2011_Village veterinary workers in Laos

Published by:

The intention was:

2003 had been a terrible year for animal deaths in Paktha district (Northern Laos), with the deaths of over 100 cows and buffaloes due to haemorrhagic fever. A survey had found that animal deaths were the second greatest cause of poverty after rice shortages. When Vredeseilanden started working in the district in 2004, the best practice in veterinary services to local farmers in Laos was seen to be via the village veterinary workers (or VVW). Their role was to collect data from the farmers, determine how many animals were to be vaccinated, and then go to the district to buy the necessary medicines. In return for their efforts they would be able to get a percentage of the vaccination fee. The EU Livestock Project had prepared detailed training materials for VVW’s, trained and supported district offices to manage vaccine revolving funds, and recommended that all district offices have refrigeration systems that enabled the storage of vaccines at the proper temperature.

The course of action was:

In co-operation with the EU Livestock Project, then, Vredeseilanden immediately trained 2 village veterinary workers for each of its 8 target villages, when the project started in 2004. We bought a solar fridge for the field station, and bought another for the district livestock office.

The result was:

By 2008, it had become clear that despite the efforts of the staff in supporting the village veterinary workers to organise vaccinations (and holding vaccination days), the vaccination rate was still low, and generally needed Vredeseilanden technical staff to lead to VVW’s. In some cases, even the VVW’s themselves didn’t vaccinate their own animals. Most farmers still believed that it was spirits that caused animal deaths, rather than vaccines, and that so the number of farmers wanting to vaccinate was too few for the local VVW to justify a trip to buy vaccines.

The lesson was:

The Vredeseilanden team came to the conclusion that they used the wrong approach and wondered if there was an alternative to the village veterinary workers. Would an enterprise based approach not be more successful? This was the approach that we were already using in our Market Access Project. With the agreement of the district, we called for expressions of interest in establishing a veterinary enterprise based in the 8 target villages, so as to ensure that initially there would be a viable number of farmers interested to vaccinate their animals. After interviewing three candidates, we selected Mr Kern, a Khmu farmer from Poung village, and had a trial period of six months. In that period Mr Kern received additional training and the use of a motorcycle, and the number of vaccinations increased.

Mr Kern presented a business plan to the district, and has been registered as a business to supply and administer veterinary medicines on behalf of the district. He built a clinic in front of this house, and has bought a fridge to store vaccines. To this very day he is still working as a vet and his business is successful. He says “There are more than 2,000 cows alone in the local area, which need vaccinating twice a year, so there is really a good market.”

What we learnt from this experience is that an entrepreneurial approach can be the most successful way to get things moving, and that this option should always be considered from the start/concepualisation of a project.

Further: