





























1 

 

In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Pig Farming ISSN: 2375-0731 Vol. 9 (2), pp. 001-012, February, 2021. Available online at 
www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 

 

 

 

Full Length Research Paper 
  

Involvement of key stakeholders in controlling 
animal diseases in rural settings: Experiences with 

African swine fever in Uganda 

 
Peter Ogweng1*, Charles Masembe1, Johnson Francis Mayega2, Ibrahim Keeya4, 

Charles Tumuhe2, Rodney Okwasiimire3 and Vincent Muwanika2
 

 
1
Department of Zoology, Entomology and Fisheries Sciences, College of Natural Sciences (CONAS), 

Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 
2
Department of Environmental Management, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CAES), 

Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 
3
Central Diagnostics Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal resources and Biosecurity (COVAB), 

Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.  
4
Department of Production, Mukono District Local Government, Mukono District, Uganda. *Corresponding author. E-mail: 

Ogweng.peter@cns.mak.ac.ug. 
 

Accepted 12 October, 2019  
 

Key stakeholders’ involvement in the design and enforcement of effective African swine fever (ASF) 
biosecurity measures is very vital. Unfortunately, many times key stakeholders are less involved in the 
policy designing process. This study analyzed information from stakeholders in Mukono District, to 
assess the acceptability of enforcing ASF biosecurity measures among key stakeholders. Mukono 
District has a high density of pigs and a history of frequent ASF outbreaks. Key informants (n = 23) 
were identified and interviewed in four sub-counties to generate an ASF control stakeholders’ list. 
Eleven stakeholder groups were identified by the Key Informants. Sixty participants representing 
different stakeholder groups identified through the Key Informant interviews participated in a workshop 
to assess stakeholders’ characteristics regarding strict enforcement of ASF control measures. 
Stakeholder grid analysis revealed 60% as drivers, and 40% as supporters. There were no blockers, 
abstainers, and bystanders. Despite this, majority of the groups (90%) did not have adequate capacity 
to implement the intervention due to financial constraints and inadequate technical support. These 
results show that there is great support for enforcement of biosecurity measures if stakeholders are 
facilitated with financial and technical support thereby limiting outbreaks of ASF in rural areas of 
Uganda. 

 
Key words: African swine fever, biosecurity, influence, power, roles, interests, stakeholder.  

 
 
INTRODUCTION 

 
The agricultural sector is very important in the economy of Uganda. It contributes up to 23.8% of the Gross Domestic  
   



2 

 

 
 
 

 

Product (GDP), generating about 48% of export earnings 
(Sebudde et al., 2018). The livestock sector alone 
contributes 15% of agricultural GDP (Tatwangire, 2014). 
This sector registered a 3% increase in the number of 
livestock and poultry between 2009-2010 with 4.5 million 
households (70.8%) rearing at least one species of 
livestock (Uganda Beaural of Stastics, 2016). The pig is 
one of the important livestock species in Uganda in 
addition to sheep, goats, cattle and chicken (UIA, 2009). 
Uganda has the biggest pig population in East Africa 
(FAOSTAT, 2018). The pig population in Uganda has 
been steadily increasing over the years; from 0.19 million 
in 1980; to 1.7 million in 2002, to 3.2 million in 2008 and to 
4 million in 2016 (UBOS, 2016). Pig production in Uganda 
is widespread with about 1.1 million (17.8%) households 
owning at least one pig (Tatwangire, 2014).  

Unfortunately, this rapid growth in the pig sector is 
affected by many challenges. Some of these include; 
inadequate quality extension services, high input costs, 
fluctuating feed sources and prices and pig diseases 
(Muhanguzi et al., 2012). There are several pig diseases 
in Uganda but African Swine Fever (ASF) has so far 
proven to be the single biggest problem hindering the pig 
industry (Muhanguzi et al., 2012). African swine fever is a 
highly contagious disease that affects both domestic and 
wild pigs (Penrith et al., 2004). This pig disease causes 
enormous economic losses to domestic pig farmers 
(Mulumba-Mfumu et al., 2019) due to the high mortality 
rates that accompany outbreaks (Arias and Sanchez-
Vizcaino, 2002; Costard et al., 2009). ASF has neither 
cure nor vaccine (Costard et al., 2013, Penrith et al., 
2004). The only way to control the disease at the moment 
is through quick diagnosis and strict implementation of 
biosecurity measures (Dione et al., 2017).  

In order to control animal diseases, there is need for 
both international and local animal disease control laws. 
Uganda has good policies and laws that when well 
implemented can limit the spread of highly contagious 
diseases such as ASF. For instance, the Animal Diseases 
Act (Government of Uganda Animal Diseases Act, 2014), 
provides for enforcement of quarantines in areas with 
animal disease outbreaks. The policy prevents the 
movement of animals and animal products from and into 
such areas and, animal owners (pigs inclusive) are 
required to keep them in proper buildings or paddocks 
constructed in accordance with the specifications. When 
well implemented, these requirements can potentially limit 
the spread of ASF. However, despite the presence of 
these laws, ASF outbreaks are still common (Kalenzi 
Atuhaire et al., 2013) because the enforcement of these 
regulations requires the cooperation of several 
stakeholders.  

Stakeholder analysis has been effectively used in 
multiple disciplines to deduce solutions to various 
challenges. In the human health sector, stakeholder 
analysis led to the successful improvement of maternal 
and newborn health in Uganda (Namazzi et al., 2013). 
Similarly, in the veterinary sector, effective control of 

 
 
 
 

 

highly contagious animal diseases such as ASF can only 
be achieved if all key stakeholders are identified, involved 
in policy designing and implementation of the designed 
measures.  

In Uganda, enhancing the capacity of all pig 
stakeholders through community sensitizations using 
drama and radio talk shows has been identified as being 
important in the control of ASF (Ouma et al., 2017). 
Stakeholder capacity building ought to be preceded by a 
stakeholder analysis to develop a proper engagement 
framework. A proper stakeholder engagement framework 
determines who should participate, when and how (Luyet 
et al., 2012). Many times stakeholders are less involved in 
the policy designing process thus affecting policy 
implementation. In this study, we assessed the 
acceptability of enforcing ASF biosecurity measures 
among key stakeholders in the control of African swine 
fever in Mukono District, a rural area in central Uganda. 
 

 
METHODOLOGY 
 
Study area 
 
This study was carried out in Mukono District (0.2835° N, 32.7633° 
E), located in the central region of Uganda. Mukono District has a 
total area of 2,986.47 Sq. Km and is bordered by Buikwe District in 
the East, Kayunga District in the North, Luwero District in the North 
West, Kampala city and Wakiso District in the South West and a 
shoreline on Lake Victoria to the South. Mukono District has a high 
density of pigs and a history of frequent ASF outbreaks. The district 
is composed of 13 sub-counties (SCs), 72 parishes and 795 villages 
with a human population of 596,561 (289,804 males and 307,757 
females) distributed in 144,160 households (HH) (Uganda Bureau of 
Statistics (UBOS), 2017). Of these households, 63,079 (43.8%) are 
involved in livestock rearing. Mukono District is the only district in 
Uganda, which is piloting a community initiated and monitored ASF 
control program where ASF stakeholders implement biosecurity 
measures aimed at ASF control. 

 

Stakeholder analysis 
 
Stakeholder analysis for this study was carried out in 3 phases: the 
first phase was carried out to generate a list of stakeholder groups 
who can influence the implementation of ASF control measures in 
Mukono District. This was followed by categorizing stakeholder 
groups based on their power and influence towards the successful 
implementation of ASF control, and their (stakeholder groups) 
characteristics in terms of their roles and interests towards ASF 
control. 

 

Generation of ASF pig stakeholder group list for Mukono 
District 
 
This was carried out in four sub-counties (SCs) of Mukono District, 
central Uganda. The sub counties were Kasawo, Namuganga, 
Ntenjeru and Mpunge (Figure 1). In Kasawo SC, key informant 
interviews were held with one veterinary officer in each of the 6 
parishes (Kitovu, Kabimbiri, Kakukuru, Namaliri, Kasana and 
Kigogola). Additionally, discussions were held with two veterinary 
officers in Kasawo SC head offices making a total of eight key 
informant interviews in this SC.  

In  Namuganga  SC,  interviews  were  held  with one veterinary 



3 

 

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 1. A map of Mukono District showing the study area. 

 

 

officer in each of the five parishes of Kituula, Kitale, Namuganga, 
Namanoga and Kayini. In Mpunge SC, one key informant interview 
was held with one lead pig farmer in each of the four parishes of 
Ngombere, Mpunge, Lulagwe and Mbazi parishes. In Ntenjeru SC, 
five key informant interviews were held as follows: two veterinary 
officers and three parish ASF control mobilizers. We also held one 
key informant interview with the Mukono District Veterinary Officer 
(DVO). At this step, respondents were only asked about names of 
stakeholder groups within and outside Mukono District and their 
descriptions in relation to ASF control. Consent of each respondent 
was sought before commencement of the interview to which they 
responded in approval and their responses were both hand written 
and audio recorded. The recorded audios were later transcribed and 

typed in Microsoft Word. Based on these interviews, a stakeholder 
group list was developed indicating the name of the stakeholder 
group and a brief description of their relationship with ASF control in 
Mukono District. 

 

Categorization of ASF control stakeholder groups 
 
A stakeholder workshop was held at Mukono Zonal Agricultural 
Research and Development Institute (MUZARDI) on 20/3/2019. The 
workshop comprised of a total of 60 individual ASF control 
stakeholders drawn from 13 different stakeholder groups. During the 
meeting, stakeholders from the same stakeholder group sat closest 
to each other to allow them to share ideas and report the consensus 
in case it was required. All necessary visual materials (elements that 
constitute the ASF biosecurity program, analysis grids, and 
definitions of key words) were displayed in manila papers on the 
walls of the workshop room for easy reference by the participants. 
The stakeholder group list that was earlier developed during the 
initial steps of the study was displayed as well in manila papers for 
all participants to view and verify. The workshop facilitator introduced 
the purpose of the workshop and requested participants who 

 
 

 
consented to the publication of the workshop results to sign a 
consent form. Fortunately, all participants consented and signed the 
consent forms. Using a stakeholder analysis grid, participants 
classified stakeholders into five categories (of drivers, blockers, 
supporters, bystanders and abstainers) depending on their power 
and influence, and level of agreement with the enforcement 
biosecurity measures in ASF control. The stakeholder categories 
were defined as follows: 
 
i) Drivers: A stakeholder or group that has high power, influence and 
high agreement with the enforcement biosecurity measures in the 
control of ASF and can champion it;  
ii) Blockers: A stakeholder or group that has high levels of power and 
influence in the control of ASF, but highly opposes the enforcement 
of control measures;  
iii) Supporters: Those that support the practices, but whose 
influence and power may be limited (on their own);  
iv) Bystanders: Those that disagree to the control practices but with 
low influence and support;  
v) Abstainers: Those who are neutral to the control practices, but 
may or may not have influence. 

 
All stakeholder groups were categorized into the five categories by 
selecting one and asking participants in this group to rate their 
degree of power and influence in ASF control (using a scale of 1-3) 
by writing on pieces of paper. Power of a stakeholder was defined as 
the extent to which a stakeholder was able to persuade other 
stakeholders to embrace and implement ASF control measures. The 
influence of a stakeholder on the other hand was defined as the 
power a stakeholder can exert over the execution of ASF control 
measures. Each stakeholder group was later asked to assess their 
own level of agreement with the implementation of ASF control 
measures using the same scale of 1-3. The level of agreement of a 
stakeholder was defined as the extent to which a stakeholder 
approves/ accepts the proposed ASF control measures. The 



4 

 

 
 
 

 
research team analyzed these responses in Microsoft excel 
(Microsoft Corp., Washington, DC, USA) and developed the 
stakeholder categories. 

 

Analysis of stakeholder group categories 
 
After categorization of all stakeholder groups, those categorized as 
abstainers, bystanders and blockers were separated from the other 
categories. These participants were asked to brainstorm in focus 
groups the reasons why they had abstained from or blocked the 
strict enforcement of ASF biosecurity measures. The stakeholders 
who were categorized as supporters and drivers were further asked 
to reveal their roles and interests towards the control of ASF. 

 

Strategies to deal with each stakeholder group 
 
Researchers brainstormed on the strategies to deal with each 
stakeholder group based on each stakeholder’s roles and category. 
The strategies were in terms of empowerment, continuous 
engagement, further involvement and further consultation. 

 

Importance and relationships among stakeholder groups 
 
To determine the relationship among the different stakeholder 
groups, participants were requested to attach circles cut out of 
manila paper in three sizes as described by Richards and Panfil 
(2011) were the level of importance is directly proportional to the 
size of the cut manila paper. The three sizes were large, medium 
and small representing level of importance of the stakeholder group. 
Importance of a stakeholder was defined as the roles of such a 
stakeholder in achieving anticipated results for the implementation of 
ASF control measures. Since all stakeholder groups were from 
Mukono district all the circles were purple. For each stakeholder 
group, the participants described the importance of the stakeholder’s 
involvement in the control of ASF and selected the corresponding 
size of the circle as summarized below. 
 
Little importance = small circle (1 cm in diameter)  
Some or moderate importance = medium sized circle (2 cm in 
diameter)  
Very important = large circle (3 cm in diameter) 
 
The stakeholder group names were then inscribed on these circular 
cards. The circles were then arranged according to working relations 
among stakeholder groups. Those with very close working 
relationships were put closest to each other and vice versa for those 
with little or no working relationship. Since stakeholder groups 
located out of Mukono District, failed to attend this workshop, the 
exercise was done for only stakeholder groups located within the 
district. The next stage was to attach triangular manila cards of three 
different sizes, large (3 cm × 3 cm × 3 cm), medium (2 cm × 2 cm × 
2 cm) and small (1 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm) representing level of influence 
of stakeholder to the edge of the stakeholder circle. The outputs 
were reviewed by all participants, who later discussed the relative 
importance and influence of each stakeholder. The arrangement was 
then captured with a digital camera. The overlap of the circles 
represented the extent of the working relationship between 
stakeholder groups. 

 

RESULTS 

 

Stakeholder groups in the control of ASF in Mukono 

 

The  stakeholder groups that were identified by Key 

 
 
 
 

 

Informants were from both within and outside Mukono 
District (Table 1). The key stakeholder groups included 
those involved in animal healthcare such as veterinarians, 
pig production value chain actors (for example traders), 
law enforcement, regulatory and administrative agencies 
at both local and national levels. Table 1 gives a brief 
description of each of these stakeholder groups. 

 

Grid analysis of stakeholder group categories 

 

The stakeholder grid analysis revealed that 60% of the 
stakeholders were drivers and 40% were supporters. 
There were no blockers, abstainers, and bystanders 
(Table 2). The categorization was in respect to the 
stakeholder’s level of agreement with the use of 
biosecurity measures in ASF control, power, and influence 
in implementing ASF control measures in Mukono (Table 
2). 
 

 

The capacity of stakeholder groups to control the 
spread of ASF 

 

All stakeholders discussed within their stakeholder 
groups, and each stakeholder group came up with a score 
between the scales of 1 to 3 to signify their own capacity 
in the control of ASF, giving reasons for their score as 
indicated in Table 3. It was observed that 90% of the 
stakeholders were incapacitated in the implementation of 
the ASF intervention measures due to financial constraints 
and inadequate technical support. 
 

 

The roles of stakeholder groups in ASF control 

 

In general, all stakeholders identified in the study were 
involved in ASF control in one way or another as shown in 
Table 4. Farmers were identified to play significant roles in 
ASF control since they are in direct contact with animals. 
These roles included reporting suspected ASF cases to 
veterinarians, restricting animal movements, disinfecting 
pig sties and restricting visitors from their farms. 
Interestingly, participants pointed out that Security and 
judiciary support ASF control strategies through 
enforcement of measures such as quarantines by 
restricting unlawful animal movements in the community in 
addition to apprehending and prosecuting quarantine 
defaulters. 
 

 

Interest of stakeholder groups in ASF control 

 

Stakeholders had varying interests in ASF control (Table 
5), but all were geared towards increasing pig production 
to improve both household nutrition and income. The 
interests of the stakeholders in the implementation of ASF 
control measures reflected their roles in the community 
and occupation. 



5 

 

  
 
 

 
Table 1. ASF control stakeholder group list for Mukono District, Uganda.  
 

S/N Name of stakeholder Description   
1 Veterinarians  
2 Agricultural officers  
3 Veterinary/human Drug shops  
4 Local council (LC) leaders 

 
5 Pig traders 

 
6 Pig farmers and pig farm workers  
7 Pig consumers  
8 ASF researchers  
9 Security and judicial agencies 

 
10 Media Houses 

 
11 District officials  
12 Pig feed suppliers 

 
13 MAAIF 

 
14 Policy and law makers  
15 Dog owners  
16 Sub County and Parish chiefs  
17 Church leaders  
18 Parish health coordinators 

 
19 Local NGOs 

 

20 Pig processors 

 

21 Pig breeders 

 

22 Beach management units 
 

23 Community Development officers 

  
All private and public (local government) veterinary doctors/ officers and animal husbandry officers within Mukono. They treat pigs and provide technical advice to farmers.  
They oversee crop and animal production in the SC.  
Sell animal drugs and give extension advice to farmers. Human pharmacies also sell disinfectants (like Jik) to pig farmers for ASF control.  
Include LC 1, 2 and 3 in the lower local government administrative units within Mukono. They help in enforcing ASF quarantines during outbreaks and information dissemination.  
Butchers, buyers, ‘pork joint’ operators and transporters, locally termed as ‘Babizzi’. They have a pig traders’ association with elected leadership. The traders come from within and outside 
Mukono.  
Both commercial and small-scale farmers involved in pig rearing with leaders in every village locally called ‘Ssabalijja’ who coordinate ASF control activities.  
Kasawo and Namuganga SCs pork consumers are organized into a pork consumers’ association, that monitors the quality of pork being sold and the hygiene of the butcher.  
These include researchers from; COVAB and CONAS at Makerere University, and ILRI. These institutions are involved in ASF research in Mukono and Uganda in general.  
Police, crime preventers, the courts of law and prisons within and outside Mukono, all help in enforcing ASF control.  
Include radios (Sauti Radio), television stations (Bukedde), community radios with raised speakers (that cover 3-4 villages). These media stations, sensitize the community about ASF 
disease control strategies.  
Include the CAO, DVO, OWC /NAADS) officers. UWEP and YLP officials involved in poverty alleviation by distributing animals including pigs to farmers.  
Supply animal feeds, give advisory services to farmers regarding control of ASF. They may also help in the spread of ASF in case they sell contaminated pig feeds to farmers.  
Government Ministry in charge of agriculture, animal industry and fisheries resources in the country. Provides technical guidance for formulation, review and implementation of animal 
production Acts, policies and legislation.  
District Council makes and approves community by-laws and ordinances while the parliament of Uganda which enacts policy, regulations and acts e.g. the animal disease Act.  
Stray dogs are believed to aid in ASF spread by moving ASFv contaminated swill from one location to the other.  
Government Administrators at the SC and Parish levels. They are involved programme/ activity such as ASF control to be successful in their communities.  
Church leaders play a pivotal role in the community, for example, the Church of Uganda (COU) in Mukono is involved in pig projects. The Church gives free piglets to Christians.  
These work with veterinarians for information sharing regarding butcher health and hygiene.  
Include Feed the Hungry (involved in buying and distribution of piglets to farmers in Mukono), child fund (works in Jinja and Kampala) but buys piglets from Mukono for distribution in Jinja 
and Kampala.  
Include Fresh Cuts that is located in Kampala, buy pigs from Mukono farmers and process pig products. There is also Wambizi, a pig abattoir, located in Nalukolongo, Kampala that receive 
pigs from all over Uganda.  
These produce and sell high quality piglets and pig semen to farmers. Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) has a pig-breeding center in Kyanja that has been in this business for five 
years.  
These are in areas bordering the lake such as; Katosi and Mpunge landing sites. They handle Silver fish, locally called ‘Mukene’ used in making pig feeds which when contaminated with 
ASF can spread the disease.  
They sit at the Sub County and heavily engage with all developmental activities, of which pig farming is one of them.  
 

CAO: Chief Administrative Officer, CONAS: College of Natural Sciences, COVAB: College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal resources and Biosecurity, ILRI: International Livestock Research Institute, 
MAAIF: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, NAADs: National Agricultural Advisory Services, OWC: Operation Wealth Creation, UWEP: Uganda Women Entrepreneurship Programme,  
YLP: Youth Livelihood Programme 
 
 

 

Relationship, importance and influence of 
stakeholder groups 

 

According to the proximity of circle attached to the 
stakeholders, farmers, consumers and traders are 
all closely related as evidenced by the close 

 
 
 

 

grouping of their respective circles. In this cluster, 
farmers and consumers were seen as more 
important than traders since their circles were 
bigger than those of traders. Interestingly, traders 
and farmers were seen as more influential than 
consumers because their triangles were bigger 

 
 
 

 

than that of consumers.  
District officials, security and judicial agencies 

were all closely related due to their circles being 
aggregated together but the district officials were 
seen as more important (bigger circle) than both 
the security and judicial agencies (smaller circles). 



6 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 2. Analyzed categories of stakeholder groups in the control of ASF.  

 

Stakeholder Interest in the issue 
Level of   Level  of  power  and 

Type of power Category  

agreement influence  

    
  

Pork consumers 
 Ensure that  only clean and pork from healthy 

 

 
pigs is sold  

  
 

District   Officials   (CAO, LC5, 
Supervise the veterinary officers  

OWC, DCDO)  
 

  
 

Pig Trader  Generate income from pigs and pig products 
 

  
High 

 
High 

 
High 

 
 

Low Beneficiary 
High level 

 

supporter  
 

   
 

High Decision maker 
High level 

 

Driver  
 

   
 

High Beneficiary 
High level 

 

Driver  
 

   
  

Religious Leaders Community spiritual overseers 
  

Medium High Opinion leader 
High level 

 

  
supporter 

 
 

         
 

Community Development Officers Ensure implementation of community 
High High 

Development High level 
 

(CDO) development programs   
implementer Driver  

 

     
 

Agricultural Officer Provide Agricultural extension service. 
 

Medium Low 
Beneficiary and influence High level 

 

 
policy supporter  

 

        
 

Security and Judicial officials Enforcement of community law and order Medium High Law and order enforcer 
High level 

 

supporter  
 

         
  

 
Local Council leaders 

 
Veterinary officers 

 
Pig farmer 

 
Grassroot administrative structure of the 
community  
In charge and supervisor of animal welfare in the 
district 
 
Earn a living from rearing pigs 

  
High 

 
Medium 

 
High 

  

High Opinion leader 
High level 

 

Driver  
 

   
 

High 
Beneficiary and influence High level 

 

policy supporter  
 

  
 

High Beneficiary 
High level 

 

Driver  
 

   
  

Researchers 
Design  simple  community-based  ASF  control 

High High 
Beneficiary and influence High level 

 

measures policy Driver 
 

 

    
 

 
DCDO: District Community Development Officer, LC5: Local Council Five. 

 
 

 

On the other hand, district officials, security and 
judicial agencies were regarded as equally 
influential because their triangles were of equal 
sizes.  

Veterinary officers, CDOs, religious and local 
council leaders were all closely related as 
evidenced by their circles being grouped together. 
Veterinary officers were the most important 
stakeholders in this group. Comparatively, local 
council and religious leaders were both deemed 
moderately important while CDOs were the least 
important. Collectively, all stakeholders in this 
group were deemed highly influential owing to the 

 
 
 

 

equal sizes of their respective triangles. 
Researchers were not related to any other 
stakeholder group as observed by the standalone 
circle. They were also not aggregated with any 
other stakeholder group but researchers were 
seen as moderately important since their circle had 
moderate size and are highly influential due to the 
large size of their triangle. Agricultural officers 
were not directly mandated in animal production 
community outreach services although it was 
noted that in circumstances where no veterinarians 
existed, they provided minimal animal production 
services to farmers. In this 

 
 
 

 

respect, it was unanimously agreed by the 
participants that Agricultural officers be excluded 
from this stage. However, through animal 
production trainings, Agricultural officers would to 
some level provide animal production services to 
pig farmers in the absence of veterinarians (Figure 
2). 
 

 

Strategies for dealing with the stakeholder 
groups 

 

Following the categorization of stakeholder groups 



7 

 

  
 
 

 
Table 3. Stakeholder group’s capacity to control the spread of ASF.  

 
Stakeholder Score Reasons for their capacity Potential solution 

 

Veterinarians 2(moderate) Inadequate facilitation and staffing for enforcement. 
Increase funding and recruitment for field staff 

 

for community outreach.  

   
   

Agricultural officer 1 (Low) 
 

CDOs 3 (high) 
 

Farmers 2 (moderate) 
 

Religious leaders 2 (moderate) 
 

Security  and Judicial 
1 (Low)  

agencies  

  
 

 
Inadequate technical knowledge among the staff on ASF the lack of a close working 
relationship with other stakeholders minimizes their capacity in ASF control.  
They have a close working relationship with the farmers stakeholders in the 
community (farmers, traders and butchers) in implementing ASF control measures.  
Inadequate funding and technical knowledge to implement recommended biosecurity 
measures.  
There is need for facilitation to enable religious leaders reach out to the community. 
 
Inadequate funding to enforce quarantine. 

 
Recruit more staff for community outreach and 
provide staff training on animal production.  
Provide funding for adequate community 
outreach.  
Sensitize farmers on ASF control measures and 
subsidize prices of effective disinfectants.  
Provide funding for community outreach. 
 
Provide funding for quarantine enforcement. 
 

 
District officials 2 (moderate) 

Local leaders 2 (moderate) 

Pork Consumers 2 (moderate) 

Researchers 3 (high) 

 
Limited human resources and funds humper the effective involvement of the district 
officials in ASF control.  
Limited facilitation to local leaders reduces their effectiveness in sensitizing the 
community on ASF control measures. 
 
In ability to accurately identify ASF sick pigs aids the spread of the disease. 
 
They have the funding for research and sensitization of all stakeholder groups in ASF 
control.  

 
Recruit more staff and increase supervision 
funds 
 
Provide funds for community outreach. 
 
Train consumers on simple animal disease 
diagnostics.  
Train all stakeholder groups in disease control 
measures. 
 

 

 

(Table 2), strategies were devised to deal with 
each of them based on their power, influence and  
importance. These strategies include 
empowerment, further consultation, continuous 
engagement and further involvement (Table 6). 

 

 

DISCUSSION 

 

This study identified and evaluated stakeholders’ 
interest, capacity, roles and influence/power in 
relation to the implementation of biosecurity 
measures in the control of ASF in rural settings. 
The results of this study revealed that all 
stakeholders were either drivers or supporters of 
the intervention. These are vital factors in 
determining the success of an intervention and 

 
 

 

could smoothen the implementation and 
acceptance of the measures among stakeholders. 
The high level of supporters and drivers may 
reflect the direct and indirect benefits of the 
interventions for stakeholders. The direct 
beneficiaries (farmers, traders, consumers and 
veterinarians) either earned an income or 
consumed quality pork while the indirect 
beneficiaries (district officials, religious and local 
leaders, judiciary and security) were happy to see 
an increased level of economic stability in the 
society. In that respect, community members get 
employment and reduction in the level of crime in 
the long run is achieved since most youth would 
be engaged in pig production. Youth 
empowerment in agricultural sector would increase 
food production and household income, create 

 
 

 

stability in terms of security which leads to socio-
economic development of a country. The high 
level of drivers with high influence in particular at 
the district and community levels ensures the 
sustainability of the intervention programs. There 
is a need to involve stakeholders identified as 
drivers with high influence at the national level 
since they are very instrumental in policy 
formulation and influence (Kanmiki and Bempah, 
2017).  

All the supporters, such as pork consumers, 
religious leaders, security and judiciary, and 
veterinarians are stakeholders who need to be 
empowered, involved further and continuously 
engaged (Luyet et al., 2012) so as to become 
drivers of the intervention (Table 2). The 
consumers for example should be sensitized on 



8 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 4. The roles of stakeholder groups in ASF control.  

 
Stakeholder Roles of stakeholders in ASF control  

 
Consumers 

 
Pig Farmers 

  
Ensure that the pork butchers and the butcher environment have and maintain good hygiene.  
Promote the consumption of only disease free pork.  
Ensure proper farm hygiene by; disinfecting the farm and surroundings and restricting visitors entering the farm in addition to constructing 
improved pig sties.   

Religious Leaders 

Agricultural Officers 
 

Pig Traders 

 
CDO 

 
Security /Judiciary 

Local Leaders 

 
Veterinarians 

 

District Officials 

 

Researchers 

 
Sensitize people about ASF, and instant reporting of outbreaks to veterinarians.  
Sensitization farmers on ASF and report outbreaks to the relevant authorities.  
Instant reporting of outbreaks, slaughtering only on slaughter slabs, not buying of sick pigs and observing proper hygiene in farms and 
slaughter slabs by disinfecting.  
Sensitize people about ASF, mobilize the community and NGO, link farmers to ASF technical people, coordinate all stakeholders involved in 
ASF control and assist in enforcing quarantine.  
Sensitization of the community and farmers on ASF control measures and enforce quarantine.  
Monitor, mobilize and sensitize farmers on ASF control measures.  
Sensitize, monitor, supervise, and create awareness among all stakeholders on ASF control measures.  
Regulate and enforce veterinary laws, coordinate and provide veterinary services and, initiate the institution of quarantines during ASF 
outbreaks in their areas of operation.  
Recommend for declaration of quarantine to MAAIF and enforcement of quarantine in the affected areas of the district. They also enact by-
laws intended for ASF control, sensitize farmers on ASF control measures and oversee extension service provision to farmers.  
Sensitization of all stakeholders in ASF control in the pig production value chain.  
Conduct ASF surveillance and testing.  
Solicit for funding to carry out research on ASF.  
 

 

 

the dangers of zoonotic disease such as tuberculosis, 

anthrax, ebola and helminthiasis that one can 

contract from consuming uninspected pork although 

ASF is non-zoonotic. Consumers should also be 

empowered to form consumer protection associations 

with a strong voice to ensure the sale of clean and 

healthy pork. The religious leaders on the other hand 

are influential people in the community who can 

change the mindset of the masses and therefore 

need to be empowered and involved further to 

continuously remind the masses on the importance of 

implementing biosecurity. The security and judiciary 

play crucial roles in the implementation of 

quarantines during disease outbreaks. Empowering 

them through formulation of policies with clear 

 
 

 

guidelines and providing financial support for 
activities during quarantines could greatly improve 
on the control of animal diseases in the community 
(Larry, 2004). The veterinarians believe that 
recruitment and posting of staff at each parish 
would tremendously improve on surveillance and 
service delivery which eventually would lead to 
success in disease control.  

Much as all stakeholders were either drivers or 

supporters, most of them needed technical support in 

the implementation of biosecurity measures in the 

control of ASF. The capacity of almost all 

stakeholders was either low or moderate and hence 

needed improvement. As mentioned earlier, there is 

need for increased human resources to all technical 

stakeholders and funding for better service 

 
 

 

delivery (Table 3). Since most stakeholder groups 
felt that sensitization of farmers, traders and 
consumers (Table 4) was their responsibility, there 
should be efforts to standardize and coordinate 
dissemination messages. The local government 
department of production is best suited to 
coordinate this activity since the mandate of 
improving production is it responsibility. By doing 
this mixed and confusing messages will be 
eliminated. This will promote early detection of 
ASF and rapid implementation of biosecurity 
measures which to date are still the only effective 
means of ASF control (Gallardo et al., 2015; Dione 
et al., 2017). It was generally agreed therefore that 
involving all stakeholders in developing the 
guidelines for biosecurity implementation would 



9 

 

  
 
 

 
Table 5. Interests of stakeholder groups in ASF control in Mukono District.  

 
Stakeholder Interests of stakeholders in the control of ASF   
Security and 

Judiciary Consumers 

 

 
District officials 

 
 

 

Local leaders 
 

 

Agricultural officers 
 

 

Veterinarians 
 
 

 
Pig farmers 

 
 

CDOs 
 

Pig traders 

 

Religious Leaders 
 

 

Researchers 

  
Are interested in a disease free pigs community, this creates employment, leading to decrease in crime rates in the community 

They are interested in good hygiene of the butcher and its immediate surrounding environment.  
They are also interested in the consumption of good and disease free pork.  
These want to fulfill their mandate to control ASF epidemic and keep the reputation of their district.  
A good reputation will enable them lobby funds from donors for piggery projects in Mukono district.  

They want to ensure that there is diversity of livestock enterprises for Operation Wealth Creation (OWC) program for people to have improved nutrition 
and increased household income.  
They want the pig sector to thrive by having increased number of improved pig breeds for people to get employment opportunities 

The local leaders are interested in increased household (HH) income among their electorates.  
They want to see their pigs multiply their animals and increase in number to; 1) provide market for pig feeds e.g. maize, 2) get organic manures and 
access enough pork in their area at affordable/reduced prices.  
They are interested in community members getting jobs in the piggery sector.  
They want farmers to have supplementary income from pig production.  
They want increased pig manure for  crops from pig farmers.  
They want increased protein supply from pig farmers to consumers.  
They are interested in community members getting jobs in the pig sector.  
They want HH to have increased HH income.  
They want communities and HH to comfortably rear pigs for them be food secure.  
Farmers aspire to increase their  HH income by getting jobs from increased rearing of ASF free pigs.  
They believe that higher incomes will reduce domestic violence in their homes.  
They to be more food secure and reduce malnutrition among their household members.  
They prefer having an ASF-free community to motivate pig farmers and increase production and in turn supported government involved in livestock.  
They benefit from having an ASF-free community since ASF outbreaks are usually accompanied by several restrictions like quarantines which affect 
their business negatively.  
Increased HH and church income from increased piggery production  
Reduced domestic violence among the faithful in their congregation  
Reduced crime rates among the faithful in their congregation  
They want control the spread of ASF  
They want to increase the level of awareness about ASF among all stakeholder groups involved in pig production.  
They want farmers to produce and sell ASF disease free pigs.  
 

 

 

foster ownership of such a policy and subsequent 
sustainability.  

Since financial constraint was mentioned as a 

challenge, costs of effective disinfectants and other 

 
 

 

farm inputs needed for disease control need to be 
subsidized by government to a rate that can be 
easily afforded by the farmers. The high costs of 
animal drugs and disinfectants hamper the 

 
 

 

implementation of biosecurity as a control 
measure in many developing countries (Kouam 
and Moussala, 2018). Subsidizing farm inputs 
relevant to disease control as well as adherence to 



10 

 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Farmers Traders 

 
Religious  
leaders 

 
Local Consumers  
council 
leaders  

Veterinarians 
Researchers 

 
CDO 

 
 

 
District  
Officials 

 
Security 

 
 
 
 

 
Figure 2. Relationship, power, influence and importance of stakeholders. Circle = importance of stakeholder; Triangle = power and 
influence. Stakeholders whose circles are touching or closer indicate similarity in roles in the control of ASF in Mukono Dis trict 

 

 
Table 6. Strategies to deal with each stakeholder groups.  

 
 

Stakeholder 
Justification/criteria  

Strategy to deal with stakeholder  

 

Power and influence Importance 
 

   
 

 Agricultural officer Low Moderate Provide animal production training and continuously engage 
 

 Traders High Moderate Consult further and continuously engage 
 

 Consumers Low High Empower 
 

 Veterinarians High High Involve further and continuously engage 
 

 CDOs High Low Consult further and involve further 
 

 Security and Judiciary High Moderate Consult further and continuously engage 
 

 Local Council leaders High Moderate Consult further and continuously engage 
 

 Researchers High Moderate Consult further and continuously engage 
 

 District leaders High High Involve further and continuously engage 
 

 Farmers High High Involve further and continuously engage 
 

 Religious leaders High Moderate Consult further and continuously engage 
 

 

 

practices reporting ASF outbreaks, sale of only disease 
free pork and many other practices that do not require any 
drugs would play a great role in controlling the spread of 
ASF.  

From this study, it was also revealed that funding of the 

other stakeholder groups was required to enable them play 

their roles effectively. Provision of funding to religious 

leaders, district, and local council, and security and judiciary, 

veterinarians, agricultural officers and CDO would 

 

 

greatly improve on community outreach services leading 
to improvement on the implementation of control 
measures. In the same way, increasing the human 
resource for the veterinarians, CDOs and agricultural 
officers would improve on the technical support provision 
to farmers while to the district, security and judiciary it 
would improve on supervision and monitoring of service 
providers to the farmers.  

The farmers in the stakeholder analysis meeting felt that 



11 

 

 
 
 

 

it would be proper to involve all stakeholder groups in 
designing the guidelines of implementing biosecurity 
measures. This concern arose since farmers in particular 
thought that their experience in ASF outbreak 
management at the farm need to be amalgamated with 
that of the technocrats so as to develop a binding working 
document for ASF control at farm and butcher levels. 
Indeed, during the discussions, farmers pointed out some 
control measures such as each farmer having their own 
drugs, syringes and needles that the veterinarian can use 
while treating pigs on a particular farm to avoid 
transmission of infections from other farms. Secondly, 
farmers also suggested that the manure from pig sties 
should be disinfected before use in the crop fields since 
that could be a potential source of disease spread.  

Success in implementing biosecurity measures as a 
means of ASF control in the rural setting, requires a 
number of changes in management and animal husbandry 
practices to be done at the farms, slaughter slabs and  
butchers. These include: The farmers should be 
encouraged to desist from free ranging system of 
management and embrace the use of raised housing or 
double fencing to reduce contact between their pigs and 
roaming pigs. Secondly, traders and butchers should be 
told to stop buying and slaughtering ASF sick pigs. 
Thirdly, all the slaughter slabs should be fenced to prevent 
stray dogs, cats, free ranging pigs and birds from 
accessing swill which can be carried to pig farms and 
transmit disease. Interestingly, during the meeting 
participants did come up with some vital and creative ASF 
control measures. Such measures included: 

 

1) Encouraging individual farmers to have their own 
injection syringes and needles for treating pigs in their 
own farms since those of the veterinarians may transmit 
diseases if not properly disinfected because they 
(veterinarians) treat pigs in many farms.  
2) Farmers were also encouraged to obtain both feeds 
and water from safe sources (ASF free sources) because 
many times ASF is spread to unsuspecting farms through 
African swine fever virus (ASFv) contaminated feeds.  
3) Each pig farmer was encouraged to have their own 
breeding boar where possible or used artificial 
insemination instead of borrowing a boar from another 
farmer or using a community boar (where people take 
their sows to a boar that stationed in one of the farms for 
servicing). The use of a community boar and boar 
borrowing aid the spread of ASF among farms.  
4) The movement of pig farm wastes especially from pig 
sties was discouraged since it could spread ASF among 
farms once one of the farms in infected with ASFv. 
 

The results of this stakeholder analysis show that there is 
need to sensitize and mobilize the community before the 
implementation of biosecurity measures for any animal 
disease control or intervention to succeed. There is also 
need to consult the stakeholders in the pig value chain 
during the development of the biosecurity implementation 

 
 

  
 
 

 

guidelines to promote support and agreement to the 

intervention. Lastly, it is crucial to promote a good working 

relationship and understanding among all the stakeholders 

for the success of the intervention (Auvinen, 2003). 
 

 

Methodological considerations 

 

We were not able to interview some categories of 
stakeholder groups who could have had an influence in 
the intervention, these include: pig feed manufactures, 
pork processers, law makers and MAAIF officials despite 
our endeavor to do so. The study was done in only one 
district and yet the situation in other districts may be 
varying. 
 

 

Conclusion 

 

This stakeholder analysis has revealed that all key 
stakeholders in the pig value chain in a rural area in 
Uganda were either drivers or supporters of the 
implementation of biosecurity measures in the ASF 
control; although, there was need for financial and 
technical support to key stakeholders for the intervention 
to be implemented and enforced. These results show that 
there is great support for enforcement of biosecurity 
measures if stakeholders are facilitated with financial and 
technical support thereby limiting outbreaks of ASF in 
rural areas of Uganda. 

 

Recommendation 
 
There is need for adequate funding for community 
outreach to facilitate sensitization activities especially to 
the veterinarians, CDOs and district officials. 

 

ETHICS 
 
Permission to carry out the study was granted by the 
Ugandan National Council for Science and Technology 
under the reference number A497. Consent from the 
District veterinary officer was obtained prior to the start of 
interviews in Mukono District. All participants were 
informed that the study was voluntary, confidential, and 
that they had the choice of ending their participation at 
any time of the interview. An informed consent was given 
by all participants prior to the implementation of the study. 

 

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS 
 
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. 
 
 
ORCID 

 

P Ogweng  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5616-3819 



12 

 

 
 
 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

 

This work was funded by African Union Grant agreement 
Number AURG II-1-196-2016. The authors thank the ASF 
task force members of Kasawo and Namuganga sub 
counties, Dr Kiryabwire David, District Veterinary Officer of 
Mukono, Veterinary Officers of Kasawo, Namuganga, 
Ntenjero and Mpunge, Moses Namitale and Raymond 
Ssekadde for driving the research team during the data 
collection period. Finally we would like to sincerely 
appreciate all the farmers in the four sub counties for 
sparing their time to respond to the questions. 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Arias ML, Sanchez-Vizcaino J M (2002). African swine fever. In: Trends 

in Emerging Viral Infections of Swine. Iowa State University Press pp.  
119–139. Available at: 
https://jcm.asm.org/content/jcm/41/9/4431.full.pdf  

Auvinen AM (2003). Understanding the Stakeholders as a Success 
Factor for Effective Occupational Health Care, Occupational Health 
1:6-8. DOI: 10.5772/66479. 

 
Costard S, Mur L, Lubroth J, Sanchez-Vizcaino JM, Pfeiffer DU (2013). 

Epidemiology of African swine fever virus. Virus Research 173(1):191-
197.  

Costard S, Wieland B, De Glanville W, Jori F, Rowlands R, Vosloo W, 
Francois Roger F, Pfeiffer D U, Dixon L K (2009). African swine fever: 
How can global spread be prevented?. Philosophical Transactions of 
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364:2683-2696.  

Dione M, Nantima N, Mayega L, Amia W, Wieland B, Ouma E (2017). 
Enhancing biosecurity along Uganda’s pig value chains to control and 
prevent African swine fever. ILRI RESEARCH BRIEF (68), Kampala,  
Uganda. ICG, (July), 1–6. Available at: 
\https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11556.58249  

FAOSTAT (2018). Available at: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-
gateway/go/to/home/E (accessed September 03, 2019).  

Gallardo MC, De A, Reoyo T, Fernández-pinero J, Iglesias I, Muñoz MJ, 
Arias ML (2015). African swine fever : a global view of the current 
challenge. Porcine Health Management pp. 1–14. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-015-0013-y  

Government of Uganda Animal Diseases Act (2014). Animal Diseases 
Act. Available at: https://ulii.org/node/23789.  

Kalenzi Atuhaire D, Ochwo S, Afayoa M, Norbert Mwiine F, Kokas I, 
Arinaitwe E, Ademun Okurut A R, Okuni J B, Nanteza A, Ayebazibwe 
C, Pkedi L, Olaho-Mukani W, Ojok L (2013). Epidemiological Overview 
of African Swine Fever in Uganda (2001–2012). Journal of Veterinary 
Medicine, pp. 1–9.  

Kanmiki EW, Bempah BOS (2017). “Drivers” of sound policy 
implementation : An overview from a theoretical perspective. Policy, 
Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, (May), 1 30. Available 
at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/316940979  

Kouam MK, Moussala JO (2018). Assessment of Factors Influencing the 
Implementation of Biosecurity Measures on Pig Farms in the Western 
Highlands of Cameroon (Central Africa). Veterinary Medicine 
International P. 9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9173646  

Larry NG (2004). Public Policy Making, Process and Principles. Center 
for Civic Education.  

Luyet V, Schlaepfer R, Parlange MB, Buttler A (2012). A framework to 
implement Stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal 
of Environmental Management 111:213-219. 

 
 
 
 

 
Muhanguzi D, Lutwama V, Mwiine FN (2012). Factors that influence pig 

production in Central Uganda - Case study of Nangabo Sub-County, 
Wakiso district. Veterinary World 5(6):346-351.  

Mulumba-Mfumu L K, Saegerman C, Dixon LK, Madimba KC, Kazadi E, 
Mukalakata NT, Oura CAL, Chenais E, Masembe C, Stahl K, Thiry E, 
Penrith M L (2019). African swine fever: Update on Eastern, Central 
and Southern Africa. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 
66(4):1462-1480.  

Namazzi G, Kiwanuka SN, Peter W, John B, Olico O, Allen KA, Hyda 
AA, Ekirapa KE (2013). Stakeholder analysis for a maternal and 
newborn health project in Eastern Uganda. BMC Pregnancy and 
Childbirth 13(1):1.  

Ouma E, Dione M, Kawuma B (2017). Enhancing the Uganda pig value 
chain through capacity building and multi-stakeholder platforms. ILRI 
Research Brief 75, Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Available at: 
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/80380  

Penrith ML, Thomson GR, Bastos ADS, Phiri OC, Lubisi BA, Du Plessis 
EC, Macome F, Pinto F, Botha B, Esterhuysen J (2004). An 
investigation into natural resistance to African swine fever in domestic 
pigs from an endemic area in southern Africa. OIE Revue Scientifique 
et Technique 23(3):965-977.  

Richards M, Panfil S (2011). Towards cost-effective social impact 
assessment of REDD+ projects: meeting the challenge of multiple 
benefit standards. International Forestry Review 13(1):1-12.  

Sebudde RK, Kajubi MM, Stucka T, Mawejje J, Walker RA (2018). 
Uganda economic update, 11th edition : financing growth and 
development - options for raising more domestic revenues (English).  
Washington, DC. Available at: 
https://doi.org/http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/4256315263 
23380885  

Tatwangire A (2014). Uganda smallholder pigs value chain development: 
Situation analysis and trends. ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: 
ILRI. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/34090  

Uganda Beaural of Stastics (UBOS) (2016). National Population and 
Housing Census 2014 – Main Report. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 
Kampala, Uganda. Available at:  
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004  
Uganda Bureau of  Statistics (UBOS) (2017). National Population  and 
Housing  Census:  Area  Specific  Profiles.  Kampala,  Uganda.  8–20.  
Available at: https://www.ubos.org/wp 
content/upload/publications/2014CensusProfiles/KIBOGA.pdf 

UIA (2009). Livestock Sector Profile. Uganda Investiment aouthority (Vol.  
2002). Kampala, Uganda. Available at: 
https://www.ugandainvest.go.ug/uia/images/Download_Center/SECT 
OR_PROFILE/Livestock_Sector_Profile.pdf 


