people FGDs (number plus

Location KIIs (people targeted)
targeted) people targeted)

5
 Female- Male-
Female Male Female Male
Headed Headed
Fadhigaab 27 17 31 24 1 2
Huluul 29 22 22 24 2 1
Ceel Lahelay 40 21 24 24 1 2
Shoodhe IDPs 20 10 28 16 1 1
Maraalay 54 19 27 24 0 2
Dhagax Isku Row 11 2 27 14 2 0
Fadhiyar 12 5 22 24 1 2
Godheeli 5 3 22 14 1 2
Oog IDPs 41 21 31 28 1 2
Ainabo District 2 1
Elafwein District 0 2
Lasanod District 1 4
Total: 239 109 234 192 13 21

As noted in this table, the majority of participants in this analysis, and in the HH survey, were female,
although most of the respondents in the HH survey said that their households had male heads. 78% of
the HH visited have been in their current location for over a year; Fadhigaab (21%), Huluul (21%),
Shoodhe IDP (19%), Ceel Lahelay (3%), Dhagax Isku Row (8%) and Maraaley (6%) all had households
which had arrived in the three months prior to the survey.3 88% of respondents were IDPs.

The findings of this assessment shed light on the current experiences and perceptions of risk held by
communities, local authorities and service providers, and local NGO actors. Protection incidents and
existing risks reported during these interviews are valued as testimonies throughout this report, and
require follow up outside the limitations of both scope and time frame of this analysis. They have
informed protection activities within the ECHO project being implemented by Oxfam and NRC, as well as
advocacy actions and engagement with authorities and service providers.

Protection Risks and Coping Mechanisms

All participants in the analysis mentioned that they faced insecurity and protection risks. FGD and KII
respondents reported that communities face risks on a regular basis and that they fear conflict; however
only an average of 12% of respondents in the HH survey across target locations stated that they had
experienced threats in the three months prior to the survey. The village with the highest percentage of
respondents having faced threats during this period was Shoodhe IDP, with 20% of respondents, while

3
Note that some of these percentages are derived from a small sample. For example, in Dhagax Isku Row 13 HH
were interviewed – 8% of this is one person. This may not be a good representation of the position of the whole
population of the settlement when extrapolated; where possible information has been triangulated with
information from FGDs in the same communities.

6
Godheeli had the lowest percentage, with 0% saying they had been threatened in the previous three
months.4

Specific protection risks mentioned were as follows:

Rape
Rape was mentioned as an issue affecting women and girls in all the communities targeted in the
analysis. Areas where women felt vulnerable included water points, open defecation areas, livestock
grazing areas, homes (this was ascribed to a lack of safe and proper shelter and of lighting), areas where
they collect firewood, and the roads to market. Perpetrators were reported to be men both from within
and outside the community in all areas, and KII respondents also attested to this. Rape cases were
reported in almost all villages to be more common in the spring; In Huluul the male FGD reported that
cases increase in the rainy season as people move to the area from dry places in search of water and
pasture, and men become stronger and more aggressive. Coping mechanisms include working and
moving around either in groups or accompanied by a male relative, bathing inside their huts, and even
sleeping in groups at night. In Ceel Lahelay the male FGD also reported that women don’t go to open
defecation areas after dark, and in Fadhigaab women reported that elderly women collect water or look
for missing livestock, as they are less at risk than younger women or men. A KII respondent also asserted
that women who returned to their villages to collect belongings were raped and abused.

Forced and Early Marriage

The typical age at which girls get married in target communities varied across respondent groups, with
little consensus between women and men and between adults and youth who participated in FGDs. The
age ranges cited were all between 14 and 20 years, with women in Ceel Lahelay and Fadhiyar
mentioning 12 and 13 respectively as the earliest age at which girls are married. Boys were reported to
be marrying between 17 and 21 years. Communities seemed unsure of whether the practice had
increase or decreased since the drought. Those respondents who said it had decreased mentioned a lack
of resources to pay dowries; those who said it had increased mentioned displacement, a lack of
schooling and livelihoods opportunities as all providing more opportunities for meeting people. In Ceel
Lahelay women in FGDs said that early marriage increases in droughts as a means of income, whilst it
decreases in conflict due to a feeling of instability in the community. Younger women in Oog mentioned
that the displacement had let to a lot of unwanted pregnancies, again due to increased opportunities for
meeting people and reduced daily activities for men.

Domestic violence
Domestic violence was reported in FGDs and in the HH survey in Fadhigaab, Huluul, Shoodhe, Maraalay,
Fadhiyar and Oog. In the HH survey it was also reported in Ceel Lahelay by 5% of respondents as having
occurred in the three months prior to the survey. The highest percentage of respondents in the HH
survey reporting that there had been cases of domestic violence in the previous three months was in
Fadhigaab, at 7%. Domestic violence was attributed to economic stress linked to the drought, which had
led to an increase in domestic disputes over control and use of resources within the household. One KII
respondent also asserted that men felt disempowered, having lost their traditional roles. In a separate

4
In Godheeli only eight HH were interviewed, so this information was verified with a wider sample during the
FGDs.

7
question on Qat use in target communities, domestic violence was listed in all FGDs as a common
impact. It should be noted however that domestic violence is commonly under-reported as it is seen as
normal practice in this context.

Revenge killings and killings related to clan conflicts

This risk is mostly felt directly by men, and was mentioned as an issue in FGDs in all communities
targeted by the analysis. In the HH survey fear of militia was mentioned as an issue affecting families in
the previous three months in Shoodhe (6% of respondents), Ceel Lahelay (1.6%) and Maraalay (2.7%).
Respondents in Fadhigaab, Huluul and Oog also mentioned armed groups as a factor limiting freedom of
movement, and respondents in all villages said they had felt or feared insecurity in the previous three
months (ranging from 31% of respondents in Oog and Dhagax Isku Row to 67% in Shoodhe). KIIs also
confirmed that IDP movement is limited as they do not feel safe. This threat of conflict, violence and
insecurity has significant impacts on men’s daily activities and life. The female FGD in Fadhigaab Camp B
said that men can’t even go to the other side of the village for fear of revenge killings. In Ceel Lahelay
men don’t take livestock for grazing, and several groups mentioned livestock grazing as being a
dangerous activity, as well as travelling outside villages. FGDs in Fadhigaab, Ceel Lahelay, Maraalay,
Fadhiyar, Godheeli and Oog reported that men stay away from homes at night, either sleeping in hiding,
staying awake in shifts, or sleeping outside and posting guards. Most villages said that men carry guns
for their protection, travel in groups, use torches and keep in touch to warn each other of issues.

Although the threat of clan conflict-related killings is mainly felt by men, there are instances where
women are also directly affected. The conflict has resulted in split families in cases where intermarriage
had happened between clans. One KII respondent told a story of a woman whose husband and brother
were from opposing clans. Both were killed in the conflict, and she doesn’t feel safe staying with either
side as she is suspected of spying. At the time of the analysis it was reported that she feared for the
safety of her three-year-old son if she took him to her brother’s funeral, due to his clan identity.

Issues related to privacy (lack of proper shelter, open defecation)

Women in all villages targeted in the analysis mentioned that there were issues related to their privacy
and safety, both inside their homes due to a lack of proper shelter and outside due to a lack of latrines
and a need to use open defecation areas. In Shoodhe, adult men said that women’s dignity was
compromised due to a lack of latrines. In Fadhigaab, Ceel Lahelay, Shoodhe, Maraalay, Fadhiyar,
Godheeli and Oog women and men said that women sleep in groups of six to ten women in a shelter.
Men in Fadhiyar and Godheeli said that women move long distances to defecate in the open, and in
Godheeli they added that the area chosen was open with no trees, which causes women to be afraid
and to feel undignified.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

FGM was mentioned as a practice in all communities. Women in Dhagax Isku Row said it is usually
practiced in summer. Women in Ceel Lahelay reported that the practice had decreased during the
drought due to awareness raising by NGOs with displaced people. Oxfam’s gender analysis found that
there had been a decrease due to the high cost of the practice relative to income5; this is also
corroborated by Oxfam’s previous experience in the area.

5
Oxfam Gender Analysis for Sool and Sanaag, July 2019

8
Evictions
The fear or threat of evictions was reported to be affecting Huluul, Dhagax Isku Row and three clusters
in Oog. In Huluul and Dhagax Isku Row the land owner and host community clan respectively do not
want the IDPs to stay, and in Oog the district administration plan to relocate these three clusters to
another site (which male FGD participants reported to be hot and uninhabitable). One effect of these
plans has been that the local authorities and landowners have refused to allow any permanent
infrastructure, including latrines, to be put on the land. This means that insecurity and risks linked to
shelter and sanitation will be perpetuated either until this policy is changed or until the IDPs are moved.

IDP/host community conflicts

Related to the evictions threat as mentioned above, there was some mention of difficulties and bad
feelings between the IDP and host communities. In the household survey, 55% of respondents in Ceel
Lahelay and in Fadhiyar said that relations were either bad or very bad, with conflict over resources
sucha as water, pasture and land the principal reported cause.6 In Huluul, the chairperson stated that
IDPs had been settling on flood plains and practising open defecation, causing potential hygiene
problems for both IDPs and host communities. The village committee had as a result begun to allocate
land to new IDPs to solve these problems and to resolve conflict. The Sarar governor in Ainabo District
mentioned that tension is linked to resource sharing and to previous clan-based conflicts.

Other risks:
Falling into wells/drowning
Women in FGDs in six out of nine of the targeted communities (Fadhigaab, Huluul, Ceel Lahelay,
Shoodhe IDPs, Fadhiyar and Oog IDPs) reported that children in their community are at risk of falling
into wells or water catchments, either whilst fetching water or trying to swim in the catchments. This
was in fact the most common threat mentioned as affecting children. In Shoodhe the protective wall
around the well had been washed away during recent flooding. To mitigate or prevent risks, adults
discourage children from going near water points, keep them at home or accompany them. In Godheeli
and Shoodhe women said that parents might also follow their children to keep them safe.

Debt
The contracting of debt was reported as being common in all FGDs. Most respondents said that women
are more likely to take debts in order to cover basic household needs, and find it easier to do so as they
are more trusted. FGDs in Shoodhe, Fadhiyar and Godheeli also said that men contract debts as they are
responsible for their household. This practice was noted in all communities as having negative
consequences, especially in case of defaulting on debts. Risks of conflict, verbal and physical abuse,
harassment and arrest were all mentioned; in Shoodhe men reported that creditors could also take
household assets if debts are not paid, although community elders can mediate and set new dates for
debt payment.

Animal attacks
Animal attacks (specifically hyenas in Shoodhe) were mentioned as a threat for children in Shoodhe,
Dhagax Isku Row, Fadhiyar and Godheeli. In Maraalay ogres or cannibals were also mentioned as eating

6
The Ceel Lahelay sample was of 61 respondents, the Fadhiyar sample was of 17.

9
children – this is more likely also to be animal attacks. In Ceel Lahelay and in Shoodhe snakes were also
mentioned as a risk in the male FGDs.

Qat
Qat is chewed in all communities targeted by the assessment with increases in chewing mentioned as a
coping mechanism for men who have lost livestock. All FGDs acknowledged that the practice causes
aggression and family problems, and increases domestic violence. It also reduces resource sharing and
joint decision making in the household – in Shoodhe the male FGD participants agreed that qat use has
impacted every household financially. This is likely one reason for women being more trusted in
contracting of debts.

Vulnerabilities to threats
All categories of people are vulnerable to different threats in the areas targeted by this analysis. When
asked in FGDs if there were any particularly vulnerable groups, respondents listed women (especially
pregnant women), children, the elderly, people with disabilities, people with mental problems, orphan
children and minority clan members. Those who were mentioned specifically to be vulnerable to the
protection risks listed above were as follows:

Women and girls

Women and girls are vulnerable to rape and other forms of sexual violence, to domestic violence, to
forced and early marriage, and to FGM. Women and children were named as the most vulnerable group
in all communities, with their vulnerability attributed to a lack of participation in decision making and to
cultural beliefs as well as to the need to leave the village to collect water and firewood, to go to the
market, to graze livestock or to defecate. Inside the villages they were vulnerable to attack at night, due
to a lack of proper shelter. Women were also described as being vulnerable to conflict arising over
repayment (or non-) of debts, as they are the most likely people to contract them. Their status as heads
of household in some cases also makes them vulnerable (with no male HH head present), as noted in
FGDs in Shoodhe and Maraalay.

Denial of dowry/dowry abuse and denial of inheritance were also mentioned, but details of these risks
were not given.

Men and boys

Men and boys were described as being vulnerable to conflict and to revenge killings, especially in areas
which were prone to conflict and violence and in places where there are more than one clan in a village.

Minority groups
Minority clans were reported to be among the most vulnerable in Dhagax Isku Row, Godheeli and Oog.
Here vulnerability was related to their ability to access assistance, as they can be excluded and
discriminated against. Respondents did not go into detail on this subject.

People with disabilities

People with disabilities were mentioned in the same way as minority groups, in the context of accessing
assistance. They were mentioned more commonly than minority groups, however – in all communities.

10
Mapping of Actors and Referral Services
Community Structures
All of the communities targeted for this analysis reported that their primary reference point and
representatives are the village committee, which is the leading village power structure. An average of
60% of households targeted in the HH survey also said that the community committee was their first
point of reference for information, with only respondents from Godheeli listing family members first and
the community committee second. Family members were the second reference point in all communities
except Godheeli and Huluul – in Huluul traditional leaders were second and family members third.

Most committees have a membership from both IDP and host communities (with the exception of
Shoodhe and Oog, which are exclusively IDP communities). There was no consensus as to how many
members each committee had or their gender balance, so it appears that the committee members are
not all known to everyone in their villages. The following table illustrates this:

Name of village Male members Female members

Fadhigaab All 0
Huluul Most Some (including vice chairperson)
Ceel Lahelay 5 2
(young men FGD said 12, all men)
Shoodhe 6 1
(male FGD said 7, all men)
Maraalay 8 2
(young women said 7 men and 3 women;
men said 10, all IDPs and all men made up
of a selection from the camp’s sub-clans,
but also a women’s forum; a teacher in
Maraalay said the village committee has
nine members, none of whom are female)
Dhagax Isku Row 5 4 (increased from 2 during
(men said all IDPs; also an elders’ drought)
committee, an NGO committee, and a
women’s forum)
Fadhiyar 5 2
(young women and men said this – adult
women said 8 men and no women)
Godheeli Women said between 7 and 10 members, 2
with 2 women; men said 5, no women
Oog 5 2
(younger women said 4 and 3, and that
the head is a woman; men said 7 members
with no women but that there is a
women’s forum. Younger women also
mentioned 3 IDP committees, one per
camp)
All respondents agreed that men find it easier to talk to the village committees, and that decisions are
made by the male members. The women’s FGDs in Ceel Lahelay and Shoodhe said that women

11
participate in consulting, but men make the decisions. In Maraalay women reported that they decide
‘soft issues’, whilst men make decisions on critical issues for the community. Adult women in Dhagax
Isku Row (where the gender balance is apparently more even) and in Godheeli said decisions are taken
together, although younger women in Godheeli disagreed and said that men are the deciders. Young
men in Ceel Lahelay said “we are a patriarchal society – we don’t see that women have a significant role
in the decision-making process which concerns a whole community”. KII respondents asserted that
women are minority members of the village committees, and are not active in committee operations.
Men resist changes to this as there is a strong belief in tradition, although all communities which had a
women’s forum agreed that this had made a difference to women’s participation in village committee
matters.

GBV Services
Medical Services
Some of the target communities have some level of health facility in their villages. This was the case in
Oog and Ceel Lahelay which both have a health post (MCH), although in the former the MCH was in the
host community and does not have qualified medical staff, and in the latter the MCH was not staffed or
functioning. Cases are sometimes taken to the District health centres – Shoodhe respondents
mentioned Elafwein, those in Maraalay and Dhagax Isku Row mentioned Lasanod, and those in Fadhiyar
Ainabo. CARE provides a full package for GBV case management together with doctors from Ainabo
hospital. Some respondents in FGDs also talked about referrals of severe cases to Burao. All of these
referrals require resources and time, as they are some distance away (Maraalay is 70km from Lasanod,
for example).

Psychological/Mental Health Services

The only place where psychological support is available is in Burao, according to respondents in FGDs.

Legal Services
Xeer, or customary law, is the most common reference point in target communities, with formal police
and court systems being engaged when xeer does not lead to an agreement (women’s FGDs, Fadhigaab
and Huluul). This is due partly to difficulties in accessing formal justice – in Huluul at the time of this
analysis there were no police at the Huluul police post – and partly due to the costs and difficulties
associated with accessing the formal systems; in Maraalay adult men said that the nearest legal services
were in Lasanod. The women’s FGD in Fadhiyar reported that some cases are referred to Ainabo, but the
majority of cases are resolved informally.

Women are not usually involved in xeer justice systems, even when they are the survivors of GBV, and
they are not given the option of more formal justice. In Shoodhe male respondents said that decisions
on cases are usually made by male relatives, whilst in Maraalay adult male respondents said that clan
elders manage rape cases. This mediation usually results in a compensation payment to the woman’s
family, a payment of fees to the arbitrator, and the perpetrator is returned to his home. One KII
respondent mentioned that compensation may even not be shared with the survivor’s family, being
kept instead amongst the elders concerned.

Opinions varied on whether the formal or informal systems worked better for communities and for
survivors specifically. Women in Camp B in Fadhigaab said that customary law is easier for them. Men in

12
Huluul said that women prefer the court system – when the case is resolved through xeer the woman
gets nothing (the elders give and take some money or sheep; although in the Maraalay men’s FGD
participants said that the perpetrator’s family pays five camels as compensation), and the perpetrator is
returned to the community and doesn’t face justice. Sometimes the survivor is forced to marry the
perpetrator (especially if she falls pregnant), and survivors commonly face stigma and discrimination. KII
respondents mentioned that elders sometimes withdraw cases from the district court, as government
capacity is weak and deprives them of this income – with different levels of success depending on the
area.

It should be noted here that the formal justice system does not necessarily lead to adequate justice. One
male FGD reported that a six-year-old girl had been raped in the six months prior to the assessment. She
had been taken to Burao for medical treatment and the perpetrator had been sentenced to just six
months in prison.

Safe Programming
Selection processes/targeting
Respondents in the majority of FGDs reported that they knew the selection criteria to be an Oxfam
beneficiary, and to be a community worker, and a smaller number of FGD participants had also been
involved in selection processes. More participants knew the criteria for selection of volunteers than
those for unconditional cash transfers (UCTs); in Ceel Lahelay, Dhagax Isku Row women said the
community committee was responsible for this selection and they believed that it was fair. They also
mentioned that where assistance wasn’t enough to cover all of the vulnerable households, beneficiary
families were ‘encouraged’ (a willingness to share has been a criteria for selection in the past, so the
word encouraged can be interpreted in different ways) to share. In Fadhigaab women reported that
assistance is divided on the basis of clan (this was confirmed in KIIs related to Maraalay as well) and
distributed by elders and the mayor; information is then shared widely as to what has been allocated to
each group. In Huluul the male FGD participants said that the most vulnerable people are sometimes
excluded from the selection process, and in Oog women mentioned that some pregnant women and
minority clan members are excluded, which can cause harm and conflict.

An average of 63% of respondents in the HH survey said they had been consulted on the type and
location of infrastructures to be installed in the villages. This was confirmed in the FGDs, with some
participants having been consulted and involved and some not. In Huluul, male FGD participants
reported that only men were involved in site selection for latrines and waste management, and they
selected areas based on easy digging, distance from water sources and places which were not
individually owned. Women reported that they did not feel safe using the infrastructures at night, which
is likely a direct consequence of their not being involved.

Information and communication

In Fadhigaab, women in Camp B said that Oxfam had registered people for UCT, and as a result some
people incurred debts while waiting for the distributions (registration was mentioned in several FGDs as
being a basis for the contracting of debts). After a few days, the women were informed that the UCTs

13
had been stopped. This put them in difficulties and caused risks to them as they were then unable to pay
their debts. This points to a gap in information and communication with beneficiaries.7

Practical implementation
A number of points were raised related to safe programming in implementation of activities:

• In the HH survey, an average 64% of respondents said that infrastructures and facilities were safe
and appropriate. A notable exception to this is Godheeli, where 63% said they were not.8 This is
notable given that 38% of respondents in Godheeli also reported that they were not able to move
freely in their community, with GBV as the only reason given for this limitation. This was not
confirmed in the FGDs, but needs further investigation.
• A number of respondents mentioned that they would like lights to be provided at latrines.
• In Dhagax Isku Row, young men reported that they had dug 70 latrines prior to the government
stopping the construction of permanent infrastructure. The latrine pits are still open, which could
potentially cause risks for children.
• In Godheeli, the male FGD mentioned that distribution sites are chosen for their accessibility and
safety. In Ceel Lahelay, Shoodhe, Maraalay, Dhagax Isku Row, Fadhiyar and Oog this was not the
case, and elderly, pregnant women, disabled people have difficulty accessing services and
assistance. In Shoodhe, men reported that older people and those with disabilities are pushed to the
back of the line during distributions, so they are often the last to receive food and NFIs.

Complaints mechanisms
FGD respondents in Fadhigaab, Shoodhe, Maraalay, Fadhiyar and Godheeli mentioned the Oxfam
complaints hotline; however it seems that use of the hotline is very gendered. Female respondents in
Huluul, Ceel Lahelay, Maraalay, Dhagax Isku Row, Godheeli and Oog did not know about the hotline, and
women in all communities said that they refer to the community committee or village leaders when
they have an issue rather than using the hotline number. Men were much more likely to say that the
hotline is well known and that they know how to use it.

Needs and Recommendations

Needs
All communities targeted for this analysis spoke about needs which were not being covered. These can
be summed up as follows:

7
Staff who were asked about this incident mentioned that Oxfam had registered beneficiaries but had then found
out that another organization was targeting the same communities with a similar programme. Oxfam held
meetings with people who were affected by this decision and action, and explained how the situation had come
about, persuading them that the organization needed to bring support to communities which were not being
supported. Community members apparently accepted; however nothing practical was done to support those who
were then unable to repay debts. In future this should be considered – better coordination with other
organisations working in an area, and potential for supporting registration of those with debts to be registered
with the other organization.
8
Although again, percentages need to be verified. Only eight people were interviewed in the HH survey in
Godheeli, so 63% amounts to five people. Also in the next statement – three people reported that they are unable
to move freely. Further investigation needs to be carried out in this location to verify these percentages.

14
• In Ceel Lahelay, Shoodhe, Fadhiyar, Oog, FGD respondents recommended that water points be
protected to prevent risks of children falling in.
• In Ceel Lahelay and Oog, respondents also mentioned recreational support for children to keep
them occupied during the day and to prevent risky behaviours.
• In Fadhigaab women requested gas stoves and wheelbarrows to reduce the frequency of collecting
firewood and water.
• In Ceel Lahelay and Huluul, women asked for lighting around latrines, for more latrines close to their
home, closer water points and support to the police (given that there were no police in Huluul at the
time of the analysis this may refer to support for their return). In Oog the lack of lighting was also
mentioned as an issue.
• FGD respondents in all villages said that the lack of proper shelter put them at risk.
• In Ceel Lahelay, men asked for cash assistance to be increased so that the burden of sharing cash
outside the recipient family is reduced.
• In Maraalay men requested more protection training targeting women and men in order to reduce
SGBV and protection issues. In Oog the same was requested, but they also suggested that women’s
forums should be structured as self-help groups (with income generating or savings activities) in
order to make them sustainable.9
• In Fadhiyar, Men expressed a need for dignity kits, clothes and latrines.

KII suggestions were as follows:

• Lasanod shelter, water, food and safety

• Support to traditional leaders around peace and reconciliation
• Support to reconstruction efforts in villages which were destroyed
• Maraalay: increased solar lighting, additional training for CPVs, public awareness, shelter, NFIs (esp
cooking utensils).
• Programmes targeting traditional leaders and elders, youth, community activists and police related
to justice for SGBV survivors.
• Awareness on security and safety.
• Bigger dams for surface water catchment.
• Mass awareness on GBV, support to women to access legal services and to know legal procedures as
well as capacity strengthening on speaking in court.

Recommendations
Responsible Action Timeline
actor
Broa PM in In Dhagax Isku Row, initiate an action to decommission/fill in Immediate
collaboration open latrine pits/ or install physical construction if allowed by
with WaSH authorities host communities.
team
Oxfam to Support protection of water sources where possible in order November onwards
advocate this to mitigate risks of drowning which children currently face.

9
Note that giving IGA support to protection groups has been problematic in other contexts and has not been
shown to be a contributing factor in a group’s sustainability. This needs further analysis and consideration

15
 through
protection
and WaSH
cluster.
Oxfam Increase work and lobby with coordination mechanisms and November onwords
Protection shelter organisations and donors for shelter support to be
Engage HLP provided for IDPs
sub-cluster to
advocate this.
Oxfam Carry out advocacy and negotiation with landowners, host Routine advocacy
protection community and government related to settlement throughout program
team, engage infrastructures where they are currently forbidden implementation.
HLP sub-
cluster. target
authorities
Oxfam teams Carry out advocacy towards service providers at District, Routine advocacy
will advocate Regional and where needed National level and with donors throughout program
this. around provision of formal legal, medical and psychological implementation.
services in rural areas; including possibilities of mobile clinics
or courts (a long process but necessary for development)
Oxfam Support community committees in gaining and raising 2020 Oxfam CPVs and
protection awareness of their role and responsibilities in target protection field team
team communities. This includes a presentation of the committee will facilitate this
to the community, so that confusion over numbers and during protection
membership is reduced awareness sessions
Oxfam Strengthen women’s participation in decision making, Ongoing
humanitarian especially around humanitarian and development assistance
teams. and around justice mechanisms related to incidents which
affect them. This should include strengthening women’s
capacity and confidence to engage, as well as working with
men to create space
Oxfam MEAL Strengthen Complaints and Feedback mechanism. Currently it Ongoing
teams is almost exclusively used by men; it may be necessary to
reinforce the hotline with alternative ways of getting
feedback within target communities.
Oxfam Ensure better collaboration and coordination with other Ongoing
humanitarian organisations working in target communities to avoid
teams. duplication of interventions. Consider impacts of withdrawing
support for target beneficiaries
Oxfam WASH Ensure that consultation around design and locations of Ongoing
team. infrastructures include women; and include the end users of
the infrastructures

Annexes
Annex 1: Service Mapping in target areas

16
17