Ask AwraIQ about features, pricing, onboarding, login, integrations, security, demos, mobile apps, automation, reports, or support.
For Somalia
Berbera, Bosaso and Mogadishu are administered separately, so the port is a cost dimension rather than a shipping detail. Stock, procurement and landed cost that can carry that — priced in dollars, which is what your books are actually in.
The argument, in four lines
Almost every inventory system assumes the cost of getting goods into a country is a property of the country: duty is national, the rate is published, and any difference between two consignments is freight or timing or the exchange rate. Here that assumption does not fail at the border. It fails inside it — because what a consignment cost to bring ashore depends on which port cleared it.
Illustrative figures, per unit, for one product bought at 100 a unit. Your own two numbers are the ones that matter — the last section on this page is how to get them.
The supplier invoice
100.00
100.00
Same supplier, same price, same day. Nothing about the commercial transaction differs, which is what makes the rest of this hard to see.
Everything paid to bring it ashore
18.00
26.00
One figure on purpose. We publish no duty rate for any administration and hold no tariff schedule — this is the total your forwarder gives you per consignment, which is the number you already have.
What the consignment actually cost you
118.00
126.00
Two true costs. Both are correct. Neither is an error to be reconciled away.
What a system holding one cost per item keeps
An average of two structural costs, which describes neither of them. It is always plausible, it always balances, and it is the figure every margin you report is measured against.
122.00
A 20% target against 122 sets your price at 146.40. On the stock that came through the cheaper route you are making 24%. On the other you are making 16%. You believe you are making 20% on both, and no report you run will contradict you — because the report is built from the same 122.
A quarter with more volume through the dearer route produces a margin miss with no visible cause. Nothing in purchasing changed and nothing in pricing changed, so the variance report has no column to put it in.
Two codes for one physical product breaks stock enquiry, reorder points and every customer-facing document, and it pushes the burden onto whoever picks. The cost dimension has been forced into the identity of the goods.
The easiest answer and the worst one: the cost leaves the goods entirely, gross margin is uniformly overstated, and the figure can no longer be attributed to a consignment, a route or a period.
The general form of this is worth more than the Somali case: the mistake is not getting a rate wrong, it is assuming what a cost varies by. Most systems assume supplier, date and currency, because in most markets that is right. The full argument, with the arithmetic is written up separately.
What this costs today
Each is what an averaged cost or a missing state looks like a year later. They are slow rather than dramatic, which is exactly why they survive — nothing here fails on the day it happens.
The same product arrives through two ports at two different charges. A system that holds one cost per item averages them, and from then on every margin is measured against a number that describes neither consignment. The error is invisible because the average is always plausible.
Clearing, handling, storage and inland transport turn up on separate invoices weeks after receipt, with no consignment reference. If the receipt is closed by then they become overheads, and the landed cost is a story rather than a figure.
Most of the export throughput moves in a single window. Stock that is committed, held under quarantine or already at the port is the same word — "stock" — in most systems, and in that window the difference between the three is the whole business.
Wages, advances and supplier payments go out through mobile wallets in dollars, and the record of them is a telco statement in one place and a spreadsheet in another. Nothing ties a disbursement to the person, the grant or the consignment that caused it.
Operations in Somalia
Every other market page in this corpus argues landed cost against one national duty schedule and a moving exchange rate. Somalia is the market where that assumption breaks inside the country. Berbera, Bosaso and Mogadishu are administered separately, so what a consignment cost to bring ashore is a function of which one cleared it — and if your system holds one cost per item and one duty assumption per country, it cannot tell you which of your two landing costs you are selling against. The rest of this section is what follows from that, plus the two other things about running an operation here that nothing in our corpus already covers.
Landed cost
The consignment carries where it came ashore
Freight, duty, clearing, handling and storage attach to the specific consignment as their invoices arrive — not to the item in general — and the unit cost recalculates each time. Two receipts of one product, cleared at two ports, keep two true costs instead of averaging into a number that describes neither.
Inventory
Quarantine is a stock state, not a spreadsheet
Stock can sit in a holding location and be counted as yours without being available to ship, which is exactly the shape of an export consignment waiting out its veterinary hold. Held, released and moved are states with dates and a person against them, so the question "what is actually clear to load" has an answer.
Stock transfers
What is between two ports is a position, not a gap
Transfers between a yard, a holding station and a port are confirmed on arrival, so goods in motion are a state rather than an absence in both counts. In a country where the two ends of a journey may answer to different administrations, the in-transit position is the only place the truth lives.
Procurement
A season you cannot re-run needs approvals that refuse
Roughly seventy per cent of small-ruminant export moves in the Hajj window. A purchase that should have been stopped in a normal month is a missed shipment in that one, so requisition, threshold approval, quotation comparison and matching before payment are worth more here than the calendar suggests — thresholds refuse rather than warn.
HR & disbursement
Your people are paid into a wallet, not a bank account
Mobile money penetration is around 73%, most of it dollar-denominated, more than half the country is paid that way, and most of those never cash out. So the employee record has to hold a wallet as the destination and the register has to reconcile against a telco statement — and the honest half of this is that we hold the record and the register, not a connection to the wallet.
Offline operations
Capture at the yard and the station, then sync
Stock transfers, inventory check-out and check-in, and asset movements recorded on mobile without a signal and synced on return. A holding station is not where the network is, and a count that waits for connectivity is a count taken from memory.
One boundary belongs with the first card rather than in a footnote, because it is the card a reader will over-read: we hold what a consignment cost, not what it should have cost. We have no connection to any customs administration, we do not compute a duty for you, and we will not tell you which port to use. What we do is stop the two costs collapsing into one average that hides both.
Scope, in three parts rather than two
Three columns, because “no” means two different things. The middle column is work with a price on it. The right-hand column is work we would decline from a paying customer — and two of its items are places where a confident answer from any vendor should worry you rather than reassure you: whose rules apply, and whether your counterparties have been screened.
Running in the product today
On the roadmap — and commissionable now
Not ours, by choice — and this column is the reason to believe the other two
The middle column is work with a price on it, not a ceiling. A mobile-money disbursement connection is the clearest example: Kenya's M-Pesa collection and its maintained statutory payroll engine both exist because clients needed them and commissioned them, and neither arrived from a roadmap. If an EVC Plus or Zaad connection, a Somali payroll engine or a per-administration cost dimension is what stands between you and a decision, say which one and we will come back with a written specification, a timeline and a price before you commit to anything. There is no date on this page, because nobody has paid for one.
Read the last column as different in kind from the middle one. The middle is unbuilt; the last is where we stop deliberately, and two of its items — the authority's position and counterparty screening — are places where a confident answer from any vendor should worry you rather than reassure you.
How this starts
Put the two landed costs side by side — everything you paid to get each consignment onto your own floor, not the supplier invoice. If you cannot produce both numbers, that is the finding, and it cost you nothing to discover.
One price, against two costs. Whichever consignment was the more expensive one has been quietly funding the margin you thought you were making on the other. This is your arithmetic, not ours, and it is worth more than a demonstration.
Not a clearance route and not a tax position. The ability to keep two costs true, hold stock that is not yet shippable as its own state, and answer a funder or an auditor from a report instead of from somebody's recollection.
Read before you shortlist
Duty is assumed to be a property of the country. In Somalia it is a property of the port, so two containers of one product can cost different amounts to bring ashore — and a system holding one cost per item has already averaged the difference away.
On hand and available are two different numbers and most systems hold only one. Where goods sit out a mandatory hold before they can move — and where one season carries most of the year — that gap decides whether the vessel sails full.
The question buyers normally lead with — are you compliant here — is the one that tells you least in this market. Four that work better, including two where a confident vendor answer should reduce your confidence rather than increase it.
A wrong bank account bounces. A wrong phone number pays someone. Where wages leave for a wallet, in dollars, and are never cashed out, four ordinary payroll assumptions break — and the last moment to catch an error moves to before the transfer.
A grant carries two clocks. The money clock runs on somebody else's fiscal year and the delivery clock runs on the rain, and in East Africa they are not in phase — which is why the same programme reads as failing in one quarter and exemplary in the next while doing exactly what it planned.
One question separates vendors here faster than any feature list: which instrument does this country levy? We had it wrong in our own reference data until August 2026, which is exactly why the question works.
Asked here, and answered without the hedge
Not as a rate, and the distinction matters more than it sounds. There is no per-port tariff table in the product and we are not going to derive a charge for you — we hold no schedule for any of the three administrations and we have no connection to any of them. What we hold is what you were actually charged, per consignment, with the clearing paperwork attached to it, carried into the unit cost of those specific goods. In practice that is the number you need: your forwarder already tells you the charge per consignment, and the thing your current system is probably getting wrong is not the rate but the averaging of two real costs into one. A per-administration cost dimension — where the port becomes a reportable attribute you can compare margins across — is a defined build rather than a live feature. It is on the roadmap, it is commissionable now, and if it is what your decision turns on we will scope it with a written specification, a timeline and a price. We will not print a date here.
It is 5%, it has been since 18 August 2024, and the 10% you have seen quoted may well have been ours. Our own reference data carried 10.00 for years and we corrected it to 5.00 in August 2026 — the first time this corpus has found one of its own rates wrong in the overcharging direction. It survived because the row was unreachable by the code that resolves a rate, so nobody ever saw a figure derived from it and nothing contradicted it. We would rather tell you that than have you find out that a vendor's country list is not evidence. Confirm the current figure with your own adviser before you rely on it, here or anywhere else, and note the mechanism separately: this is a sales tax with no input credit, so tax paid on a purchase is part of what the purchase cost rather than something you reclaim. The argument for what that does to a budget line is on our South Sudan page, which levies the same kind of instrument, and it is the same argument here.
None, and we are not going to pretend the question has one answer. There is more than one administration collecting revenue in Somalia, the arrangements between them are not ours to characterise, and what your organisation owes, where, and to whom is a question for your own adviser and your own forwarder — who deal with it per consignment and per port. This is a boundary rather than a backlog, and it will not change with a commissioned build: we do not file in any market whose rules we do not maintain, Kenya being the single exception and one we earned by maintaining it. That protects you specifically here, because a vendor confident enough to describe the national position in a sales meeting is describing a country that is simpler than the one you operate in. Ask them which of their customers has filed through their software, by name.
No — not to any of them, and this is the absence most likely to matter to you, so it is the fourth question rather than the last. Mobile money is around 73% penetration here, the services are dollar-denominated, more than half the country is paid into a wallet and most never cash out. So the rail your money actually moves on is one we have no integration with. What runs today: the employee or supplier record holds the wallet as a destination, the disbursement is keyed and coded to a project, grant or consignment, and the register gives you one place to reconcile against the telco statement. What you do by hand is the initiation and the reconciliation. This is on the roadmap and commissionable now, and it is the item we would expect to be asked for first. The precedent is not hypothetical: M-Pesa collection exists in this product because Kenyan clients needed it and commissioned it. Tell us which provider and which direction — collection, disbursement or both — and we will come back with a written specification, a timeline and a price before you commit to anything.
Your books are in dollars and the product will run that way. The currency on our tax row exists so that provisioning has something to resolve; it is not a claim about what you keep your accounts in, and we know the shilling is not the unit of account for anything substantial — worn notes were being refused outright as recently as this year. What the product does is hold a transaction in the currency it happened in, with the rate actually applied kept on the record, and it never silently converts two currencies and adds them together in a report. That last point is a design rule rather than a feature: a single total spanning currencies either names the currency it is in or does not exist.
No, and you should read this as the most important no on the page. Grant funding and correspondent banking here bring real screening obligations, and it would be easy to look at a prequalification field and assume something has been checked. Nothing has. We hold the supplier record, the documents, what was proved about a counterparty and by whom, and the date any of it expires — so the evidence is retrievable and its staleness is visible. We check no list, we consult no register, and we are not a screening service. This is a boundary rather than a backlog and it will not change with a commissioned build, because being wrong about it once is worse for you than not having it at all: the failure mode of a half-built screening feature is a user who stops looking. Buy screening from someone whose business it is, and use us for the evidence trail underneath it.
We would not claim to be, and the honest version is worth more than a promise. There is no office in Somalia, no implementation partner and no plan to imply either. What is genuinely in your favour is smaller than a presence and more useful than most vendors' answer: Mogadishu and Nairobi are on the same clock, so the working day overlaps completely rather than partially — unlike a European or Gulf vendor selling in from two or three hours away — and support is in English, which is widely used in business here even though it is not an official language. Test that second point with the person who will key transactions every day rather than with the person signing the contract; if their working language is Somali or Arabic, we are the wrong choice and we would rather you established that in week one. The question that actually separates vendors is what happens when the person who implemented your system leaves, and it is worth asking us as bluntly as you ask anybody else.
The same item, cleared through two different ports, everything it cost to get each consignment onto your floor. If your system can only give you one figure, we can show you what the other one was doing to your margin.