For centuries, cattle have not merely been animals in Somali society—they have been the backbone of Somali civilisation. Before modern cities, before paved roads, and before the rise of urban administration, livestock represented wealth, dignity, survival, and identity. Somali poetry celebrated camels and cattle alike, family fortunes were measured in livestock, and generations built their livelihoods around animal husbandry. To many Somalis, cattle remain symbols of resilience, food security, and cultural continuity.
Yet, as Somalia’s cities expand and urban life modernises, a new challenge has emerged: how can an ancient pastoral tradition coexist with the demands of a growing capital city?
In recent days, local authorities have issued a ban aimed at removing roaming cattle from the streets of the capital. For many urban residents, this move appears necessary and long overdue. Others, particularly those with pastoral roots, may feel concerned that a vital part of Somali heritage is being unfairly targeted. The truth, however, lies somewhere in the middle. This issue demands balance rather than confrontation.
Nobody can deny that freely roaming cattle or camels in a crowded urban setting create serious challenges. Modern cities operate under different realities than traditional rural settlements. Streets are designed for vehicles, pedestrians, and organised movement. When cattle wander through busy roads, they can create traffic disruptions, accidents, sanitation concerns, and public health risks.
In a city striving for modern infrastructure and improved public services, uncontrolled livestock movement can also damage roads, public spaces, gardens, and drainage systems. City residents, especially families, business owners, and commuters, often view cattle roaming freely as a nuisance that affects daily life. It becomes difficult to maintain urban order if streets become shared spaces without proper management.
At the same time, reducing this matter to a simple “urban versus rural” debate would be unfair and counterproductive.
Cattle owners themselves are not enemies of urban progress. Many livestock keepers moved to cities due to decades of conflict, displacement, drought, and economic necessity. Some families still depend on cattle for milk production, small-scale trade, and household income. Fresh milk sold across neighbourhoods sustains many urban livelihoods and contributes significantly to food supply chains.
Somalia’s livestock economy remains among the most important sectors of national life. Livestock exports and animal-related businesses contribute substantially to the country’s economy. Therefore, any conversation about cattle in cities should recognise their historic and economic importance rather than dismiss them as a burden.
What is required today is not hostility toward cattle owners, but smarter management that benefits both the city and livestock communities.
Many countries with strong agricultural traditions have successfully balanced livestock management with urban order. Cities do not ban livestock entirely; instead, they regulate how animals move, where they are kept, and how waste is managed.
The current measures by local authorities can become beneficial if implemented with fairness, planning, and public consultation. Rather than punitive approaches alone, authorities may consider designated livestock zones on the outskirts of cities, organised cattle holding areas, veterinary services, and regulated transport systems for moving animals safely.
Urban planners could also introduce properly managed milk collection centres where cattle owners can continue earning livelihoods without needing animals to roam freely through residential areas. Such systems would improve hygiene, reduce conflict between residents and herders, and support economic stability.
Equally important is public awareness. Citizens should avoid mocking or ridiculing cattle owners, many of whom preserve traditions deeply rooted in Somali history. Likewise, livestock owners should appreciate that urban residents deserve safe, clean, and organised environments. Mutual respect is essential.
One practical lesson can be learned from cities in countries where urbanisation expanded rapidly while preserving agricultural traditions. In places such as Rwanda and parts of East Africa, authorities introduced stricter livestock regulations while simultaneously supporting farmers with organised systems, veterinary care, and designated grazing areas. The objective was not to destroy tradition but to modernise it responsibly.
Somalia’s capital is changing. Roads are improving, public spaces are expanding, and city authorities increasingly seek organised systems. Such progress should be welcomed. Yet development becomes stronger when it respects history rather than erasing it.
Cattle are not strangers to Somali civilisation. They helped families survive famine, displacement, and hardship. They nourished generations and supported social life for centuries. At the same time, cities cannot function effectively if livestock move without structure in heavily populated areas.
The way forward is cooperation, not confrontation.
Authorities must communicate clearly, provide realistic alternatives, and avoid measures that appear insensitive to livelihoods. Livestock owners should embrace responsible urban practices and recognise that cities require rules for everyone’s safety. Residents, meanwhile, can support reforms while acknowledging the historical contribution of pastoral communities.
Ultimately, this debate is not about choosing between cattle and the city. It is about finding a practical balance where heritage and modern life coexist harmoniously. Somalia deserves cities that are clean, organised, and safe—but also societies that honour the very traditions that sustained them for centuries.
A well-managed city and a respected livestock culture are not opposites. With thoughtful planning, both can thrive side by side.Suggested four-word title:
Mohamed Mohamoud Adde is an academic and a geopolitical analyst