The Provision of Veterinary Services: Who Are the Influential Actors and What Are the Governance Challenges? A Case Study of Uganda

Abstract

As a result of continued fiscal challenges from the late 1980s to date, the government of Uganda liberalized and decentralized the provision of veterinary services. As a result, many actors are involved in providing veterinary services without adequate regulation and supervision. With the resurgence of infectious diseases, and increased economic and health risks, especially to the rural poor, there is the need to understand relational patterns of actors to ensure good governance, and address emerging and re-emerging risks of animal diseases. A participatory mapping tool called Process Net-Map was used to identify relevant actors and assess their influence in the delivery of clinical and preventive veterinary services in both pastoral and intensive livestock production systems. The tool also served to elicit governance challenges in veterinary service delivery. The results reveal that important social relations in veterinary service delivery include the following: (1) Cooperation between private veterinarians and paraprofessionals as well as private veterinarians and government veterinarians in intensive production systems; and (2) cooperation between NGOs, government veterinarians and community-based animal health workers in pastoral areas. Staff absenteeism, insufficient and unpredictable budgets, weak legislation, exclusion of technical staff from the decision-making process and policy illogicality were identified as major governance problems of veterinary service delivery. The paper concludes that given the existing fiscal challenges, the key to improving animal service delivery in Uganda is getting priorities, policies and institutions right. I N T RO D U C T I O NThe Government of Uganda adopted structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s and the early 1990s. This resulted in the decentralization and privatization of clinical veterinary services and the downscaling of civil services (Haan and Umali, 1992). Clinical services, breeding and spraying for tick control were privatized, while vaccination of animals against epidemic diseases, quarantines and tsetse control were retained under the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF).

The neglected governance challenges of agricultural mechanisation in Africa – insights from Ghana

“…For example, Raabe et al (2010) applied a version called BProcess Net-Map^to study the governance challenges of a social safety net program in India. Ilukor et al (2015) used Net-Map to investigate governance challenges of the provision of veterinary services in Uganda.…”

Reaching for the low hanging fruits: One health benefits of joint crop–livestock services for small-scale farmers

“…Mixed farming systems are prevalent among Ugandan small-scale farmers and in some areas, livestock is a vital high-priority commodity. However, veterinary and livestock husbandry and extension services are scarce and often without adequate regulation and supervision [20]; 2) Uganda's National Agricultural Extension Policy from 2016 promotes a unified, pluralistic approach to extension to address the limited human resource at sub-county level and enable the diverse needs of farmers (crops, livestock and fisheries) to be addressed at once. The current organisational structure of the Ugandan extension system, with a crop and a livestock officer assigned to each sub-county, is conducive for developing joint crop-livestock services.…”

Participatory evaluation of delivery of animal health care services by community animal health workers in Karamoja region of Uganda

“…As a result, many actors became involved in the provision of veterinary services in Uganda [6]. The provision of clinical services, breeding and spraying for tick control were privatized, while vaccination of animals against epidemic diseases, quarantines and tsetse control were retained under the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries [6]. It is important to note, however, that private veterinary services were concentrated largely in urban and peri-urban areas that have favorable infrastructure and a high potential for business [7].…”

“…As part of the structural adjustment programs of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank in the late 1980s, the government of Uganda liberalized and decentralized the provision of veterinary services just like in other parts of Africa, such as Ethiopia and Somalia. As a result, many actors became involved in the provision of veterinary services in Uganda [ 6 ]. The provision of clinical services, breeding and spraying for tick control were privatized, while vaccination of animals against epidemic diseases, quarantines and tsetse control were retained under the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries [ 6 ].…”