Diagnostic testing is the bedrock of effective animal health interventions. Diagnostic tests are run on samples collected from animals and detect either the disease-causing agent, such as a virus or bacteria, or the body’s immune response to that specific agent. They turn a farmer’s or vet’s disease suspicion into a definite disease diagnosis, allowing proper treatment. At a population level, test results can be systematically collated to build a picture of the burden and distribution of different diseases. This surveillance information enables governments to target disease control measures, including vaccination, where they have the biggest impact for averting livestock losses, improving productivity and promoting trade. Tests can also be used to assess immunity levels in vaccinated animals, telling us whether vaccination ultimately resulted in the intended outcome – protection from disease. Surveillance also allows early outbreak detection and rapid response needed to limit disease spread.

Many benefits; so why are diagnostic tests still underused, and why does surveillance remain patchy for Kenya’s livestock?

With GALVmed’s 5-year VITAL 2 programme underway to increase ruminant vaccination rates, these questions are timely.

To address them, GALVmed, TAHSSL partners and Kenya’s Directorate of Veterinary Services (DVS) co-organised a stakeholder workshop in Nairobi. Over 2 days, almost 100 participants brainstormed. From government and private vets from as far as Wajir and Laikipia counties, to farmers, NGOs, researchers and diagnostics manufacturers – perspectives were shared and expertise pooled. Energy levels were high, helped by the beat of a Maasai warrior drum to keep time, as was the sense of urgency that better diagnostic systems are needed. Long distances to labs, long turnaround times for test results and low levels of feedback to farmers and into surveillance systems were among key challenges identified.

Dr Johnson Ouma and Camilla Benfield during the workshop on Diagnostics for Effective Ruminant Disease Control in Kenya

Diagnostic tests cost money, but is lack of testing a false economy? The Kiambaa Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society said routine diagnostics could reduce antibiotic spending by 30%. Farmers are willing to pay for diagnostics if the value proposition is clear. Proper diagnostic testing reduces antibiotic misuse and reduces the grave societal challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Diagnostics benefit not only farmers, but many value chain actors, such as aggregators, off-takers and processors. Can sustainable business models leverage this shared benefit to share the costs?

One clear priority is demonstrating the value of diagnostics to farmers, value chain actors and Kenya’s wider One Health agenda. That means building confidence that diagnostic results improve timely decision-making, and strengthening surveillance to better support disease prevention and control – else Kenya cannot realise the potential of its livestock sector.

To action this, the workshop served as a springboard for co-designing a Roadmap – a plan for strengthening Kenya’s diagnostic and surveillance system. The Roadmap will be developed over the coming months with DVS, TAHSSL and other partners, with the aim of a validated plan by the end of the year.

The Roadmap sets the direction. What will determine whether Kenya builds the diagnostic system its livestock sector needs is the partnerships that carry it forward. Those between government, veterinarians, farmers, manufacturers and value chain actors. At stake are farmer livelihoods, food safety, and Kenya’s role in the global response to antimicrobial resistance.

Read more about the workshop’s findings and recommendations here.

And don’t miss the interviews recorded during the event, available here.

Blog written by Camilla Benfield, Product Development Lead, Research & Development, GALVmed.

If you have spent any time around animal health or veterinary product regulation in Africa, you have probably heard some version of the same complaint. Every country does things a little differently. Approval requirements vary from one border to the next. Regulatory capacity is uneven — some agencies are well-resourced; others are stretched painfully thin. And the result of all that fragmentation is not just paperwork headaches. It is real delays getting good products to farmers who need them, and it is an open door for substandard products and antimicrobial resistance to creep in.

What PARAN-VPs actually is (and is not)

When I recently joined regulators from across the continent for the validation of the Pan African Regulatory Authorities Network for Veterinary Products (PARAN-VP), I left the workshop more optimistic than I expected. As I looked around the room, there was a shared sense of purpose across a group that does not always agree easily, regulators from countries with very different systems, capacities and priorities finding a common frame.

But first, let us clarify what PARAN-VP is not trying to be. It is not a central regulator overriding national authority. Countries still make their own market authorisation decisions and every Member State’s sovereignty over its own regulatory choices stays intact. It is a voluntary platform. PARAN-VP offers coordination: shared guidelines, information sharing, regulatory reliance, and capacity building.

PARAN-VP is explicitly designed to build on what already exists rather than compete with it. It is meant to work alongside frameworks like the African Medicines Agency and existing regional and national systems, strengthening the connections between them instead of adding yet another disconnected layer.

How we got here

The Nairobi validation workshop was not the beginning of this story — it was more like a milestone in a journey that has been building for a few years now.

The journey traces back to the 2023 meeting of regulators and industry in Abuja, where  the need for a coordinated regulatory platform was discussed. From there, the idea moved into the African Union system through the Specialized Technical Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Water and Environment later that year, and by 2024 the Executive Council had formally endorsed it at the AU Summit.

Then came more groundwork. Technical discussions in Dar es Salaam, followed by a broader conference of regulators and stakeholders in November 2025 helped sharpen the concept and build wider buy-in. By the time we all gathered in Nairobi this June, PARAN-VP was not a proposal anymore. It was already a shared continental vision. The workshop’s job was to confirm it and, more importantly, start figuring out how to actually make it run.

What’s next

The structure we have landed on is deliberately lean: a Network Assembly, a Steering Committee, a Secretariat, and Technical Working Groups tackling specific areas like regulatory guidelines, pharmacovigilance, and antimicrobial resistance.

The next steps are the unglamorous but essential kind — setting up governance structures, getting the Secretariat operational, launching those Technical Working Groups. Early priorities will include assessing the current state of regulatory capacity across countries, developing harmonised guidelines, and piloting approaches to regulatory reliance and information sharing. The Secretariat will be housed at AU-IBAR in Nairobi. How the network sustains itself financially beyond initial partner support is the open question the coming months will need to answer.

This blog was written by Noel Mategyero Aineplan, the Senior Manager of the Better Regulation Project, GALVmed.