Understanding antimicrobial resistance policies implementation in Vietnam: a multilayer analysis of the veterinary drug value chain

Data collection

We first organized a focus group discussion (FGD) in December 2020 with 12 stakeholders from the antibiotics and alternative feed additives value chain who were identified through semi-structured interviews in a preliminary study (Bâtie et al., 2022). The objectives were to collectively map the antibiotics and alternative feed additives value chain and identify key stakeholders. The discussion was organized around three topics: (i) identifying the stakeholders in the chain and their roles, (ii) drawing the chain and their interactions, and (iii) identifying existing antibiotic-related legislation [Supplementary Material 1]. Four researchers from the Vietnam National University of Agriculture (VNUA) led the three-hour in-person focus group in Vietnamese, using participatory epidemiology tools such as flowchart building (Catley et al., 2012). The first author was present remotely and received simultaneous Vietnamese-English translation from a team member. The FGD was recorded, the minutes were transcribed and translated into English, and the value chain drawn by the participant was translated and copied into a Word document.

From March to October 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews in northern and southern Vietnam with representatives of the categories of stakeholders identified during the FGD. The interview guide was divided into four main topics: (i) position and role within the antibiotics and alternative feed additives value chain, (ii) interactions with other stakeholders and the nature of those interactions, (iii) knowledge and opinions on antibiotic resistance in Vietnam and about the NAP, and (iv) barriers and motivations for implementing the two new regulations under consideration and their expected impacts on the chain [Supplementary Material 2]. Because of the COVID-19 health crisis, five interviews were conducted in person, with the remainder conducted online. A map of the veterinary drug value chain map was shared with all participants. The first version of the map presented was built from the results of the FGD and then modified as the interviews progressed. Participants were asked to identify themselves on the map and to describe the nature of their interactions with the other stakeholders. They were able to propose changes to the map. The interviews were audio-recorded and lasted between 60 to 90 minutes. The first author conducted them in English or French, with the research assistant translating into Vietnamese when necessary. Throughout the interviews, notes were taken. They were then transcribed and translated into English, as needed.

Before starting the FGD and interviews, the objectives of the study were explained to the participants, and they gave their informed consent to participate in the study. Ethical approval was granted from the Ethics Review Board for biomedical research at Hanoi University of Public Health with the application number 020-419/DD-YTCC.

Data analysis

The maps created during the FGD, and semi-structured interviews were compiled and reproduced using a flowchart maker and online diagram software (diagrams.net). The semi-structured interviews were analyzed by thematic analysis following the steps described by Castleberry and Nolen (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018) and coded using the qualitative software package NVivo (V.12,2, QSR International). Thematic analysis is an inductive approach to identifying and analyzing patterns within the transcripts. Codes are descriptive labels attached to similar words or sentences in raw data. They are then reassembled into themes, allowing us to get a bigger picture of the data regarding the research question. Themes were defined a priori based on the guide of the interviews. Themes were refined and new ones emerged through a process involving both forward and backward methods. The first author conducted the coding, and the team validated the code matrix.

The thematic analysis allowed us to first confirm and improve the map of the antibiotics and alternative feed additives value chain, identify the structural position of the stakeholders, and define their role within this chain. Secondly, each stakeholder who was interviewed was analyzed based on three themes related to their technical and social capital in relation to regulation: legitimacy (institutional position, involvement in the law design, formal or informal flow of antibiotics), resources (knowledge and technical capacities to implement the regulations), and connections (number and quality of relationship) to other stakeholders in the chain (Figure 1) (Zimmermann & Maennling, 2007; Poupaud et al., 2021). We were able to categorize each actor according to their capital level by assigning a score ranging from absent (-) to strong (+++). Each category of stakeholders was assigned the average score of participants within that category. Third, we identified the factors influencing the implementation of the new regulations using the chain map, stakeholder classification, and semi-structured interview coding (barriers, and levers to implement the new regulations). Data were triangulated (de Sardan, 2008) through multiple sources of information (different respondents, flow chart), observation when possible, and team discussion.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Organization of the antibiotics and alternative feed additives value chain from focus group discussion (n=12) and semi-structured interviews (n=39), 2020-2021, Vietnam.

In bold: sell and give advice; VietGAHP: Vietnamese Good Animal Husbandry Practices.

Structural position of the stakeholders within the veterinary drug value chain

The veterinary drug value chain, as mapped during the FGD, was revised three times during semi-structured interviews. Figure 1 shows the result. There was no difference in chain structure between respondents from North and South Vietnam. Finished products are imported or made in Vietnam using imported components. They are then distributed either directly to farmers or through agencies. An agency was defined by the participants as a shop selling drugs, agricultural equipment, or animal feed and owned by a veterinarian. Agencies 1 and 2 differ in size, source of supply (level-1 agencies are directly connected to drug companies, whereas supply-level-2 agencies target consumers). A third level was occasionally reported by participants, but as it differed between interviews, it was not included in the figure. The end users were identified as three types of farms with different input and output sources: integrated farms (contracts with integrators), family commercial farms (private farms), and household farms (backyard farms). VietGAHP (Vietnamese Good Animal Husbandry Practices) farms were certified under the same-named standards. We defined veterinarians as veterinarians who worked for an agency or independently that provided farmers with direct advice and drugs. Technicians were veterinarians employed by a company. Their roles are described in Supplementary Material 3.

Interactions among the identified stakeholders varied. The agencies charge a fee for drugs, feed, and materials, but they also offer farmers free advice. These interactions can be facilitated through a contract between farmers, agencies, and distributors. In this case, they receive preferential pricing and benefits if they purchase or sell a certain number of drugs. The interactions can also take place across a network of farms, in which a technician employed by an integrator provides the farm with drugs and advice.

This chain is regulated by authorities at various territorial levels, as shown in Figure 2. The Department of Animal Health (DAH) regulates antibiotic importation, production, and distribution, as well as medicated feed mills. The department is also responsible for delivering practice certificates to veterinarians. The Department of Livestock Production (DLP) regulates feed companies. The DAH oversees the provincial Sub-Department of Animal Health (Sub-DAH), which merged with the Sub-Department of Livestock Production (Sub-DLP) to form the Sub-Department of Animal Health and Livestock Production (Sub-DAHLP). They provide them with information and guidelines for implementing legislation. In exchange, they receive reports on the situation in each province. The two last administrative levels are a veterinary district station and a communal veterinarian, which operate on the district and communal levels, respectively. Finally, international organizations, international collaborators, and national and foreign research centers work together with government authorities to provide evidence for the development of new policies and technical guidance.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Chain of control of the antibiotics and alternative feed additives value chain and chain of command between governmental authorities from focus group discussion (n=12) and semi-structured interviews (n=39), 2021, Vietnam.

MARD: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; DAH: Department of Animal Health; DLP: Department of Livestock Production; Sub-DAHLP: Subdepartment of Animal Health and Livestock Production; DARD: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Technical and social capital in stakeholders regarding regulations

Through the FGD and individual interviews, we identified 30 categories of stakeholders affected by the regulations. They were divided into three groups: the public sector comprising governmental bodies and national research centers (n=9), the private sector involving stakeholders from importation to final antibiotic users (n=15), and international partners (n=6) (Figure 3). Analyzing the main functions of the potential key stakeholders helped us identify those who have significant influence. The stakeholders’ technical and social capital based on their legitimacy, resources, and connections is outlined in Table 2 and visualized in Figure 4. More information can be found in Supplementary Material 3.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Categories of key stakeholders (n=30) involved in the antibiotics and alternative feed additives value chain from focus group discussion (n=12) and semi-structured interviews (n=39), 2020-2021, Vietnam.

Actors belonged to public sector (orange), international partners (green), and private sector (blue).

Government authorities

Their legitimacy, resources, and connections decreased throughout the value chain. Respondents indicated that the central level was critical in the development of the NAP and regulations (Figure 4). The DAH was described as an "umbrella" that manages all activities related to the veterinary drug value chain, and in the NAP, they are identified as the focal point for implementation. The central government (DAH and DLP) had a good understanding of ABR, ABU, and regulations, though they acknowledged that they were not always aware of the full ABR situation in Vietnam.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Onion ring visualization of the technical and social capital of the identified stakeholders within the chain regarding regulations to reduce antibiotic use from semi-structured interviews (n=39), 2021, Vietnam.

*: focus on new regulations on the progressive ban of AB in the feed (n°13/2020/ND-CP) and mandatory prescription (n°122020TT-BNNPTNT). Sphere of control: stakeholders who are central to behaviors and activities. Sphere of influence: stakeholders who have the power to change the outcome on impacts. Sphere of concern: stakeholders who have no control over the actions of others but who are affected by the regulations. Absent: stakeholders who have no control over regulations. Onion ring visualization adapted from (Zimmermann & Maennling, 2007; Bordier et al., 2018).

“I don’t know exactly what the current situation is, many projects are working on antimicrobial resistance. (…) actually, I don’t believe we have a full picture for the country.” (Interview 12 (IW12), government authority)

The DAH and DLP also collaborated to develop the circular on mandatory prescriptions (circular 12). They are linked to a number of stakeholders (MARD, international partners, Sub-DAHLP, national private stakeholders), but not directly to small holders and drug sellers locally. The central government’s legitimacy, resources, and connections provided it influence over the legislative process and the formulation of new regulations.

The Sub-DAHLP was viewed as a link between central, district, and communal authorities. Their missions included monitoring everything related to antibiotic use, including drug agency control (certificate of practice, banned substances, and quality testing). However, participants suggested that their mission had limitations.

The Sub-DAHLP could also offer suggestions for the development of new regulations. Other stakeholders rated their knowledge as average, and in some provinces, they were perceived to lack the human and technical capacity needed to enforce new regulations. Indeed, differences between provinces were observed in the five interviews conducted with Sub-DAHLP representatives, not only in terms of ABR and regulation knowledge, but also in technical capacity to enforce the regulations. The Sub-DAHLP was described as having a close relationship with all stakeholders in the veterinary drug value chain, particularly with drug agencies. Sub-DAHLP employees are responsible for controlling agencies, but they also frequently own them as a secondary source of income. A respondent raised the possibility of a conflict of interest between the competent authority and the private sector in terms of ABU management. The Sub-DAHLP also plays an important role in ABU and ABR research. They not only authorize data collection, but they also connect research projects, farms, and drugstores.

“What also surprised me is the link between the Sub-DAH vet and the drugshops. A lot of them, at least 30/50%, are owned by staff affiliated with Sub-DAH or former Sub-DAH staff.” (IW28, international partner)

District veterinarians at the veterinary district station were not perceived to play a significant role in Vietnam’s antibiotic reduction regulations. Other stakeholders perceived them to have limited knowledge of ABU and ABR, as well as limited capacity to implement regulations. They were also described as relaying information about new regulations to farmers and drug sellers.

Communal veterinarians were perceived to have no role in regulatory development or implementation; their primary function was to organize mandatory vaccination. The majority of our communal veterinarian interviewees were not qualified veterinarians and had limited knowledge, learning from the experiences of drugstore agents and farmers. They admitted to not being very involved in the fight against ABR. Their primary source of income was treating diseases in farmers’ livestock and selling antibiotics; the second came from government subsidies. They directly connected with farmers in the local area.

National research centers

National research centers were considered as knowledgeable about the ABU and ABR situation in Vietnam. A foreign research center perceived them as getting more involved in the fight against ABR. By leading research on ABU, ABR, and AB residues, they were providing evidence that authorities used to create regulations. They were directly overseen by the MARD, either DAH or DLP. They also had strong ties to international organizations and foreign research institutions. They said that they had frequent contact with farmers and drug sellers while conducting research. They were not, however, directly connected to MARD; rather, their findings were reported to MARD by international organizations.

Private national stakeholders

This category included drug, feed, and alternative feed additive companies and integrators.

They were perceived by authorities and other private stakeholders as having the necessary knowledge, technical capabilities, and human resources to implement the regulations. These companies employ technicians who provide free technical advice to large-scale farmers on a contract basis. Their technicians studied veterinary medicine at the university level, so they are authorized to write prescriptions, giving them an advantage in enforcing the regulations. The most influential were involved in the regulation design, while others were aware of regulatory changes before local stakeholders. Before the regulations were issued, some drug companies began producing alternative medicines, and feed companies replaced antibiotics with supplemented feed. Alternative feed additive companies provided large-scale farms with free guidance as a trial. However, they reported insufficient resources to deal directly with smallholders, and their products’ packaging was not always appropriate for them.

They had a strong connection that was formalized through a contract with integrated farms, large family commercial farms, and level 1 agencies. They had no direct contact with households or small and medium-sized family commercial farms.

Private local stakeholders

This category included level 1 and 2 agencies and veterinarians who did not have a shop. They were perceived as having weak legitimacy because they were not part of the decision-making process when designing regulations and also because they sometimes sell banned antibiotics.

“Most of the vet drug shops in Vietnam sell banned drugs. That’s the reality.” (IW22, agency level 1)

They were also seen as lacking the resources to implement new regulations. Level 1 agency representatives usually had a veterinary degree and an in-depth knowledge of ABU and ABR, but not all level 2 agencies were run by veterinarians, and not all employees were trained in animal diseases and antibiotic use. Other stakeholders described them as being underinformed, and during the interviews, they were not always aware of the new regulations. They were, however, perceived to play an important role in the implementation of regulations due to their close connection with farmers.

Users

The users included integrated farmers, family commercial farmers, and household farmers. Users are defined as having a low level of legitimacy because they were not involved in the law-making process (with the exception of the most important integrated farms), despite being perceived as directly affected by regulatory changes.

According to many respondents, farmers lacked knowledge of regulations and prudent ABU practices. Small-scale farms were frequently cited as the source of AB misuse in Vietnam.

They had strong connections among them, sharing their experiences. The strength of their connection with agencies differed between users. Some of them went to various agencies without seeking advice, purchasing drugs solely based on their own experience. Others, however, relied heavily on advice from trusted agencies. Integrated farms and large family commercial farms were connected to drug and feed agencies or integrators by a contract.

International partners

International partners included international organizations, foreign research centers, and foreign development agencies. International partners provided evidence of the ABU and ABR situation in Vietnam and were thus considered legitimate. They self-assessed their influence as moderate, noting that they were not the final decision-makers and could only make recommendations to policymakers. However, the DAH relies on research project findings to develop new regulations, and the majority of them were involved in the development of the NAP alongside national authorities.

“I think we have an influence because I have seen a lot of my papers cited even in the legislation (…) However, you don’t know how much influence there is” (IW28, international partner)

International partners were perceived to have a thorough understanding of ABU and ABR in Vietnam. They had the ability to organize workshops, conduct research, create guidelines, and assist the government. Respondents also identified donors as having greater influence because they bring fundings and thus can set the direction of the governmental action.

International partners were described as being indirectly linked to the value chain. Collaboration between different research centers, foreign development agencies, and international organizations was perceived to be multifaceted. Their connections with companies or integrators appeared limited, as conducting research with integrated farms could be difficult. They did, however, collaborate with other companies to conduct product trials.

Factors influencing the implementation of new regulations

Based on our analysis of the stakeholders’ capital regarding regulations, we identified 10 factors that influenced, positively or negatively or both, the implementation of new regulations [Supplementary Material 4].

Stakeholders’ perceptions of the new regulations

The vast majority of value chain stakeholders were positive about the new regulations. They recognized their importance in reducing antibiotic use and, as a result, fighting antibiotic resistance and protecting human health. Respondents thought that farmers will be forced to change their practices over time, and that new regulations are an important step toward that goal. Except for government stakeholders, they all stated that they would be difficult to implement and lacked confidence in their short-term implementation. Respondents also compared the situation in the human sector, where prescriptions are required to purchase drugs, but this regulation isn’t enforced.

“Without a doctor’s prescription, you can still buy medicine for self-treatment.” (IW39, household farm)

“This law is a feasible way to reduce antimicrobial use but it will take 5-10 years for farmers to adapt to it. The government expects it to be achieved in 1-2 years, but that’s impossible, it will take a long time to raise farmers’ awareness.” (IW24, local veterinary service)

Level of knowledge

Gaps of knowledge about ABU, ABR, and on regulations were perceived as barriers to their implementation.

Others believed that the majority of respondents lacked sufficient knowledge about ABU and ABR. As a result, respondents reported that the ABR increase was due by overuse of antibiotics, incorrect dosage and duration, and the use of banned antibiotics. The emergence of resistance on farms has led farmers to increase dosage and switch of antibiotics, leading to untreatable conditions, higher farm expenditure, and the need to find alternative solutions. Only a few respondents identified the impact on human health as a long-term consequence, and most farmers perceived ABR as invisible with only long-term effects.

“It’s true that the officers don’t really understand what antimicrobial resistance is, not to mention farmers. Especially, they believe what they see, but the effect of AMR has long-term consequence that are not immediately visible.” (IW25, local veterinary service)

In terms of regulations, stakeholders, with the exception of central government actors, had a limited understanding of the decree on antibiotic usage in feed, but awareness of the circular on prescription was limited and confused with a previous law (Law on Veterinary Medicine, 2015). Farmers and local drug sellers were the least aware of regulations, followed by communal and district veterinarians and sometimes Sub-DAHLP. National companies, the national government, and researchers were all aware of the regulatory changes. Respondents’ understanding of mandatory prescription regulations was low, especially for farmers who did not understand the benefit of this regulation. Mass media, the internet, and loudspeakers were the principal sources of information for drug sellers and farmers, but they recognized the need to increase communication around new laws. Some workshops were also organized by companies together with the government.

Technical guidance availability on the implementation of regulations

At the central and international levels (private, public, and foreign partners), the respondents were all aware of the regulations but unsure of how to implement them in practice. Not technical guidance was provided, and it was not clear how regulations should be enforced. Moreover, regulations were also perceived as incomplete, especially because details regarding on-farm inspections were not included (number of inspections per year, exact procedure). They consider this is significant because, even if buying feed containing antibiotics for chickens older than 21 days was banned, farmers continued to add antibiotics to the feed. For some respondents, stricter sanctions should also be included in the regulations to oblige farmers and producers to comply with them.

The lack of technical guidance and economic interest for farmers was also identified as a barrier to their implementation.

“If the law is not thorough, difficult to implement, and does not bring economic benefits, it is not mandatory for me to follow it.” (IW36, integrated farmer)

Conflict of economic interest between stakeholders

Those who didn’t comply with the regulations were perceived to have an economic advantage over the others, which encouraged non-compliance with regulations. For farmers, using antibiotics for prevention was a way to reduce disease incidence and ensure good production, while buying antibiotics over the counter was a way to save time in case of flock disease. For drug sellers, selling AB without a prescription is faster than with one, allowing them to sell more drugs and thus increase their income.

“This law cannot be applied in practice when chickens are sick; I buy medicine myself rather than waiting for a veterinarian prescription.” (IW37, family commercial farmer)

Feed companies that add antibiotics to feed benefit more than others. Indeed, if feed is perceived as less efficient because of the absence of antibiotics, farmers will switch to a feed supplier known to add antibiotics to feed to maximize their production. Respondents reinforce the fact that, for regulations to be effective, they must be applied by everyone at the same time.

“Enforcement is one of the issues because of the violation of certain (…). If one of them uses it illegally, that means that somehow, they have the benefit of market competitiveness.” (IW34, international partner)

Scale-related management discrepancies

The predominance of small-scale farms in Vietnam was perceived by respondents as a major barrier. They had poor farming management practices, which were accentuated by intermittent production. Indeed, some farmers produced a few hundred chickens for the Lunar New Year and then stopped their production after selling the batch. Farmers treated their chickens themselves or according to the experience of other farmers and bought drugs without a prescription based on their own experience. They also did not always consider the advice of veterinarians. Small-scale farmers aged between 50 and 60 showed less willingness to change compared to the younger generation.

There was insufficient control over small-scale farms because the government did not have the human and financial capacity to inspect them all.

“Even if we don’t put antibiotics in feed, they can still buy drugs from drug agencies and add it themselves.” (IW29, feed company)

Additionally, some drug sellers sold AB without the proper qualifications. This is made possible by the limited control capacity of Sub-DAHLP to inspect all small retailers.

Integrated and large-scale farms were perceived to be more compliant with legislation. Firstly, they were more aware of regulatory changes and had time to adapt due to their direct link with integrators. Integrators, drug, and feed companies were also better prepared for regulatory change because in-company veterinarians were qualified to write out prescriptions under the new regulation. Also, respondents explained that it was more difficult for a large farm to add antibiotics to feed and to mix them themselves than for small scale farms. Government or contract farm integrators carried out more on-farm inspections due to the products being sold in supermarkets where drug residue tests are performed.

Technical and financial barriers to the implementation of regulations at local level

Locally, respondents stressed the technical and financial barriers to implementing the new regulations. First, in some areas, there were not enough certified veterinarians for the number of farmers, especially given the large number of small-scale farms. Thus, due to a shortage of qualified veterinarians, systematic prescriptions for the purchase of AB would be impossible to implement.

“In some remote areas, people do not have advanced training; this includes veterinarians who do not have practice certificates as they have very little work, with only a few small-scale livestock farms.” (IW23, local veterinary service)

Small-scale farms lacked both alternatives to antibiotics and adequate biosecurity measures, leading to a high disease incidence. This justified the preventive use of antibiotics, whose usage is also recommended by drug sellers. This was exacerbated by the forecast in Vietnam, with frequent changes in weather. Advice on biosecurity was perceived as scarce, as farms were rarely visited by veterinarians. Biosecurity was also not considered a priority by farmers. Alternative products were perceived as more expensive than antibiotics and available in inappropriate packaging. Moreover, they were usually not approached by an alternative company, as stated by one representative of this actor category. Large-scale farms had easier access to alternatives because alternative medicine companies provided free trials and technical advice. However, some farmers and drug sellers reported using garlic, herbs, or vitamins on a regular basis. University research was also underway in one of the study districts on the use of herbs to improve disease treatment and meat quality.

Informal distribution channels

The informal market was perceived as a barrier to the implementation of new regulations. Indeed, unlicensed products from Vietnam were imported across the Chinese border and then sold over to agencies via the internet or distributors. The government lacked capacity to control this illegal flow of antibiotics as informal vendors were perceived to be powerful, while the business generated a lot of money. As a result, most shops sold low-quality (diluted) drugs and banned substances.

“Counterfeit drugs with less than 70% content are common in Vietnam. This affects vets making prescriptions. Drugs are used according to instructions and are found to be inefficient, so they need to double the amount of drugs, which creates antibiotic resistance.” (IW4, local veterinary service)

Farmers continued to buy banned antibiotics because they were perceived to be more effective. To the contrary, poor-quality drugs were perceived as a major issue that the government should address. Respondents also reported the presence of unlicensed shops run by people without practice certificates.

International influence

The Vietnamese government developed its NAP and implemented corresponding regulations, partly to respond to international demand. These regulations were strongly influenced by foreign technical experts and were therefore similar to European regulations. However, some respondents had a negative perception of this international influence. Indeed, as Vietnamese breeding conditions differed from those in Europe, they identified that some regulations were poorly suited to the context and difficult to implement.

For companies that must follow the international trend of reducing antibiotics in order to export their products, the international influence was seen as a motivation. Indeed, complying with these regulations was a step toward reaching the food safety standards required for the international market.

Consumers demand for food safety

Producing higher-quality food that could be sold for a higher price was a motivation at all levels and in all sectors. Indeed, respondents reported that consumers were more aware of ABR and food quality issues and that farmers had to progressively comply with consumers’ demands. However, because not all consumers had the possibility to pay a higher price for chickens, this lever was still identified as moderate. Household farmers also reported not using AB in their flock to protect their health.

Companies had started to develop labels for chicken produced with less antibiotics or fed with herbs that better suit urban consumer demand. Moreover, the VietGAHP certificate was needed to sell to supermarkets. The requirements to get this certification included, among others, the recording of ABU and the absence of AB residues. These alternative medicine companies were also driven by the desire to create safer products.

“I know that some companies have really made it part of their strategy to reduce the use of antibiotics. So we’re going to discuss how to support this via our solutions and farm management. (…) Some integrators are aiming for 0 AB in line with European practices.” (IW32, alternative feed additives company)

Reducing the burden of antibiotic resistance

Reducing the burden of ABR to protect public health was a motivation shared by governmental authorities (up to the provincial level), researchers, and a variety agencies, distributors, and alternative medicine companies. By developing the antimicrobial resistance Sub-Steering Committee, the Vietnamese government has shown that ABR is now considered an important issue. The National Institute of Veterinary Research (NIVR) was identified as playing a central role in this committee, but one international partner reported no longer being involved in the process. The central government perceived itself as having a responsibility for public health to tackle the ABR threat.

The private sector was also concerned about ABR as a public health issue. But some veterinarians and agency level 1 and 2 representatives explained that reducing the burden of ABR resulted in increased profits for them. Indeed, according to them, farmers using less antibiotics will earn more money and be able to buy more supplies from their shop. Indeed, many agencies sold to farmers on credit. Additionally, mandatory prescriptions were perceived as an economic advantage for drug sellers. Indeed, farmers will have to rely on veterinarians to use the correct dosage of drugs, which will lead not only to accurate advice to limit the development of resistance but also an increase in their income. Using less AB was also associated with reducing production costs for farmers and integrated companies.

Advantages and bias of conducting an iterative stakeholder mapping and analysis

In this study, we explored the structural position and technical and social capital of the stakeholders regarding the regulations related to ABR through a systemic (Peters, 2014) and interdisciplinary approach to develop recommendations adapted to the Vietnamese context (Kakkar et al., 2018). We aimed to translate policy changes into changes of practice that would effectively reduce the use of antibiotics in chicken production (Baudoin et al., 2021). To accomplish this, we conducted an iterative stakeholder mapping and analysis (SMA). SMA is a method to assess how future policies will be understood by the impacted stakeholders or to support their implementation (Mayers, 2005; Zimmermann & Maennling, 2007; Reed et al., 2009; Godakandage et al., 2017) by identifying key stakeholders, characterizing them, describing their interactions, and exploring their technical and social capital regarding the future policy and their level of influence on its implementation. In fine, it provides relevant information to support the formulation of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of these future policies. This approach has already been applied to ABR surveillance programs in Vietnam (Bordier et al., 2018) and the antibiotic value chain in Laos (Poupaud et al., 2021). By exploring barriers to the implementation of new regulations using a participatory approach, we identified systemic lock-ins (economical, political, technical, and social) to reducing antibiotic usage in chicken production in Vietnam (Baudoin et al., 2021).

However, we recognize that our study has some limitations. To begin, almost all of the interviews were conducted online due to the health crisis. Although this format represents great interest when interviews cannot be conducted face-to-face, several biases can be identified. Direct observations are reduced, and information is lost (lack of informal discussions, misunderstandings, longer time to build trust, and more complicated debriefing). Another limitation may have been the sensitivity of the subject to the participants. Indeed, these regulations are already enforced or will be soon, and participants might have been worried about the consequences of expressing their true opinions. We attempted to reduce this bias by interviewing several respondents from the same category and gathering information from the perspective of other participants. However, we failed to contact informal stakeholders who could have helped us further describe the informal value chain. Due to time and technical constraints, we only interviewed one representative for some categories of stakeholders. Thus, it might have been relevant to interview another district veterinarian to clarify their role in the drug value chain. Finally, translation might also have caused misunderstandings. We are also aware that the representation of the veterinary drug value chain may be incomplete, as it is based on stakeholder interviews and reflects the situation at the time of data collection in 2021.

The inclusion or exclusion of some categories of stakeholders may influence the conclusions drawn and introduce bias because of their different perspectives on the regulations. Small farmers have been blamed for AB misuse and low regulatory compliance. However, our sample lacked small farmers compared to other stakeholders, and we did not their perspectives on their role in ABR as identified by other stakeholders. Thus, additional research is needed to investigate farmers’ perceptions about the ABU reduction and to identify how they adapt to the need for changing practices.

Influence of stakeholders on the implementation of regulations

The Sub-DAHLP appeared to be the link between the central level and local stakeholders. They had field expertise and were consulted by the upper level, while they transmitted information on ABR, ABU, and regulations to the lower level. They were in contact with drug sellers, veterinarians, and farmers (though they were unable to inspect all farms), as well as researchers. However, respondents reported differences between provinces on regulatory implementation, which might impact the benefits of the regulatory changes. National private stakeholders were consulted on the design of the new legislation, and we saw better understanding, compliance, and adaptability among these stakeholders. They were also better controlled by the competent authorities. They were motivated to reduce their ABU to access the international market and export their products. However, our study was unable to determine the exact influence of private companies on the design of the law. Local stakeholders were not involved in the process and showed a lower level of understanding and compliance. Nevertheless, they were identified as key stakeholders in achieving objectives due to their position in the chain as end-users and must be more involved.

International partners perceived themselves as having a moderate influence on the legislative process. However, in Vietnam, ABU and ABR monitoring remained dependent on research projects, and legislation was partly developed based on the recommendations of international researchers. The NAP was adopted in response to a call from international organizations (OMS, 2015) and influenced by international stakeholders, even though the final decision rests with the government. Regulations were sometimes identified too far away from Vietnamese reality. Consequently, these regulations developed by national authorities under the influence of international factors may favor production intensification in Vietnam. As explained by one participant, the policy to intensify the farms was done without the farmers’ involvement. To be effective, regulations need to be adapted to the context rather than simply copied from another country’s regulations (Kirchhelle et al., 2020). For example, there were still a large number of small retailers who lacked the legally required practice certificates or qualifications, and they were the only source of antibiotics in remote areas. In this case, strict regulation could limit small-scale farmers’ access to antibiotics.

Difficulties to implement the regulations

Our study showed that the new regulations would be difficult to implement in Vietnam in the short term, and that local compliance could take longer than anticipated. Indeed, even though antibiotics have been banned for growth promotion since 2018 (National Assembly, 2018), respondents still reported mixing AB with feed on the farm. This result contradicted previous studies that did not report the usage of antibiotics for growth promotion (Pham-Duc et al., 2019; Luu et al., 2021; Bâtie et al., 2022). This disparity could be explained by the data collection process. Indeed, participatory approaches can reduce communication barriers and stimulate discussion (Bordier et al., 2018). This finding is consistent with several studies that have shown that the regulatory enforcement of antibiotic usage is low or absent in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in Vietnam (Nguyen et al., 2013). The new NAP issued in 2021 also highlighted the need for better regulatory enforcement to fight against ABR (MARD, 2021), and an analysis of NAP in Southeast Asia reached the same conclusion (Chua et al., 2021).

Not all local stakeholders who will be affected by mandatory prescriptions in a few years’ time were aware of the regulatory changes, and most of the respondents at different levels did not believe that they would be implemented soon. In veterinary medicine, buying antibiotics over the counter is a common practice driven by farmers’ experience-based antibiotic usage (Carrique-Mas et al., 2015; Truong et al., 2019; Bâtie et al., 2022) as it is also in human medicine (McKinn et al., 2021). Moreover, people without a practice certificate or veterinary training sell drugs (usually to a relative of the shop owner) and are therefore not allowed to issue prescriptions. In countries where over-the-counter drugs are highly regulated, the rate of self-medication is significantly lower than in Southeast Asia, where drugs are widely available. Self-medication leads to antibiotic misuse and overuse (Nepal & Bhatta, 2018). Changing farmers’ habits (especially among the older generation and for small scale farms) was perceived as difficult in Vietnam because they are using AB according to their own experience or their neighbor’s experiences. The implementation of this essential regulation in the fight against ABR will therefore require the development of tailored solutions.

Solutions to improve the implementation of the new regulations

Several respondents stressed the need to clarify regulations and strengthen sanctions to improve their implementation. These sanctions should be more clearly defined, stricter, and systematic. This would require clear guidance, a distribution of tasks, and more resources for the authorities, including technical and human capacities (Jamrozik & Selgelid, 2020). Participants suggested random on-farm feed inspections or targeting drug sellers to incur a domino effect. We also identified an informal flow of antibiotics leading to the sale and usage of banned substances. This informal flow has already been described in aquaculture systems (Brunton et al., 2019), and producers have reported using banned substances (Pham-Duc et al., 2019). Respondents also raised drug quality concerns, including the presence of diluted antibiotics, which led to higher antibiotic dosages. This finding was consistent with a previous study conducted among farmers in the Mekong Delta (Yen et al., 2019) and is also an issue in other Southeast Asia countries (Pham-Duc & Sriparamananthan, 2021).

Most respondents believe that reducing the proportion of small-scale farms in favor of large-scale farms and integrated systems would help to alleviate the ABR burden. Small-scale farms have often been blamed for AB misuse and overuse in Vietnam and worldwide (Ducrot et al., 2021) and identified as stakeholders who fail to comply with regulations due to their lack of adaptability (Pham-Duc & Sriparamananthan, 2021). The solution of reducing the number of small scale farms is in line with the government’s strategy outlined in the agriculture development plan for 2025 (Prime Minister, 2021). This was also true in 2003, during the highly pathogenic avian influenza crisis, when industrial production was pushed through partnership between the public and agro-industrial sectors, because integrated farms were perceived as implementing better biosecurity (Figuié et al., 2013). However, this study demonstrated that, due to consumer preference for the local market, only the most competitive ones developed. Also, as one respondent pointed out, increasing the size of farms does not always result in a reduction in ABU, and increasing size without adequate training can have negative consequences for ABU control. Moreover, intensive systems were also reported as heavy users of AB, especially in prophylaxis (Luu et al., 2021; Bâtie et al., 2022). Furthermore, small-scale production has been shown in many regions to be a source of women’s empowerment, financial reserves, an important element for ceremonies, and a contributor to nutrition (Alders et al., 2018). It also represents social benefit and reinforces the relationship between householders (Dumas et al., 2018). Another study in Ethiopia found that as farm size increases, men usually take control, reducing the independence of women (Sambo et al., 2015). In Vietnam, the population is predominantly rural, and small-scale farmers still represent the most common production systems. Demand varies according to cultural events; for example, chickens are highly consumed during the Lunar New Year, and many smallholders only raise chickens for this occasion (Delabouglise et al., 2017). In Southeast Asia, the knowledge and practices of men and women regarding AB differ depending on the context (education, socio-economic factors) (Pham-Duc & Sriparamananthan, 2021). Thus, social factors must be taken into account when developing livestock production (Sambo et al., 2015; Dumas et al., 2018).

We found that small scale farms have difficulty complying with the new regulations because they lack the technical capacity to implement them. Small scale and medium scale farms in Vietnam have poor biosecurity and resulting in high disease incidences, also aggravated by climatic conditions, leading to a high usage of antibiotics for prevention. In consequence, the reduction in ABU was perceived to have a negative impact on their income. A survey of farmers, retailers, and veterinarians in Cambodia revealed that farms with higher levels of biosecurity used fewer antibiotics (Ornelas-Eusebio et al., 2020). Strengthening biosecurity is a target of the government, which is now developing biosecurity guidelines and projects focusing on biosecurity to improve the training of trainers with the National Agriculture Extension Center. Feed additives and probiotics are common in Vietnam and are necessary supplements, but respondents reported a lack of alternatives to antibiotics and the high price of these products.

In our study, the lack of knowledge among farmers and drug sellers, as well as some local authorities, is a barrier to the implementation of the new regulations. Because a lack of awareness of ABU and ABR’s broader impact drives ABU (Brunton et al., 2019), many studies have identified education programs as key interventions to improve ABU, which has increased the adoption of the regulations. Some respondents were aware that ABR can have serious consequences for human health, as highlighted in another study (Pham-Duc et al., 2019) and we found that reducing the ABR burden could also act as a lever in reducing ABU. Raising awareness already figures among the NAP objectives and has been carried over to the second NAP. In Vietnam, this is achieved through mass media channels, TV programs, or workshops organized at different levels. Respondents stated that, in addition to the communication campaign, more training of local stakeholders was required. Stakeholders must also be aware of the change in regulations, which did not seem to be the case for local stakeholders. According to the respondents, information on new regulations should be disseminated more widely, particularly locally. This could be done by organizing workshops with district or communal veterinarians. Finally, to raise compliance with regulations, relevant stakeholders must understand the objective of the law. Indeed, farmers did not always understand the link between ABU reduction and ABR, as well as the link between AB residues and ABR, as observed in Cambodia. Farmers and drug sellers did not see the real benefit of the law, and as the fight against ABR is long-term, they tended to focus on their daily problems. In Cambodia, farmers were identified as focusing more on the benefits of their production rather than on the consequences of antibiotic use (Om & McLaws, 2016).

Several stakeholders identified drugstores as critical components of the antibiotic reduction strategy. Moreover, according to the respondents, drugstores would be easier to manage than farmers because there were fewer of them. By raising awareness of good husbandry practices, they would then be able to provide farmers with advice. Mandatory prescription was sometimes perceived positively by this category of stakeholders as it would attract more customers and enhance the quality of advice. If farmers had fewer livestock diseases to manage, they would have higher incomes and would be willing to pay for the products. It would therefore be a win-win situation for them. In a previous study, drugstores were identified as the primary point of contact for farmers because they sell antibiotics and provide advice (Doan Hoang et al., 2019; Bâtie et al., 2022).

Increasing consumer willingness and showing the importance of producing better quality chicken could also have a leverage effect, as it has already been shown that consumers are afraid of chemical risks related to food safety (Nguyen-Viet et al., 2017). Producing safer food to meet consumer demand was also a motivation to comply with the regulations. Further studies are needed to assess the influence of consumers on changing the practices of veterinary drug value chain stakeholders.