1. Introduction
According to the FAO (2018), the livestock sector is an important source of livelihood for about 1.7 billion people worldwide [
1]. In marginal rural areas, where poverty is rampant, livestock represent an important asset for local, cultural, and socio-economical systems, and allow the effective use of otherwise non-utilizable resources [
2]. In Africa, small ruminants, such as goats, are considered one of the assets that women can possess, take control over, and sell to meet their financial needs. Goats have a comparative advantage of short gestation periods and high incidences of multiple births [
3]. They play a critical role in rural households, providing nutritious food sources such as milk and meat, are a source of income and savings, and are used in traditional and cultural functions [
4]. In many cases, goats are a significant component of smallholder risk management strategies [
5]. Small livestock products meet the needs of rural women, as they require less inputs/investments and can be managed even with limited access to land.
Women play a central role in most countries as food producers and providers [
6], and control (some) livestock products that are essential for food and nutrition security [
7]. Women constitute 70% of food producers and providers in Kenya and represent the majority of livestock keepers [
8]. Raising livestock, as opposed to crops, tends to be a more accessible agricultural pursuit for women and, as a result, they rely on their animals more heavily than their male counterparts [
9]. Studies have shown that female livestock keepers tend to own more small ruminants (goats, sheep, among others) and poultry than large livestock (water buffalo and cows) [
10]. Such studies find that women’s contributions, while crucial, are hidden and given low social recognition, while men are predominant actors in the most lucrative activities and nodes, where profits and social connections usually abound [
7].
The productivity of small ruminants is constrained by preventable livestock diseases. Contagious caprine pleuropneumonia (CCPP) is one of the most prevalent infectious diseases affecting small ruminants, with unfavorable outcomes and serious consequences on people’s livelihoods and economies [
11]. Globally, the disease has been reported in 38 African and Asian countries [
12], where it is endemic and is a major threat to the goat farming industry [
13]. This is so despite the availability of a vaccine. CCPP is a highly infectious disease caused by
Mycoplasma capricolum sub spp.
capripneumoniae (Mccp) [
14,
15]. It is listed as a notifiable disease by the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE) with implications for international trade [
16]. Transmitted by direct and close contact between animals, it has a greater than 70% mortality rate and a morbidity rate between 80% and 100% [
17].
In Kenya, the government implements bi-annual vaccination campaigns against CCPP, but only in pastoral areas where the disease is endemic. In other parts of Kenya such as Machakos County, government-led vaccination is only done in case of a reported outbreak. However, individual farmers can also access the vaccine through private veterinary service providers outside the government-led vaccination programs, but at a cost. The vaccine used, CaprivaxTM, is an inactivated vaccine produced locally by the Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute (KEVEVAPI). Even though the vaccine efficacy is estimated at 95% [
18], other factors interfere with the vaccination effectiveness. The vaccine needs to be stored at 2–8 °C, requiring a well-maintained cold chain. CCPP outbreaks can be devastating to families with limited resources. One goat can infect a full herd in days, leading to the loss of entire herds, and risking the livelihoods of the whole family.
Women’s access to vaccines, and information and training in modern livestock disease management is indirect, and mostly through men, lowering their involvement and efficiency [
19]. Women also lack access to livestock services and product delivery systems, which are male dominated [
7]. Empowering female farmers, especially rural subsistence farmers, has been shown to be an effective means of fighting household hunger and poverty. Interventions that ensure women’s access to CCPP and other livestock vaccines by reducing gender-related barriers to their active participation along the VVC as service providers, distributors, users, and overall beneficiaries, have the potential to empower the women and lead to improved livestock productivity. Such interventions can make women more visible and foster open discussions about gender roles at the household and community level, potentially improving their economic and social status, as well as their positions in production systems [
20].
Any mediation, therefore, that aims to improve livestock health of small ruminants through vaccination is expected to offer direct and great benefits to women small-scale farmers, and application of the vaccines by women farmers could improve animal health with better reproductive and productive potential. This empowers women and increases their economic potential and agency [
21,
22].
Studies have shown that the vaccines do not reach smallholder farmers [
23,
24], and this is generally blamed on the low level of involvement of farmers in vaccination [
25]. The situation is a result of many factors, including lack of awareness of farmers about the benefits of vaccination, poor strategies of vaccination campaigns and low interaction among the vaccine chain stakeholders [
26]. A well-designed vaccine value chain has a positive influence on vaccination efforts by dropping costs and enhancing coverage [
27]. Global health actors and agencies have thus expressed the need for all vaccine supply chains, including livestock vaccines, which are often ignored, to function at their best levels [
28].
Many development interventions now utilize the value chain approach as an important entry point for engaging smallholder farmers, individually or collectively [
29]. A value chain is described as a portrayal of a firm’s value-adding actions, based on its pricing strategy and cost structure, and emphasizing the interconnections and associations between and within actors as well as the governance and relationships between actors in the creation of value for a firm [
30]. There are four main components in a traditional value chain analysis [
31]: (i) a mapping and characterization of the actors involved in the chain from production, distribution, and delivery of a particular product to the end user; (ii) an evaluation of governance and coordination systems and practices that exist between actors, to recognize the institutional arrangements that may need to be targeted to improve capacities, correct distributional biases, and build up value; (iii) an analysis of opportunities for progression within the chain by different actors, and (iv) assessment of benefit sharing among actors in the chain to determine who benefits from participation in the chain and which actors could benefit from increased support or organization.
An analysis of the CCPP vaccine value chain (CCPP-VVC) from a gendered perspective can assist in identifying bottlenecks in the entire system, and specifically places where women’s participation is low, allowing strategic interventions for women’s inclusion and promotion of gender equality. The value chain runs from vaccine manufacturing, through distribution and delivery, all the way to the livestock farmer/end user including the policy and regulatory context [
32]. A gendered Livestock VVC (LVVC) analysis helps to examine the inter-relationships between diverse actors involved in all stages of vaccine delivery, identifies and enacts improvements to the regulatory environment, and promotes systemic transformation of those gender norms that prevent women from effectively benefiting from vaccine access and adoption. A gendered LVVC analysis identifies all stakeholders, systems and processes that would impact men and women smallholders’ individual and collective opportunities. Livestock value chain interventions have been used to design productivity improvements [
19], but only most recently has a gendered analysis been employed to increase vaccine accessibility and adoption by women, with its follow-on family health benefits and empowerment [
33]. This study aims at mapping and characterizing the CCPP-VVC in Machakos County to identify the key chain actors, to analyze the barriers women smallholder farmers face along the LVVC, and opportunities for their engagement. Qualitative data generated examined the gaps, and barriers that prevent women smallholder farmers from effectively accessing and adopting CCPP vaccination for their animals, as well as potential entry points for their participation. Using outcome mapping, a stakeholder analysis of the critical partners in the CCPP-VVC was done involving the vaccine manufacturers, vaccine importers, distributors, agrovets, public veterinary services, private veterinarians, local leaders, and farmers.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Area
The study was conducted in Machakos Town sub-county, Kenya, which is located 61.6 km southeast of Nairobi, Kenya’s capital city. Machakos Town sub-county has seven wards, from which Kola and Kalama wards were purposively selected because they own chickens and goats (
Figure 1). The sub-county’s population is estimated to be 170,606. The climate is semi-arid, and the county has an altitude of 1000 to 2100 m above sea level. It lies between latitudes of 0.45′ S and 1.31′ S and longitudes 36.45′ E and 37.45′ E and covers an area of 6850 km
2. The average rainfall ranges from 500–1300 mm, and the average temperature is 18–25 °C [
34]. Subsistence agriculture is the main farm activity. Maize, in addition to such drought-resistant crops as sorghum and millet, is grown due to the area’s semi-arid nature. Most families own goats and/or chickens.
2.2. Data Collection Methodology
Our research was a cross-sectional study and used qualitative and participatory research methodologies. The strategy integrated gender analysis tools for action research in the LVVC. The USAID five domains of gender analysis was used as a gender analysis framework. This covered the following domains: (i) laws, policies, regulations, and institutional practices; (ii) access to and control over assets and resources; (iii) gender roles, responsibilities, and time use; (iv) cultural norms and beliefs, and (v) patterns of power and decision making. Thirty-nine key informant interviews (KIIs): 24 men and 15 women, were conducted with regulators at county and national levels, livestock extension workers, veterinarians, vaccinators, agrovet owners and attendants, vaccine manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, feed store owners and workers, local women farmers, community leaders, women group leaders, civic and public leaders, ecclesiastical elders, non-governmental organization leaders, and farmers along the LVVC. The KII were semi structured guides addressing farmer knowledge about chicken and goat diseases, gender and age disaggregated access to, control over, and benefits from resources; government policies and activities that affect vaccination of goats, and women’s roles and opportunities to increase benefits from LVVC.
Ten focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted, with a total of 46 males and 76 female participants. Eight of the FGDs had separate male and female participants while two were mixed male and female participants. All FDGs were conducted using guidelines created in advance based on the USAID five domains of gender analysis [
35]. A FGD guidebook was developed, and researchers pre-tested it prior to use. The FGDs focused on identifying gender roles, responsibilities, space, time use, and goat’s health problems and patterns of power and decision making, laws and policies as they impact women in the LVVC. The sustainable livelihoods assessment tool [
36] was used with the eight sex-disaggregated FGDs to analyze the differential social, financial, physical, personal, and human control over assets for men and women in the community. The FGDs done with different stakeholders in the LVVC were useful to identify barriers to women’s access to delivery and distribution of vaccines. Data collection was enriched by holding focus group discussions with varying groups including women goat farmers, men goat farmers and mixed groups. Ranking exercises were done within the FGDs.
Outcome mapping (OM), a qualitative participatory process that allows different stakeholders to collaborate in a systems analysis was used to map and track critical changes in the cultural practices, organizational systems, institutional and governance policies, and the progress of stakeholders towards the goal of women’s empowerment in the LVVC. The OM tool helped to identify LVVC stakeholders and their formal and informal interactions. Three different stakeholder meetings were held, one with national level stakeholders that included vaccine regulatory bodies as well as vaccine manufacturers and distributors, and some deliverers, one with county level vaccine value chain actors including county administrative teams agrovet, public and private veterinarians, and one with community level stakeholders that included women group leaders and local community leaders and members. Through a facilitated process, stakeholders worked collaboratively to physically map out their roles and interconnections in the LVVC, support mechanisms, as well as existing systems including analyzing their current limitations and gaps, challenges and barriers that they face (both systemic and programmatic). The stakeholders identified challenges and opportunities for women’s participation, engagement, and ability to influence legal and governance structures within the LVVC. Focus meals, impromptu focus groups around a meal with randomly selected participants found in a semi-public setting (near a restaurant or market), were done. A free meal was provided as an incentive for people to share their stories and ideas. Group discussions took place over lunch and took 45–60 min. These groups were open to all community members of different genders, making space for those who otherwise may not have participated in the study. Jar voices were set up to capture people’s opinions in transit. They captured opinions and ideas of men and women about the gendered ownership of livestock, and participation in and constraints to vaccination of animals.
Jar voices were set up to capture people’s opinions in transit. They were done anonymously for both men and women to collect their views about the gendered ownership of livestock and participation in and constraints to vaccination of animals. Simple questions were written on flip charts and hung on walls of consenting drug shops for a day, then patrons were invited to write their answers and place them in a jar. The answers were collected and replaced with a fresh set of questions the following day. Jar voices helped to capture a community’s identity and voice in real time and space. A jar voice is a very effective tool for capturing voices of people who rarely participate in community gatherings, whose voices are smothered or are rarely selected by their community leaders but can be found in these spaces; the outside or lonely voice. In many patriarchal communities, women belong in this category. The jar voice questions were written in English and translated into Swahili. However, illiterate people and those who did not speak English and Swahili were assisted by the Agrovet staff to respond to the questions.
Table 1 below summarizes the data collection methodology.
2.3. Data Analysis
Data analysis included daily reviews of all data to identify and triangulate key findings. Data collected through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and focus meals were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim in the local language (Kiswahili and Kikamba) and then translated into English for coding and analysis.
Inductive coding (a process whereby codes were derived from the data) of FGD transcripts were compared and contrasted and a comprehensive code book of thematic codes was developed for further data summation and analysis [
37]. The coding was based on the five domains of gender analysis, as well as different frameworks such as the gender empowerment framework, chain empowerment matrix, Harvard analytical frameworks, and the Caroline Moser gender roles framework. Content analysis was used to examine patterns and interpret meaning [
38]. Extracts and quotations were used as examples.
4. Discussion
In this study men and women actors and informants along the CCPP-VVC prioritized and ranked barriers to vaccine access and adoption very differently. Men prioritized ineffective (fake) vaccines, lack of finances for purchasing vaccines, unqualified practitioners (quacks), slow veterinary officer’s response, and high cost of vaccination and vet services, in that order, as the top five leading hindrances to vaccine access. However, women ranked limited knowledge of goat diseases, high cost of vet services, lack of awareness of government programmes, unqualified practitioners, and few veterinary doctors, as their top five barriers. There is need to acknowledge that smallholder livestock farmers are not a single homogeneous group. Men and women smallholder farmers face different concerns, prioritize barriers differently and, therefore, approaches to developing interventions must take that into account. These differences contribute to inequalities and power imbalances and allow us to visualize the highly gendered nature of the vaccine value chain, which explains who in the value chain can access or control information. Women feel that they do not receive information on livestock diseases and vaccination, whereas men do not find this a problem and are concerned by “fake vaccines”, a situation that tends to indicate that they know about vaccination and have already some concerns about its efficacy. This is because vaccination information was relayed through veterinary personnel to the public administration chiefs, assistant-chiefs, and village elders, public announcements, and the radio; avenues that are more accessible to men than women. This information aligns with Serra et al., which discusses the significantly gendered and intersectional livestock vaccine value chains in Uganda, Senegal and Nepal, and the impact on PPR vaccine access [
33]. Using gender transformative approaches that address both fundamental causes and consequences of gender inequality, an approach that looks at both the social context that contributes to existing the inequities and to their persistence as well as the enhancement of the opportunities in terms of information access, resources, technologies and environment, can lead to better development outcomes for women smallholder farmers.
Men and women engage in livestock farming/keeping for different purposes and, therefore, targeted interventions need to be developed with this in mind. A gendered perspective and analysis on barriers to livestock production and disease prevention (i.e., mitigation, adaptation, policy development) decision-making needs to be applied. Understanding the different barriers women smallholder livestock farmers face as opposed to men is critical, especially as in this case and elsewhere, women are already relegated to the end user node of livestock value chain [
33].
Gender differences should push policy makers in developing gender-transformative and more informed programmes to enhance livestock farmers in general, and women’s welfare and participation in particular. Using gender transformative approaches that address both fundamental causes and consequences of gender inequality, an approach that looks at the social context that allows the inequities to exist, as well as the enhancement of the opportunities in terms of information access, resources, technologies and environment, can lead to better development outcomes for women smallholder farmers. Considering gender differences in livestock management and production and reflecting them into livestock programs and policies is of utmost importance, especially considering that such differences are often underpinned by social and cultural norms and stereotypes [
33,
42].
CCPP vaccine costs are influenced by the cost of the vaccine itself, long distances traveled by both farmer and veterinary service providers, compounded by lack of transport infrastructure, and lack of a cold chain to bring the vaccine closer to the people. This, and the fact that women in poor rural Machakos lack mobility (as they cannot ride or ride on motorbikes; the only means of transport available in the difficult terrain of the study area), lack autonomy and decision-making power regarding goat keeping, poses an enormous problem for goat farmers, particularly women, in Machakos. This is exacerbated by the fact that the government is the sole supplier of the CCPP vaccine. Eradication of contagious and endemic diseases becomes a challenge when the government is the sole supplier of medication and vaccine, as is the case with the CCPP vaccine in this study, and especially so if such government strategies do not take into account the existing disparities among the livestock holders [
33], forcing the needs of the vulnerable individuals to always remain unmet. Studies done on similar diseases insist that eradication requires involvement of all stakeholders in the LVVC, including the private sector, NGOs, public sectors, and farmers themselves, in a well-structured stakeholder engagement [
43,
44], which was the approach of this study. However, LVVC partners require capacity and resources to understand how to apply existing national commitments to gender equality policies to their internal management, and then to implement, enforce and monitor them.
The case is worsened when the production, and or supply, of the vaccine is not adequate, as in the case of CCPP in Machakos. Farmers complained all the time that even when the government organized a vaccination campaign, the vaccine was not enough to cover all the animals, and many of them had to go back home without vaccinating their herds. The government’s strategy also fails because not only is the free vaccine coverage inadequate to cover the demand of the county, but the vaccine also reaches the farmers as a treatment measure rather than a preventive measure, since the service providers often arrive after an outbreak has occurred. Consequently, more farmers lose their flock before and after vaccination. This experience has a negative impact on the farmers such that the next vaccination campaign will have a poor response resulting in a low number of vaccinations. This low level of involvement of farmers in vaccinations results in minimal vaccine adoption and, consequently, failure of eradication efforts. Due to its high cost, very few farmers purchase the vaccine. The end result is a low quantity of vaccine with the stockists. This was demonstrated very well in this study where agrovet shops declined to stock CCPP vaccine because of its low demand [
44]. This phenomenon has also been seen in other countries in Africa [
25] and resulted in reduced vaccine production and stocking as suppliers are not willing to stock products that are in low demand, resulting in income loss, especially for products with limited shelf life [
11].
Additionally, compared to other livestock vaccines, the CCPP vaccine is relatively expensive, costing 15 dollars for a 100-dose vial. Combined with short lived immunity and need for increased vaccination frequency, the CCPP vaccine has limitations in a mass vaccination program [
45]. Another study done in Kenya found that costs emerged as the greatest barrier to vaccine adoption. Cost is a critical determinant of vaccine uptake, since in households where livestock vaccination costs are higher than available disposable income, farmers may forfeit vaccination or only have some of their animals vaccinated [
46].
A combination vaccine of CCPP with another agent, such as Rift Valley fever, Peste des petits ruminants virus (PPR), foot and mouth disease (FMDO) sheep poxvirus and enterotoxaemia, could reduce costs for individual farmers as well as encourage mass scale immunization campaigns [
45,
47]. Furthermore, traditional vaccines are not without fault. Their efficacy for instance can be suboptimal with certain pathogens, and safety concerns have been raised with live attenuated vaccines [
48]. This underlies the focus within the last three decades on using synthetic genomic techniques based on genetically modified organisms to identify novel vaccine candidates in veterinary medicine [
48]. Such vaccines are becoming acceptable around the world, and in East Africa they will circumvent several of the flaws associated with classical vaccines. The East African community is identifying opportunities to harmonize and synergize policies across the region to enable usage of products across multiple countries once they are approved in one country. This means that a vaccine registered in one country would also be registered in other countries, decreasing costs and delivery bottlenecks.
A recent study on the adoption of goats’ vaccine in Kenya demonstrated that CCPP is ranked by animal keepers as one of the highest priority diseases in livestock, higher than Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia, and yet the vaccine is still inaccessible to farmers even during an outbreak, and quite expensive when compared to other animal vaccines [
44]. Many smallholder women farmers believe that the government places greater emphasis on cattle, rather than small ruminant health care, and that small ruminants are typically seen as having a secondary status, along with their perceived primary keepers, who are mostly women. According to the director of vet services, the Machakos County government provided around 8820 doses of CCPP vaccine in 2019. Only 7540 goats were vaccinated during that year’s vaccination campaign, a coverage of only 1.2% of the goat population of about 629,000. Renault Veronique’s research in the ASAL zones of Kenya demonstrated that in a normal herd of 100 goats, the annual economic losses due to CCPP was projected at around 1712.66 € per year [
11].
The Kenya government and its supporting institutions are responsible for the development of strategies and legislative framework that guide the manufacture and registration of vaccines, including access of these vaccines to women small-scale farmers. The state is therefore accountable for the implementation of the relevant control measures. CCPP vaccine distribution is controlled and regulated by the government. The tensions lie in diseases that are important at the farm or village level but not prioritized for state intervention. For instance, CCPP is notifiable, meaning it must be reported to the state, but all regular control measures including vaccination are the responsibility of the owner/s, unless there is an outbreak. Government regulations play a key role in vaccine delivery to all end-users, but current public funding and policies support cattle production, with minimal recognition of the importance of goats in sustaining family livelihoods. Vaccine uptake is a complex process that requires buy-in from men and women farmers, veterinary departments, county/district and national governments, and vaccine producers. It ultimately depends on the social context and must respond appropriately to the power dynamics in the household, community and across the entire livestock vaccine value chain. We have to recognize intra-household dynamics, control over resources and who decides what. Gender roles and relations in the households intersect with positions, relationships and responsibilities, which must be understood to create truly transformative projects that raise the position of women relative to men. The gender-blind history of livestock development projects has all too often resulted in increasing the workload of women without empowering them. Coupling interventions that enhance the equity of the social environment in the LVVC and technical components such as training, and provision of the cold chain can enhance women’s instrumental agency and lead to better outcomes for women, men, their families and communities.
Interviews with veterinary services providers and other stakeholders revealed that the involvement of women in vaccination campaigns has a positive impact on the community. Farmers reported that the presence of a woman vet officer in the livestock service stimulated more farmers to seek vet services, and that female vets were preferred over their male counterparts. They recognized that women’s involvement in the livestock sector results in better results, translating to better vaccine uptake. Respondents stated that whenever the CCPP vaccination teams worked with women in the field their success was greater because most small-scale goat farmers are women and have greater capacity to convince others to vaccinate their goats. A study done in Mali on the vaccination of PPR supports the findings of the present study, as it demonstrated that the incomplete involvement of women in vaccinations was considered as one of the main challenges in the implementation of vaccination [
25]. The present study further corroborates other findings that women are caretakers of their animal’s health in different societies [
49,
50], suggesting that they should not be sidelined in activities geared towards the promotion of vaccine uptake. Creating more entry spaces for women along the LVVC, and opportunities that foster a vertical shift of women along the LVVC from end-users of the vaccines and veterinary drug shop attendants to becoming women entrepreneurs, animal health service providers and decision makers at the various nodes of the chain, is critical for improved livestock productivity in Machakos county.
There are many opportunities for women to engage in the CCPP-VVC as end-users, entrepreneurs, deliverers, and even at the vaccine distribution level. However, this needs a deliberate effort on the part of the policy makers and regulators to enforce gender-responsive policies and to deliberately examine reasons why, even with those policies such as the government’s two-third gender rule concept, which states in article 81(b) of the Kenyan Constitution, that “Not more than two thirds of the members of elective or appointive bodies shall be of the same gender”, women are still not being hired as animal health service providers. Most of the relevant livestock policies are written in gender-neutral language, but their effects are frequently different for men and women. Currently, the policies on vaccine development and distribution in Kenya seem to be gender neutral. Moreover, there is no point along the value chain where there is a consideration for gender dynamics, i.e., manufacturing a vaccine that women can use easily, considering that women tend to own fewer animals and thereby packaging the vaccines in smaller vials to target smallholder farmers, focusing on producing vaccines that do not require a cold chain, and making a deliberate effort to recruit women as animal health service providers.
Other opportunities include reviewing the training program for animal health assistants to make it more time and user friendly for women. The current program is based on systems established in the 1980s when people were required to go away for two years to attend college. Modifications can be done to create interrupted programs that allow for short periods of didactics with the rest of the time spent in the field through an experiential learning program. Programs like these are successfully being implemented and reflect the best learning practices for most field practitioners. If away from home training sessions could be reduced to one month, three times a year, with a shift to internships and practical experiences, more women could participate. The empowerment of women along the VVC needs to be continued through increased access to education, information, training in animal healthcare, and ownership over assets and land.
5. Conclusions
This study exposes gender-related issues in the livestock vaccine value chain. It highlights the constraints and gaps in the current CCPP-VVC against which gender based cultural and non-cultural barriers exist to constrain and limit women farmers from accessing services related to livestock keeping and vaccines. This study demonstrates the existence of barriers encountered in laws, regulations, culture, practices, access to finances and other services for small scale farmers seeking to rear goats and to access the CCPP vaccine as end-users or play other entrepreneurial roles along the vaccine value chain.
Women smallholder farmers are still facing many challenges to access CCPP vaccines including high cost of vet services, lack of finances, knowledge and awareness on disease management, vaccine availability, and poor vaccination programs. On the part of the government, lack of resources, inadequate response and planning for vaccination campaigns, poor enforcement, or absence of gender-responsive policies, are the main factors preventing women smallholder farmers from accessing vaccines. However, opportunities exist that can be used as women’s entry points in the LVVC. Our results show that in spite of the lack of gender balance in veterinary services, both male and female farmers have preference for women veterinarians, reportedly because they are considered more skillful, honest, and reliable enough to deliver correct and viable vaccines and good quality drugs. They also are more accessible, and willing to engage.
The significance of women in smallholder livestock farming needs to be firmly established as a targeted policy imperative and as a part of a wider food-security strategy. Understanding the behavior, interests, inter-relations, and intentions of different LVVC stakeholders can be used to assess the influence, resources and effect these stakeholders have on women’s entry and participation as key players in the LVVC. Vaccine uptake is a complex responsibility shared by men and women farmers, veterinary departments, county/district and national governments, and vaccine producers. Women’s participation and influence in the LVVC translates into their ability to exercise decision-making and other powers in wider domains such as the creation of gender-responsive laws and regulations related to disease control, increased access to education, information, training in animal healthcare, and ownership over assets. Women also need to be empowered to take on leadership positions within rural livestock-farming communities and to play a role in intra-household and communal decision-making. They need to be included in regulatory policy making and enforcement.
Women smallholder goat farmers need to be well linked to the LVVC for them to maximize the value chain benefits. Whenever the public sector works with more women, their opportunities increase, and women’s roles in the society are recognized and appreciated. We conclude that if more resources, information, and training is available to women smallholder farmers, including opportunities as veterinary service providers, there would be increased adoption of CCPP vaccine and women’s visibility in the VVC as actors would increase translating into improved livestock productivity, better livelihoods, and agency. A holistic and sustainable model that focuses on systemic transformational change within the animal health sector to value women’s contributions and support their empowerment, is essential. Effective gender transformative approaches require political commitment to changing the status quo, allocation of resources, and adequate time for reflection and change.