Beyond the Gender of the Livestock Holder: Learnings from Intersectional Analyses of PPR Vaccine Value Chains in Nepal, Senegal, and Uganda

Abstract

The peste des petits ruminants (PPR) is a deadly viral disease of small ruminants, which are an important source of livelihood for hundreds of millions of poor smallholders throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. PPR vaccination efforts often focus on overcoming financial, technological, and logistical constraints that limit their reach and effectiveness. This study posits that it is equally important to pay attention to the role of gender and other intersecting social and cultural factors in determining individual and groups’ ability to access PPR vaccines or successfully operate within the vaccine distribution system. We compare three study contexts in Nepal, Senegal, and Uganda. Qualitative data were collected through a total of 99 focus group discussions with men and women livestock keepers and animal health workers, 83 individual interviews, and 74 key informant interviews. Our findings show that there are not only important gender differences, but also interrelated structures of inequalities, which create additional sites of exclusion. However, these intersections are not generalizable across contexts—except for the intersection of gender and geographic remoteness, which is salient across vaccine distribution systems in the three countries—and social markers such as caste, ethnicity, and livelihood are associated with vulnerability only in specific settings. In order to address the distinct needs of livestock keepers in given settings, we argue that an intersectional analysis combined with context-dependent vaccination approaches are critical to achieving higher vaccination rates and, ultimately, PPR disease eradication by 2030.

Who Has Access to Livestock Vaccines? Using the Social-Ecological Model and Intersectionality Frameworks to Identify the Social Barriers to Peste des Petits Ruminants Vaccines in Karamoja, Uganda

“…The cultural belief that livestock management belongs to men results in mobilization and distribution of livestock vaccines almost exclusively to men. Gender has been identified as a constraint to accessing livestock vaccinations across several contexts ( 57 – 61 ), but very few studies have highlighted the importance of other intersectional factors beyond gender and livestock vaccines ( 24 , 25 , 32 ). District level stakeholders of the LVVC are trying to address some of the barriers mentioned above, however, there are barriers that are rooted in broader systemic problems.…”

“…Intersectionality is a relatively recent framework that has gained traction in the social sciences and public health as a critical tool both to analyze data and to design effective interventions by understanding and addressing the experience of populations defined by layered identities (e.g., not just men vs. women, but poor and minority women) and how that intersectional identity drives their interaction in different systems ( 29 , 31 ). In the context of livestock vaccinations, the framework of intersectionality has been proposed as a tool to facilitate an understanding of the dynamic relationship of inequality and marginalization, by illustrating which livestock keeper or group faces greater and differential barriers to accessing vaccines ( 25 , 32 ). Given Karamoja's diverse ethnicities and the turbulent history of ethnic conflict, the intersection of gender and ethnicity, along with other social markers, becomes particularly important when it comes to livestock, as livestock are deeply embedded in cultures, norms, and livelihoods of various ethnicities residing in the region.…”

Evaluation of livestock farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the use of veterinary vaccines in Southwest Ethiopia

“…Furthermore, studies conducted by Colverson et al (2020) andSerra et al (2022) have also found that gender differences can influence attitudes and behaviours related to animal health care practices.…”

“…Male respondents were more likely to possess a better understanding, have a positive attitude, and properly use vaccines compared to females. This could be attributed to various factors, such as differences in educational opportunities, cultural beliefs, access to information, or variations in exposure to veterinary vaccines (Acosta et al., 2022; Morris et al., 2021; Mutua et al., 2019; Omondi et al., 2022; Serra et al., 2022). Furthermore, societal expectations or traditional gender roles may result in males being more involved in animal husbandry practices, leading to increased exposure and understanding of veterinary vaccines (McKune et al., 2021).…”