socio-economic factors influencing animal health surveillance and control: the case of foot and...
TRANSCRIPT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING ANIMAL HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL: THE CASE OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE SURVEILLANCE IN
VIETNAM
Pham,T.T.Hoa1, Moussiaux NA2, Rukkwamsuk T3, Peyre M1
1CIRAD-AGIRs Vietnam/France; 2 University of Liege, Belgium; 3Kasetsart University, Thailand.
Content
• Introduction• Objectives • Material and methods• Results • Conclusions
Introduction• Persistent endemicity of FMD in Vietnam even high
efforts invested • Under-reporting of FMD outbreaks: a major constraint of
animal health surveillance and control
• Critical issue influencing performance of surveillance system: the willingness of the livestock owners to share animal health information with veterinary authorities
• Understanding the socio-economic factors behind this willingness will help to improve the efficacy of animal health surveillance system
Objectives
• To describe the interactions between all the actors of the animal health surveillance network
• To identify the socio-economic factors
influencing on farmer’s decision to report animal disease information in Vietnam
5
Material and methods
Material and methods• Data collection: October 2013-
February 2014• Selection of interviewee:
Random sampling pig holders in 8 villages
Exhaustive sampling of critical actors (veterinarians, drug sellers)
Snowball sampling to include new category of actors mentioned during the interviews: traders, drug delegation
• Semi-structured interview with a checklist covered: Animal health management at farm Exchange of animal disease
information Factors influencing animal disease
reporting
6
Material and Methods (cont.)• Network analysis: sna
package (R software)• Graph visualization
Nodes = actors Links= flows of animal disease
information between actors
• Indicator measuring Degree centrality Closeness centrality Betweenness centrality
• Frequency of social-economic factors mentioned by pig holders
Actors in the networkTotal interviewees: 121
• Stratified random sampling Small pig holders (SH): 76 ( 55%) Semi-commercial pig producers
(SC):15 ( 75%)
• Exhaustive sampling Animal health worker (vil.vet): 4 Commune para-veterinarian
(com.vet): 2 Veterinary drug seller: 3
• Snowball sampling Veterinarians : 4(district/provincial level) Local authorities : 7(head of villages/communes) Agriculture staff: 2 Commune para-veterinarian: 3 Private veterinarian: 1 Pig trader: 2 Veterinary drug delegation: 2
Results
Network of animal health information
9Hubs
Hubs
Broker
Measures of centrality in the networkDegree centrality
Top 4: Veterinary drug sellers and para-veterinarians
The most active actors in the network
Measures of centrality in the networkBetweenness centrality
Top 4: Para-veterinarians, drug delegation, and drug seller
The gate keeper in the network who get the earliest animal health information
Measures of centrality in the networkCloseness centrality
Top 4: Drug delegation, para-veterinarians, drug seller, and veterinarian
The closest relationship to other actors in the network, receiving information from other actors quickly
Socio-economic factors influence on farmer’s decision of disease reporting
13
Factors Semi-commercial farms (N=15)n (%)
Small pig farm holding (N=76)n (%)
Comments
Loss of reputation which gives a consequence of business interruption (stop breeding, feeding, drug selling)
13 (86.7) - Very important in breeding farms
Loss of reputation which causes the difficulty in bank loan or buying feed in credit
- 45 (59.2)
Drop of pig price and difficulty to sell breeding/fattening pigs
13 (86.7) 67 (88.2)
Uncertainty of being compensated 10 (66.7) 68 (89.5)
Unclear of compensation rate 6(40.0) 49 (64.5)Complicated administrative procedures of compensation and long period of compensation payment
11 (73.3) 41 (53.9)
Long period of movement restriction 8 (53.3) 18 (23.7)
Being confident on disease risk assessment and disease management
11(73.3) 7 (9.2)
Affection on the relationship with other farmers/relatives due to negative consequence of disease notification
2 (13.3) 5 (6.6)
Possibility to sell sick/dead pigs 9 (60.0) 57 (75.0)
Conclusions • The most active actors in animal health surveillance network:
drug sellers, para-veterinarians (commune vets.)
• Important socio-economic factors influencing on swine disease surveillance and control strategies: loss of reputation, dropping of pig price, uncertainty of compensation payment, and possibility to sell sick/dead pigs.
• Organization of surveillance and control program needs to take account role of private sectors and local constraints
Acknowledgement• Funding: Revasia project
(CIRAD), IRD• Hanoi Agriculture University• District Agriculture
Department,• Local authority• Pig holders in study area
Thank you very much for your attention