participatory

This paper explores the interwoven lives of donkeys and the people who depend on them for their livelihoods in central Ethiopia. Drawing on data from 12 participatory workshops, insights were elicited into the ways human co-workers value and treat their donkey co-workers. Methodologically, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Appreciative Inquiry (AI) techniques were merged to explore the complex and multi-dimensional contributions donkeys make to participants’ lives. Findings reveal working with donkeys can make the difference between destitution and modest survival, but societal perception of donkeys as low-status animals has an impact on their owners’ lives and donkey wellbeing. This research contributes empirical insights on the valuing of donkeys and enables a deepened understanding of human-donkey relations. The combination of PRA and AI in the methodology demonstrates how to formulate a compassionate and empathetic approach for exploring donkey value and wellbeing with marginalized groups.

Ethiopia is home to approximately 19% of the estimated global donkey population of 45.8 million (FAO, 2018). These donkeys’ lives are intricately linked with the lives of people who own and work with them, often some of Ethiopian society’s most impoverished and marginalized members (Admassu & Shiferaw, 2011). Through their labor, donkeys provide transportation and draught power and can make a significant contribution to people’s livelihoods, enabling access to water, foodstuffs, education, and healthcare (Geiger et al., 2020; Maggs et al., 2021). But the social, economic, and cultural value of donkeys is more nuanced than this broad statement suggests, differing with the intricacies of the lives and requirements of the human(s) with whom they coexist. To support donkeys and those who depend upon them, it is necessary to further our understanding of the value placed on donkeys and the subtleties of their impact on people’s lives. Despite their important contributions to many of Ethiopia’s impoverished, donkeys remain absent from the government’s nonhuman animal health and welfare policies, are overlooked in development goals, and are undervalued by wider society. Thus, exploring how humans affect donkeys’ wellbeing is crucial for understanding and valuing donkeys’ impact in low- and middle-income countries.

While the number of recent studies analyzing the health and welfare of donkeys in Africa (Burn et al., 2010; Farhat et al., 2020; Geiger et al., 2021; Hiko et al., 2016; Stringer et al., 2017) has increased, little research has been conducted on social, economic, and cultural contributions of donkeys in these contexts (Maggs et al., 2021; Valette, 2015). Only a few studies focus on relationships between donkeys and their human counterparts in the African context (Geiger et al., 2020; Geiger & Hovorka, 2015). Methodologies in the scarce published literature have primarily been surveys, focus groups, questionnaires, and interviews (Hassan et al., 2013; Maggs et al., 2021; Sawi & Bwanga, 2008; Vasanthakumar et al., 2021). Few go beyond donkeys’ socioeconomic and sociocultural value to draw insights from data concerning the impacts of these animals on human lives, particularly in the Global South (Geiger & Hovorka, 2015; Geiger et al., 2020; Maggs et al., 2021; Vasanthakumar et al., 2021).

Background

Gastrointestinal nematode infections constitute a threat to the health and welfare of donkeys worldwide. Their primary means of control is via anthelmintic treatments; however, use of these drugs has constraints in developing countries, including cost, limited availability, access to cheaper generic forms of variable quality and potential anthelmintic resistance. As an alternative, bioactive plants have been proposed as an option to treat and control gastrointestinal helminths in donkeys. This study aimed to use participatory methodology to explore donkey owner knowledge, attitudes and beliefs relating to the use of plant-based treatments for gastrointestinal parasites of donkeys in Ethiopia.

Results

In focus groups, 22/29 groups stated they knew of plants used for the treatment of gastrointestinal parasites in donkeys. All groups volunteered plants that were used in cattle and/or small ruminants. In total, 21 plants were named by participants. ‘Koso’ (Hagenia abyssinica) ‘Grawa’ (Vernonia amygdalina) and a mixed roots and leaves preparation were the most frequently named plant preparations. ‘Enkoko’ (Embelia shimperi) and ‘a mixture of roots and leaves’ were ranked highly for effectiveness in donkeys. However, ‘Grawa’ and ‘Koso’ were the highest ranked when taking into account both the rank position and the number of groups ranking the plant.

Thematic analysis of participants’ current attitudes and beliefs surrounding traditional plant-based remedies for gastrointestinal parasites revealed that anthelmintics obtained from clinics were generally favoured due to their ease of administration and perceived higher effectiveness. There was doubt surrounding the effectiveness of some plant-based treatments, but there were also perceived advantages including their low cost, ease of cultivation and availability. However, plant-based treatments were considered a “past trend” and people favoured “modern” medicine, particularly among the younger generation.

Conclusions

There was extensive knowledge of plant-based treatments for gastrointestinal parasites in livestock in Ethiopia. In donkeys, Koso (Hagenia abyssinica), Grawa (Vernonia amygdalina), Enkoko (Embelia shimperi) and ‘mixed roots and leaves’ were the most frequently named and/or highest ranked plants with reported efficacy against gastrointestinal parasites. Further in vitro and in vivo investigation of these plants is now required to determine viable alternatives for the treatment and control of gastrointestinal parasites in Ethiopia.