Deciding Where to Work

QUICK LINKS
Initial Scoping Process
Targeting the Neediest Animals

Initial Scoping Process

Before determining the most appropriate approach for working with communities to improve animal welfare, you must first decide where to work by conducting an initial scoping process. Initiate the scoping process by first gathering information about the potential project areas in a light touch process. This information can be found through secondary sources such as local or regional level government census records, animal health records, reports, surveys, stories, journals, maps, and any other useful sources at national and local level including non-profit organizations. This process also typically involves policy analysis, as well as direct observation of the local context of animal-owning communities, including socio-economic conditions and animal welfare situation. In addition, it is recommended you talk with animal owners and other key informants knowledgeable about the local context.

The goal of this scoping process to better understand the local context, types of animals and welfare issues present, broader animal related resources and services available in the area, as well as the general socio - economic situation of animal owning households. The box below provides an overview information helpful to deciding where to work.

• Number and name of villages or towns where animals of interest are kept within the potential project area.
• Distance between these places and your project office.
• Number of men, women and children in the villages/towns, and average size of households; and assess who are most vulnerable (number, gender, social hierarchy, or any other circumstances that contributes for their vulnerability in relation to animal welfare needs).
• General socioeconomic status of men and women within animal owning communities e.g. average household income, or household economic status, household income source, common employment opportunities (particularly any involving their animals), level of education, social status etc.
• Infrastructure and facilities available at different levels (local community/village, town/city, district/county)
• Governmental, non-governmental, private organizations, agencies or institutions working in the area, particularly those already engaged working with animal owning households.
• Existence of community-based organizations and other local institutions important to community functioning and/or networking.
• Socio-cultural and religious practices to have a deeper understanding about the community context and particularly if this has any relation and effect on animal welfare practices.

• Number and type of animals in the area and how they are distributed (dense or scattered)
• Places where animals congregate e.g. workplaces, markets, feeding areas
• Types of activities or work involving animals of interest in the area (focusing on purposes animals are kept e.g. reproduction, transport, renting out the animals as a means of income, and for whom/purpose are rented out, etc.)
• Environmental conditions of where animals are kept or worked.
• Existing community animal welfare practices (e.g. common animal welfare problems reported or observed, good practices observed etc.)
• Availability and quality of animal related resources and services important to promoting animal welfare in the area e.g. animal health service providers, grazing land and/or feed sellers, water sources, farriers, etc.

Targeting the Neediest Animals

No matter how motivated you are, it may not be practical for you or your organization to work with all animal-owning communities in your area. Communities may be geographically scattered in areas with few animals in each one, or the population of animals might be too large to cover all at once. Community’s willingness and motivation to work with you, and of course existing animal welfare needs/risks to animals’ welfare are also factors that needs to be considered before deciding where to work and investing heavily. It is therefore important to acknowledge how different factors play in determining where to work. As very few organizations have endless resources available, and it is therefore important to identify and prioritize where the animal welfare need is greatest. To facilitate your prioritization of where to work, you may find it helpful to categorize potential target animal populations by risk level (e.g. highest risk, medium/moderate risk, and those with lowest risk of welfare problems). To do this, use the information collated during the scoping phase to identify areas where the highest animal welfare risks are likely to occur. Decide on the criteria you will use to identify groups of animals at risk of the poorest welfare.

Some examples might include:

• Number of animals
• Severity of animal welfare issues in terms of both the number of welfare issues (e.g. within the four welfare domains of health, nutrition, environment, behaviour), as well as the cumulative physical and mental/emotional suffering experienced by the animal as a result.
• Potential livelihood vulnerability of animal owning households and/or broader communities, (e.g. livelihood challenges which may hinder communities’ ability to meet household and animals’ needs)
• Animal owning communities’ awareness, or knowledge and skills related to animal welfare, care, and husbandry practices (if known)
• Access and availability of animal related resources and services
• Specific considerations for working animals may include:
  - Size and type of load carried
  - Number of hours the animal’s work
  - Distance travelled each day
  - Environment in which the animal works such as climate or terrain
  - Type of work for which the animal is used
  - Economic pressures for using the animal
  - Type of equipment used
  - Seasonal variations

The high-risk category is likely to contain the neediest animals and communities and may be where your project wishes to focus on as a priority. However, this may result in prioritizing working with fewer animals or communities, than if you used the same resources to tackle less severe welfare issues. In addition, it may require greater organizational capacity and commitment to support more holistic interventions capable of addressing the root causes of severe animal welfare issues (e.g. animal health system strengthening or improving availability of financial or natural resources). Thus, it is important that the priorities and strategic direction of your organization are clear when choosing where to work based on the greatest animal need. It is also recommended to consider the work other agencies or organizations are doing in the area as they could potentially be leveraged to address underlying causes of animal welfare issues which may be beyond the capacity of your organization to address (e.g. water infrastructure projects, income generation), and optimize outcomes of any animal welfare interventions undertaken.

Case Study
Defining the neediest working animals for a pilot project in Ethiopia

Ethiopia has over 5 million working animals and most are donkeys used in rural transport and agriculture.

A pilot project was initiated by the Brooke in 2008, covering several zones in the Southern National Nationalities and People’s Region. Soon after the project teams started to gather information about working animals, they faced a dilemma: the number of animals was just too big to reach effectively. For example, in Hadiya zone alone there were over 90,000 working donkeys.

In a planning workshop, the teams focused resources and effort on working with the animals which needed most help and discussed how these animals would be identified. The workshop included representatives of the animal owners in each district (woreda). One group of participants started to define the animals working in Shashego district and their risks for having poor welfare. First, they listed in detail the different groups of animals: pack horses and mules carrying grain to the market, gharry (carriage) horses transporting people, cart donkeys carrying stones from the quarry, cart donkeys carrying water to sell, and female pack donkeys carrying cattle fodder for the homestead. The first list was specific to Shashego, and a second list was made for Lemmo.

Then the group asked themselves what factors they could use to decide which animals needed their help the most.

They came up with the following list:

They wrote each animal group on a card and drew a line on the floor to represent the risk of poor welfare, from low risk on the left to high risk on the right. A discussion followed on where each card fitted the scale, based on the factors above (see figure below). Decisions were based on the personal experience of group members combined with evidence from more formal assessments of animal welfare in the district. Participants sorted the animals into three main categories of need: high welfare risk, medium risk, and low risk. In Lemmo district the animals categorised at high risk were cart donkeys and mules, the horses and mules at the grain market, and cart donkeys carrying stones and water. Animals at medium risk were homestead cart donkeys and garbage-collecting donkeys. The low-risk animals were breeding and riding horses, the horse ambulances, and homestead pack donkeys.

This exercise provided Brooke Ethiopia with a basis for agreement on which groups of animals to target with their welfare improvement projects and how this could be done.

Link to References Cited