Providing animal health services to the poor in Northern Ghana: rethinking the role of community animal health workers?

• Published in: Tropical animal health and production Vol. 46; no. 2; pp. 475 - 480
• Main Authors: Mockshell, Jonathan, Ilukor, John, Birner, Regina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer-Verlag 01.02.2014; Springer Netherlands; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: affordability; Agriculture; animal health; Animal Husbandry; Animals; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Communicable Disease Control - methods; Communicable Diseases - veterinary; Community Health Workers; Farmers; Ghana; health care workers; Households; issues and policy; Life Sciences; Livestock; Livestock farming; Poverty; Public sector; Regular Articles; rural health care; Rural Population; surveys; Training; Veterinarians; Veterinary Medicine - manpower; Veterinary Medicine/Veterinary Science; Zoology; Ghana; Northern Ghana; Community animal health workers; Government para-vets; Animal health services
• ISSN: 0049-4747; 1573-7438
• DOI: 10.1007/s11250-013-0518-9

The Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) system has been promoted as an alternative solution to providing animal health services in marginal areas. Yet, access to quality animal health services still remains a fundamental problem for livestock dependent communities. This paper uses the concepts of accessibility, affordability, and transaction costs to examine the perceptions of livestock keepers about the various animal health service providers. The empirical analysis is based on a survey of 120 livestock-keeping households in the Tolon-Kumbungu and Savelugu-Nanton districts in the Northern Region of Ghana. A multinomial logit model was used to determine the factors that influence households’ choice of alternative animal health service providers. The results show that the government para-vets are the most preferred type of animal health service providers while CAHWs are the least preferred. Reasons for this observation include high transaction costs and low performance resulting from limited training. In areas with few or no government para-vets, farmers have resorted to self-treatment or to selling sick animals for consumption, which has undesirable health implications. These practices also result in significant financial losses for farmers. This paper finds that the CAHWs’ system is insufficient for providing quality animal health services to the rural poor in marginal areas. Therefore, market-smart alternative solutions requiring strong public sector engagement to support livestock farmers in marginal areas and setting minimum training standards for animal health service providers merit policy consideration.