Stakeholders and their roles in donkey health and welfare in Kenya

To enhance animal health and welfare outcomes, twenty key stakeholders were identified across a broad spectrum, including donkey owners and users, government agencies, industry representatives, NGOs, and academic institutions. These participants held diverse roles that dictated their influence over resource allocation, information exchange, and critical decision-making processes regarding working donkeys. Table 1 presents the identified stakeholders involved in working donkeys’ health and welfare and their roles.

Table 1.

The roles of stakeholders (n = 20) participating in a focus group on the health and welfare of working donkeys in Kenya

Table 1. Long description

The table consists of three columns: S. No, Key Actor, and Role in donkeys’ health and welfare.

1. Donkey owners and users: Primary decision-makers providing basic needs, routine care, and determining working conditions.

2. Local N G O: Provides emergency treatment, technical advice, capacity building, and trains artisans on cart design.

3. Government Veterinary Department: Collaborates with N G Os for treatment, trains owners, and acts as an official reporting channel for diseases.

4. Education institutions: Provides awareness to students through donkey care clubs and curricula.

5. International N G O: Funds local N G O activities and advocates for policy inclusion.

6. L A H P s (Local animal health providers) and farriers - Private: Provides medical treatment, hoof trimming, and health care products.

7. Donkey Owners C B O (community-based organisations): Acts as entry points for interventions, develops by-laws, and represents a unified voice.

8. National government: Coordinates County governments and issues operating licenses.

9. County Government: Formulates by-laws for donkey use in town areas and markets.

10. Government Livestock Production Department: Provides training on husbandry practices through extension officers.

11. Customers - Service Beneficiaries: Drives demand for healthy donkeys, motivating owners to maintain welfare.

12. Chiefs - Village Administrators: Manages community-level conflict resolution regarding straying or damage.

13. Police Department: Enforces welfare legislation (C A P 360), sensitizes on road safety, and responds to abuse reports.

14. Law Courts - Magistrate: Makes judgments and punishes offenders under C A P 360.

15. Artisans: Produces and maintains carts and harnesses to reduce injury risks.

16. Merchants: Selects healthy donkeys at markets for resale.

17. Social Services Department: Trains owners on risks of drug abuse and addresses social factors affecting welfare.

18. Media: Raises awareness and provides a platform for advocacy.

19. Public Health Department: Formulates by-laws for public spaces like water collection points.

20. Community: Acts as whistleblowers for cases of neglect or mistreatment.

Stakeholders were mapped using a five-point Likert scale to assess their levels of interest and influence regarding donkey health and welfare and were categorised into four distinct groups. The results of this mapping are presented in Figure 1. Stakeholders were mapped into four categories: (i) low-interest, low-influence stakeholders, who required monitoring; (ii) low-interest, high-influence stakeholders, who needed to be kept informed; (iii) high-interest, low-influence stakeholders, who should be kept satisfied; and (iv) high-interest, high-influence stakeholders, who were key actors collaborating to ensure optimal health and welfare for working donkeys. Considering that influence was deemed more important in this study (Hayes et al. Reference Hayes, Manyweathers, Maru, Loechel, Kelly, Kruger, Woodgate and Hernandez-Jover2021), stakeholders were further grouped into two broader classifications: (1) major stakeholders, with a high level of influence; and (2) minor stakeholders, with a low level of influence.

Figure 1.

Stakeholder power-influence mapping using participatory methods in the working donkey sector (n = 20), Kenya. 1-Donkey Owner and User; 2-Local NGO; 3-Govt Vet Department; 4-Academic institutions; 5-International NGO; 6-Donkey Owners CBO; 7-LAHPs and farriers - Private; 8-Govt Livestock Production Department; 9-Village chiefs (local administrators); 10-Police Department; 11-Community; 12- Local/County Government; 13-Central/National Government; 14-Merchants; 15-Media; 16-Public Health department; 17-Customers (Service Beneficiaries); 18-Law Courts (Magistrate); 19-Artisans; 20-Social Services Department.

The key actors identified in this study comprised donkey owners and users, local non-governmental organisations, government veterinary departments, educational institutions, international non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations, and local animal health providers and farriers. Similarly, other studies identified animal owners, veterinarians, industry associations, research and development bodies, funders, industry consultants, agribusinesses, and consumers as key stakeholders (Fernandes et al. Reference Fernandes, Blache, Maloney, Martin, Venus, Walker, Head and Tilbrook2019).

The recognition of animal owners as the key actors in implementing animal welfare cannot be overstated (Balzani & Hanlon Reference Balzani and Hanlon2020).

Donkey owners and users were the primary decision-makers responsible for providing for their donkeys’ basic needs and seeking veterinary care when required. Their interests are largely economic, as they rely on donkeys for income, transport, and labour. Many owners are resource-poor and may lack the knowledge or financial means for proper veterinary care, nutrition, or equipment. Interventions must therefore consider their economic realities and focus on sustainable, low-cost solutions. Understanding how owners perceive and value donkey health and welfare is essential for designing effective programmes and policies that maintain healthy, productive animals (Balzani & Hanlon Reference Balzani and Hanlon2020). Their attitudes and practices have a direct impact on donkey welfare. In particular, their knowledge, skills, and abilities are key factors that determine how effectively behaviour change can be implemented among animal owners (Peden et al. Reference Peden, Akaichi, Camerlink, Boyle and Turner2018). This highlights the importance of continuously generating and transferring knowledge to donkey owners. Knowledge can be shared by experts, such as animal health professionals, providing a trusted source of information, or through peer-to-peer learning, which offers authenticity and can help shape social norms among owners. Such knowledge is essential for enabling donkey owners to make informed decisions that improve the health and welfare of their animals.

Donkey owners’ community-based organisations (CBOs) were the primary form of grouping in this study. The CBOs offered several benefits. First, they promoted peer-to-peer accountability and motivation to improve donkey health and welfare; indeed, Sinclair et al. (Reference Sinclair, Fryer and Phillips2019) noted that farmers are often more motivated by their peers than by other stakeholders. Second, CBOs served as an entry point for NGOs to deliver knowledge-change training, as it was easier to train donkey owners who were organised into groups. Third, CBOs united donkey owners and enabled them to lobby collectively for improved working conditions for their donkeys. This finding is consistent with Omollo et al. (Reference Omollo and Jawuorol2019), who reported that working in groups allows producers to more easily access technical support, information, linkages, and interaction with other stakeholders along the value chain.

Academic institutions were identified as key actors in this study. Their primary role was to generate evidence-based knowledge and practical approaches to improving donkey health and welfare. These institutions facilitated the formal exchange of technical training, guidelines, information, research evidence, routine data, and field-based experiences or case studies (Schneider et al. Reference Schneider, Mukinda, Tabana and George2022). That information would then be integrated into the teaching curriculum to equip students with the knowledge and skills needed to address these issues, ensuring they are adequately prepared before entering professional practice. This approach has been successfully implemented in the UK as part of its animal health strategy initiatives (Muldoon & Williams Reference Muldoon and Williams2021). The information would ultimately reach the donkeys through animal health providers, whose capacity to treat them and provide disease-prevention advice would have been strengthened.

The stakeholders who contributed financial resources comprised the international and local NGOs, were considered key actors. Their primary interest was improving animal welfare through education, veterinary services, advocacy, and research. This category appeared to include all other stakeholders, as it provided financial support during project implementation. This observation was also noted by Sentamu et al. (Reference Sentamu, Arasio, Akala, Makau, Wasonga and Onono2024) in a similar Kenyan context, where they identified NGOs’ roles in collaboration and in supporting County Governments with resources to manage animal disease outbreaks. The NGOs also offered training to local animal health providers on donkey health and welfare and provided linkages to suppliers of equine-specific equipment, such as hoof-care equipment, at subsidised cost. They also connected these local animal health providers with donkey owners to provide disease healthcare. This perceived influence, however, needed to be assessed in light of sustainability when NGOs exit an operational area. The financial support of NGOs cannot be wished away since an under-resourced stakeholder network has been shown to limit the power to execute its objectives (Fernandes et al. Reference Fernandes, Blache, Maloney, Martin, Venus, Walker, Head and Tilbrook2019). As such, their real influence should be evaluated to ensure they do not gain too much influence over decisions regarding animal health and welfare, which could compromise the overall sustainability of health and welfare provision (Muluh et al. Reference Muluh, Kimengsi and Azibo2019; Haddy et al. Reference Haddy, Brown, Burden, Raw, Kaminski and Proops2023). The adoption of public-private partnerships between the government and the NGOs could provide an opportunity for collaboration in donkey health and welfare (N’Guessan et al. Reference N’Guessan, Poupaud, Dieuzy-Labaye, Asfaw, Wieland, Tesfu, Daniel, Tulayakul and Peyre2022).

Local animal health practitioners were identified as key actors in this study. These were the frontline service providers. Their interest was in the health of donkeys, focusing on disease prevention (through vaccination), the treatment of sick donkeys, and routine management procedures such as hoof care (for farriers), as well as advising on feeding, watering, and donkey welfare. Their competence was enhanced by veterinary staff from international and local NGOs, who continually built their capacity to handle donkey cases. These local animal health practitioners utilised a working system of referral and case reporting with the government directorate of Veterinary Services (Kahariri et al. Reference Kahariri, Thumbi, Bett, Mureithi, Nyaga, Ogendo, Muturi and Thomas2024), following the privatisation of animal healthcare provision in Kenya (Chema & Gathuma Reference Chema and Gathuma2004).

Both national and county governments were identified as key actors in this study, playing a dual role in donkey health and welfare. First, the national government, through the Directorate of Veterinary Services, was responsible for economic development and livestock management, including animal health activities. Second, the County government of Kirinyaga, which provided oversight through the development, regulation, and enforcement of livestock health and welfare policies at the local level. These roles were crucial within collaborative stakeholder networks, as governments have the authority to coordinate stakeholders, mobilise resources, and shape policy. Their engagement also enabled the integration of donkey welfare into broader livestock and agricultural strategies, strengthened legislation at both national and county levels, including through county-specific bylaws, and increased public confidence in donkey welfare initiatives. For example, public-private partnerships between governments and NGOs facilitated animal welfare projects, culminating in policy developments such as the Animal Welfare and Protection Bill, 2019. At the time of preparing this manuscript, the bill remained pending, awaiting cabinet and parliamentary legislative enactment. While involving government stakeholders is valuable, implementation can be slowed by lengthy deliberation processes, shifts in political leadership priorities, detailed reporting requirements, and limited flexibility when other scheduled activities take precedence, as has been previously observed (Head Reference Head2005). Therefore, it is essential to keep these stakeholders regularly informed to ensure that policies and laws remain relevant and adaptable, supporting long-term gains despite changes in political leadership.

The findings in this study revealed that customers, also referred to as service beneficiaries, had a strong influence on the health and welfare of donkeys. It was interesting to note that customers (service beneficiaries) preferred to have only healthy donkeys carrying their goods; therefore, their demand for transport services would affect the income earned for the donkey owner. As such, the improvement of animal welfare was essential to meet customer demands and expectations (Hansson & Lagerkvist Reference Hansson and Lagerkvist2015; Sinclair et al. Reference Sinclair, Fryer and Phillips2019).

Focusing solely on animal welfare is unlikely to yield positive outcomes if the underlying issues relate to the well-being and socioeconomic status of the animal-owning community. A holistic approach that links animal and human welfare has been advocated, embodied in the One Welfare concept, which emphasises addressing both simultaneously (Pinillos et al. Reference Pinillos, Appleby, Manteca, Scott-Park, Smith and Velarde2016). As Mahatma Gandhi famously stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated,” highlighting that a society’s treatment of animals reflects its moral values and social understanding. In Kenya, the Social Services Department provides support to donkey owners and users on issues such as substance abuse, which is prevalent in some communities. Certain donkey welfare challenges, such as excessive whipping, may stem from the owners’ social or personal issues, including mental health challenges, learned behaviours, or substance abuse. Studies have shown that human health and social determinants can directly influence animal welfare, particularly among companion animals. (McDowall et al. Reference McDowall, Hazel, Chittleborough, Hamilton-Bruce, Stuckey and Howell2023) and production animals (Sinclair et al. Reference Sinclair, Fryer and Phillips2019). Studies relating this association among large animals, especially working equines are, however, scarce.

Stakeholders who had the least direct contact with donkey owners and users regarding health and welfare included village chiefs and administrators, the police, law courts and magistrates, the public health department, merchants, and the media. Although these stakeholders were categorised as having low influence and low interest, they nonetheless helped create a safer and more supportive environment for donkeys and their users, both on the roads and within the community. Animal welfare in Kenya is legally addressed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act CAP 360 (1962). Police officers and magistrates in the courts are mandated to enforce animal-related laws and bylaws (Rault et al. Reference Rault, Adams, Springett and Rock2022). Merchants and artisans were involved in the production, crafting, and sale of working implements such as donkey carts and harnesses. However, the suitability of these implements for donkeys working across diverse terrains, such as murram and tarmac roads, as well as hilly areas, was rarely documented. Consequently, no standard cart design was recommended for working donkeys, resulting in a wide variety of carts and harnesses across different areas of the county. These variations in equipment were potential contributors to wounds and other injuries, thereby negatively affecting donkey health and welfare, as previously reported by Rayner et al. (Reference Rayner, Airikkala-Otter, Susheelan, Gibson, Itaba, Mayani, Mellanby and Gamble2020). Although merchants and artisans were classified as minor stakeholders, their contributions to donkey health and welfare, particularly through the design and provision of suitable working implements, remain significant. The media, on the other hand, can play an important role by raising awareness, influencing policy, and promoting a more humane society, although this role was not emphasised in the present study.

During focus group discussions and key informant interviews in this study, minor stakeholders did not perceive themselves as having a direct impact on donkey health and welfare. However, their perspectives may evolve in response to the dynamic working environment and a more holistic understanding of welfare. Therefore, it is important to maintain ongoing engagement with these stakeholders through regular dialogue and monitoring. It should also be noted that stakeholder roles and influence can change over time, as new actors emerge and others become less relevant, highlighting the need for continuous stakeholder analysis.

The computed centrality measures are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Centrality measures of a stakeholder network (n = 20) within the Health and Welfare Sector of Working Donkeys in Kenya

Table 2. Long description

The table contains seven columns: Id, Label, Closeness, Betweenness, In Degree, Out Degree, and Degree Undirected.

Key data points include:

* D O U (Donkey Owner and User) has the highest scores across most metrics: Closeness 0.86, Betweenness 0.45, In Degree 0.79, and Out Degree 0.84.

* L N G O (Local N G O) follows with Closeness 0.76, Betweenness 0.23, and the highest In Degree at 0.84.

* N G O V (National Government) shows moderate influence with Closeness 0.57 and In Degree 0.47.

* Several stakeholders, including C B O, L A H P, G L P D, M E C H, M E D I, P H D, C S B, L A W C, A R T, and S S D, have a Betweenness score of 0.

* The lowest overall engagement is seen in C S B (Customers - Service Beneficiaries) and S S D (Social Services Department), both with In Degree and Out Degree scores of 0.05.

* Closeness values range from a high of 0.86 (D O U) to a low of 0.46 (M E D I).

Key/ Legend: DOU-Donkey Owner and User; LNGO-Local NGO; GVET-Govt Vet Department; EDU-Education institutions; INGO-International NGO; CBO-Donkey Owners CBO; LAHPs- Local Animal Health Practitioners- Private; GLPD-Government Livestock Production Department; VCA-Village chiefs - Administrators; PD-Police Department; COMM-Community; NGOV National government; CGOV County Government; MECH-Merchants; MEDI-Media; PHD-Public Health department; CSB-Customers - Service Beneficiaries; LAWC-Law Courts (Magistrate); ART-Artisans; SSD-Social services Department.

Participatory mapping of stakeholder networks and linkages within the Kenyan donkey health and welfare sector

Stakeholder flow diagrams showing stakeholders (nodes) and their interactions (linkages) flow of information, financial resources, training, and technical support are presented in Figures 2, 3 and 4, according to their centrality measures (refer to the abbreviations presented in Figure 1). The size of the nodes was proportional to the centrality values they represented.

Figure 2.

NetMap visualisation of closeness centrality within the stakeholder network (n = 20) for the health and welfare of working donkeys in Kenya.

Figure 3.

NetMap visualisation of degree centrality within the stakeholder network (n = 20) for health and welfare of working donkeys in Kenya.

Figure 4.

NetMap visualisation of betweenness centrality within the stakeholder network (n = 20) for health and welfare of working donkeys in Kenya.

The closeness centrality for the working donkeys’ stakeholder network is presented in Figure 2.

Within the donkey health and welfare sector, closeness centrality measures identified donkey owners and users as the primary influencers (0.86), followed by local NGOs (0.76), government veterinary services (0.63), and educational institutions (0.61). With an aggregate network mean of 0.56, these values indicate a high degree of connectivity and cohesion among stakeholders (Nyokabi et al. Reference Nyokabi, De Boer, Bijman, Bebe, Aguilar-Gallegos, Phelan, Lindahl, Bett and Oosting2023). Such results suggest that the network structure supports efficient interactions, as high closeness values reflect shorter paths for communication and technical support between nodes (Uddin et al. Reference Uddin, Ong and Matous2023).

For this network, degree centrality was directed. The donkey owners and users (0.79) and the local NGOs (0.84) had the highest in-degree centrality. These two stakeholders also had the highest out-degree centralities, at 0.84 and 0.68, respectively. The in-degree centrality indicates a particular actor’s tendency to receive inputs from other actors in the network, thus measuring the actor’s receptivity or popularity (Puri et al. Reference Puri, Fernandez, Puranik, Anand, Gaidhane, Quazi Syed, Patel, Uddin and Thow2017). As such, these stakeholders were actively engaged in improving donkey health and welfare.

The degree centrality (undirected) was also computed and visualised as presented in Figure 3. Donkey owners and users had the highest score, at 0.84, followed by the local NGO at 0.68 and the government veterinary services department at 0.42. This indicated that they had the greatest ability to perform their various tasks in ensuring optimal health and welfare for the donkeys, including meeting basic husbandry requirements, providing health services to the donkeys, and training the owners and users on various aspects of managing their donkeys. These findings corroborate those of Sentamu et al. (Reference Sentamu, Arasio, Akala, Makau, Wasonga and Onono2024), who also showed that animal owners were the most valuable stakeholders in ensuring optimal health for their animals. Therefore, any intervention towards improving donkey health and welfare should involve the donkey owners.

Further, betweenness centrality was also computed and visualised in Figure 4. Interestingly, the donkey owners and users (0.45) and the local NGO (0.23) had the highest betweenness centrality values. These two were the gatekeepers and highly influential stakeholders in the network due to their central position in connecting other stakeholders.

Animal welfare implications

While donkey welfare in Kenya is compromised by insufficient knowledge, economic constraints, and the species’ low socio-economic status, stakeholder mapping offers a sophisticated solution. Rather than addressing these issues superficially, this mapping approach facilitates a deeper analysis of the intricate relationships, underlying motivations, and power dynamics that dictate animal health outcomes. By systematically identifying and analysing stakeholders, efforts to improve donkey health and welfare could prove more sustainable, targeted, effective, relevant, ethical, culturally appropriate, and ultimately successful. The failure to address the diverse needs and interests of these stakeholders could lead to stagnation of efforts to improve animal welfare.

While identifying stakeholders is a critical first step, translating engagement into tangible improvements in donkey welfare requires deliberate coordination, clearly defined roles, and actionable mechanisms. Major stakeholders, including government agencies, NGOs, and veterinary professionals, alongside minor stakeholders such as merchants, artisans, and community leaders, must collaborate to implement disease prevention measures, promote safe working practices, facilitate knowledge transfer, and enforce policies. Engagement should occur through both formal channels, such as training sessions, workshops, and multi-stakeholder committees, and informal peer-to-peer networks, reinforced by continuous feedback, monitoring, and adaptive management. Multi-stakeholder platforms facilitate joint decision-making, capacity building, and the promotion of social norms that support welfare, while aligning interventions with owners’ economic realities and harmonising policies across sectors, all of which are supported by legal frameworks, such as CAP 360. Measurable outcomes, including reduced disease incidence, lower injury rates, prompt veterinary interventions, and safer working environments, can thus be directly linked to stakeholder actions. By fostering trust, collaboration, and a culture of continuous learning, stakeholder engagement moves beyond identification to ensure evidence-based, practical, and economically viable solutions, ultimately achieving sustainable improvements in the health and welfare of working donkeys.