In this edition of Ask an Expert, we spoke with Yana Zhambekova, Ukraine Country Director at Veterinarians Without Borders North America (VWB), about the realities facing rural communities, livestock keepers, and veterinarians across Ukraine today.
Drawing on more than two decades of experience leading humanitarian, development, and recovery programs, Yana recently oversaw a gender-sensitive assessment of veterinary service accessibility in rural communities across the Kharkiv and Poltava regions. The research explored the challenges facing livestock keepers and veterinarians alike, examining barriers to care, the growing role of women in agriculture, and the ways animals continue to support both livelihoods and wellbeing amid conflict.
From veterinary service deserts and workforce shortages to food security, mental health, and community recovery, this conversation highlights why veterinary care is far more than an animal health issue. As Yana explains, supporting animals—and the people who depend on them—has become an essential part of building resilience and recovery in wartime Ukraine.
Q: You’ve spent much of your career working across humanitarian response, development, and community-led recovery initiatives. Since joining VWB’s Ukraine program, what has most surprised or struck you about the role animals and veterinary care play in people’s daily survival during war?
A: What has struck me most is how inseparable animal welfare is from human survival and resilience in Ukraine. Before joining this role, I understood that livestock provide food, income, and livelihoods, but I did not fully appreciate the extent to which animals become a household’s safety net during a crisis. For many rural families, a cow, a few chickens, or a small flock can represent their primary source of food, income, and stability when other livelihood systems have been disrupted by war.
I have also been deeply moved by the emotional bond people maintain with their animals, even under the most difficult circumstances. We have seen families risk their own safety to evacuate pets, continue caring for livestock despite shelling and displacement, and share scarce resources because animals are considered members of the family. In this context, animals provide not only economic support, but also comfort, routine, and a sense of hope in an otherwise uncertain environment.
The war has reinforced an important lesson that is sometimes overlooked: veterinary care is not a secondary service. It is a core component of community resilience, food security, public health, and recovery. Supporting animals and the people who depend on them is therefore not only about protecting livelihoods in the present—it is also about preserving the foundations for long-term recovery and resilience.
Q: Your recent assessment focused on veterinary service accessibility in rural communities across Kharkiv and Poltava regions. What realities were you seeing on the ground that prompted this research, and why was it important to document them now?
A: The research was prompted by consistent observations and feedback from rural communities across these two regions. While veterinary services continue to function in some areas, access has become increasingly uneven—particularly for smallholder farmers and households in remote or conflict-affected communities. At the same time, veterinarians themselves are operating under growing pressure, including displacement, increased workloads, security risks, rising operational costs, and limited access to continuing professional development.
In parallel, we observed a clear shift in rural livelihoods, with households becoming more dependent on livestock and small-scale animal production as key sources of food security and income. This created a widening gap between increasing demand for veterinary services and a system struggling to maintain consistent coverage and capacity. Small farmers consistently reported difficulties accessing timely veterinary advice, preventive services, and treatment. Veterinarians, in turn, highlighted gaps in training opportunities, equipment, and professional support networks. Together, these perspectives pointed to a system under strain at multiple levels.
It was important to document these realities now because Ukraine is in a critical phase where emergency response and recovery are occurring simultaneously. The decisions made today about strengthening veterinary services will have long-term implications for food security, rural livelihoods, animal welfare, and public health. We therefore wanted to move beyond anecdotal evidence and develop a clear, evidence-based understanding of both the challenges and opportunities within rural veterinary systems.
The assessment provides a foundation for designing targeted, practical interventions grounded in the needs identified by both veterinarians and livestock keepers.
Q: One of the report’s strongest findings is that livestock farming has shifted from a supplementary livelihood activity to a critical survival strategy for many rural households. How has the war changed the relationship between people, animals, and household survival?
A: The war has fundamentally changed the role that animals play in household survival. Before the full-scale invasion, livestock farming was typically one component of a household’s livelihood strategy—important, but not always the primary source of resilience. Today, for many rural families, animals have become among their most reliable and essential assets.
As employment opportunities disappeared, markets were disrupted, and many households experienced displacement or loss of income, livestock increasingly became a critical source of food, nutrition, and cash. A cow provides milk for household consumption and surplus for sale, while chickens provide eggs, meat, and a steady source of income. In many cases, these animals are helping families bridge the gap between humanitarian assistance and long-term self-reliance.
Throughout the assessment, we heard repeatedly that people are deliberately prioritizing livestock production, often investing scarce resources in maintaining or expanding small-scale animal husbandry because it offers a measure of control and stability in an otherwise highly uncertain environment. For many households, this is no longer just an agricultural activity—it has become a survival strategy.
At the same time, the relationship between people and animals extends well beyond economics. Animals also represent stability, dignity, and hope. In communities affected by shelling, displacement, and prolonged insecurity, caring for animals provides routine, structure, and purpose. We met farmers who spoke of their animals as a vital source of emotional support during extremely difficult times.
This shift has important implications for recovery efforts. If livestock are now central to household resilience, then access to veterinary care, animal health services, feed, and technical knowledge is not only an animal welfare issue, but also a food security, livelihoods, and community resilience priority. Supporting animals—and the people who depend on them—is therefore a critical part of helping rural communities withstand the impacts of war and build pathways toward recovery.
Q: The assessment also highlights the “feminization of agriculture,” with many women now carrying the primary responsibility for household farming and animal care. What did you learn about the gendered impacts of the war through this research?
A: One of the clearest findings from the assessment was the extent to which the war has accelerated the feminization of agriculture in rural Ukraine. With many men serving in the Armed Forces, displaced, or seeking employment elsewhere, women have increasingly become the primary managers of household farms and livestock production.
We found that women are carrying a remarkable level of responsibility. In many households, they are simultaneously caring for children and elderly relatives, maintaining agricultural production, and taking primary responsibility for animal health and welfare. Given that livestock and poultry often represent a critical source of food and income, women are making day-to-day decisions that directly influence household resilience and survival.
At the same time, the assessment showed that women are not simply filling roles left vacant by men—they are increasingly becoming key economic actors in rural communities. Many demonstrated a strong interest in expanding their skills, improving production practices, and developing livestock-based livelihoods. We also observed strong demand for practical training, veterinary guidance, and business development support.
One of the key lessons from the assessment is that recovery and resilience programming must recognize women not only as beneficiaries, but as central actors in rural recovery. Investments in veterinary services, agricultural training, and entrepreneurship can have a particularly strong impact because they directly support those who are now managing a substantial share of household production.
The findings demonstrate that the resilience of rural communities in Ukraine is increasingly tied to the resilience of women. Across the communities we visited, women are not only sustaining households under extremely difficult conditions—they are also maintaining local food systems and driving adaptation at the community level. This contribution is both essential and often under-recognized, and it deserves greater visibility and sustained support.
Q: One particularly powerful section of the study explores how animals are also providing emotional stability and psychological support during wartime. Can you speak more about that connection, and why it matters in humanitarian response?
A: This was one of the most powerful—and, in many ways, unexpected—findings of the assessment. In humanitarian contexts, animals are often understood primarily through their economic value or welfare needs. While those dimensions are undeniably important, what we heard consistently across communities was that animals also provide emotional stability, comfort, and a sense of normalcy during an extraordinarily difficult period.
Across the communities we visited, people described their animals as family members, companions, and essential sources of emotional support. For many individuals who have experienced displacement, loss of livelihoods, separation from loved ones, or ongoing insecurity, caring for an animal creates routine, responsibility, and a sense of purpose. In a context where so much feels uncertain or outside of people’s control, feeding animals, tending livestock, or simply spending time with an animal helps restore continuity and stability in daily life.
We also heard accounts of families making extraordinary efforts to evacuate with—or remain alongside—their animals despite significant personal risk. These decisions go beyond economic considerations; they reflect deep emotional bonds between people and animals. For many, the idea of abandoning an animal would mean losing not only an asset, but also an important source of companionship and emotional resilience.
This connection is highly relevant for humanitarian response because human and animal wellbeing are closely intertwined. When animals are healthy and safe, they can reduce stress and anxiety for the households that depend on them.
The assessment reinforced the importance of a more holistic approach to humanitarian assistance—one that recognizes that supporting animals is also a direct way of supporting people. Whether through veterinary care, animal health services, feed support, or emergency evacuation, interventions that protect animals can have meaningful impacts on household wellbeing, mental health, resilience, and recovery.
Ultimately, the research reminded us that animals are not separate from the humanitarian story in Ukraine—they are deeply embedded within it. They sustain livelihoods, strengthen food security, and, just as importantly, provide hope during one of the most challenging periods in people’s lives.
Q: The report describes many rural communities as becoming “veterinary service deserts,” where distance, cost, staffing shortages, and damaged infrastructure make veterinary care increasingly inaccessible. What are some of the most significant barriers communities are facing today?
A: What we are seeing in these “veterinary service deserts” is not a single barrier, but a combination of interlinked challenges that significantly reduce access to care. The first and most visible barrier is geography. Many rural and frontline-adjacent communities are simply far from functioning veterinary clinics, and transport routes are often damaged or unreliable. Even when services exist, the distance and travel time make timely access difficult, particularly in emergencies.
The second major barrier is affordability. Households are under significant economic pressure, and veterinary services—especially when they involve transport, diagnostics, or treatment of larger livestock—are often beyond what many families can afford. As a result, people frequently delay seeking care until conditions become severe.
A third constraint is human capacity. Many veterinarians have been conscripted, displaced, left rural areas, or are covering much larger territories than before. This leads to high workloads, limited time per case, and fewer visits to remote villages. In some areas, there are simply too few professionals to meet the level of need.
Infrastructure challenges also play a significant role. Damage to roads, disruptions to electricity supply, and limited telecommunications in some locations affect both service delivery and the ability to maintain cold chains, diagnostics, and reliable outreach systems.
Finally, we are seeing a growing information gap. In the absence of accessible professional services, people increasingly turn to informal advice networks, which can delay appropriate treatment or lead to ineffective—and sometimes harmful—interventions.
Importantly, these barriers do not exist in isolation. Distance increases cost, staffing shortages reduce availability, and infrastructure damage limits mobility and communication. Together, they create conditions where access to veterinary care becomes irregular or, in some cases, virtually absent.
Addressing these challenges requires a shift toward more mobile, decentralized, and community-based veterinary systems that can operate effectively even under conditions of instability and infrastructure constraints.
Q: The study found that many people are increasingly relying on self-treatment, social media advice, and informal veterinary practices because professional services are difficult to access. What risks does this create — both for animal health and broader community health?
A: What we are seeing is a very understandable coping mechanism in a context where formal veterinary services are not always accessible, affordable, or available when needed. However, the increasing reliance on self-treatment, informal advice, and social media-based recommendations carries significant risks for both animal health and broader community wellbeing.
From an animal health perspective, the most immediate risk is misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Without professional guidance, animals may receive incorrect medications, improper dosages, or delayed interventions, all of which can worsen disease outcomes and lead to avoidable mortality. We also see growing risks related to antimicrobial misuse, including incomplete treatments or inappropriate antibiotic use, which can contribute to antimicrobial resistance—a long-term challenge for both veterinary and human health systems.
Another key concern is the spread of misinformation. While social media and informal networks can provide useful peer-to-peer exchange, they are not reliable sources of veterinary expertise. This can result in ineffective or even harmful practices, particularly during infectious disease outbreaks, when timely and accurate responses are critical.
From a broader community health perspective, these practices also increase biosecurity risks. Poorly managed disease in livestock can facilitate the spread of zoonotic diseases—those that can be transmitted between animals and humans. In rural settings, where households live in close proximity to their animals and rely on them for food, this becomes both an animal health and a public health concern.
There is also an important economic dimension. Inappropriate or delayed treatment can lead to higher livestock losses, reduced productivity, and greater financial strain on households that are already highly vulnerable. In some cases, delayed professional care allows conditions to become more severe and significantly more costly to address later.
At the same time, it is important to emphasize that this trend is driven by necessity rather than choice. People are responding to real gaps in access to veterinary services. This is precisely why the findings are so important: they highlight the need to strengthen trusted veterinary networks, expand rural outreach, and improve access to reliable information so that farmers are not forced to rely on informal or potentially risky alternatives.
Ultimately, improving access to professional veterinary care is not only about protecting animal health—it is a preventive investment in food security, public health, and the long-term resilience of rural communities.
Q: Alongside agricultural recovery work, VWB has also supported companion animal and rescue efforts in Ukraine through partners like 12 Guards. How does companion animal support fit into the broader picture of resilience and humanitarian recovery in conflict settings?
A: Companion animal support is often viewed as separate from “core” humanitarian or agricultural recovery work, but in Ukraine—and in many conflict settings—we see that this distinction is actually artificial. Companion animals are deeply embedded in household wellbeing, and supporting them is an important part of broader resilience and recovery.
Through our work with partners such as 12 Guards, we have seen that companion animal support plays several interconnected roles. First, it addresses immediate protection and welfare needs during displacement, evacuation, and frontline instability. Pets are often part of the family, and ensuring their safety directly influences whether people are able to evacuate, remain safe, or recover from traumatic events.
Second, companion animals provide critical emotional and psychological support. In contexts of war, loss, and prolonged uncertainty, pets can reduce isolation, provide routine, and help people cope with stress and trauma. Supporting these animals therefore has a direct impact on human wellbeing, even when it is not connected to income or food production.
Third, companion animal response often strengthens trust in humanitarian systems. When people see that humanitarian actors recognize the full spectrum of their needs—including the animals they care about—it reinforces dignity-based assistance and encourages engagement with other forms of support, including food security, shelter, and livelihoods programming.
Finally, there is an important link to public and community health. Safe evacuation, vaccination, and responsible management of companion animals help reduce risks associated with abandonment, uncontrolled stray populations, and disease transmission in affected areas.
In that sense, companion animal support is not a parallel activity to agricultural recovery—it is part of the same resilience system. Whether we are supporting livestock for livelihoods or pets for emotional wellbeing, we are ultimately responding to the same reality: animals are integral to how people survive, cope, and rebuild during conflict.
Q: One of the report’s conclusions is that Ukraine’s veterinary system may need to transition from a reactive, facility-based model toward more mobile and decentralized approaches. What does a more resilient veterinary system for rural Ukraine look like in practice?
A: A more resilient veterinary system for rural Ukraine is one that is not solely dependent on fixed infrastructure, but is capable of reaching people and animals wherever they are—even in the face of insecurity, displacement, and disrupted logistics.
In practical terms, this means moving beyond a predominantly reactive, clinic-based model toward a more flexible and decentralized system. Professional veterinary facilities will remain essential, but they need to be complemented by mobile veterinary teams, regular outreach services, and rapid-response capacity, particularly in remote and frontline-adjacent communities where access to care is often limited or inconsistent.
It also means investing in local capacity. Trained para-veterinary personnel and community-based animal health workers can play an important role in providing first-line support, early disease detection, basic animal health services, and timely referrals. Strengthening these local networks can help ensure continuity of care when professional veterinarians are unable to reach communities quickly or safely.
Digital solutions are another important part of the equation. While they cannot replace hands-on veterinary care, tele-veterinary consultations, hotlines, and trusted information platforms can improve access to advice and help farmers make informed decisions, reducing reliance on informal or unreliable sources of information.
A resilient system also requires stronger coordination among veterinary services, local authorities, producer groups, academic institutions, and humanitarian actors. Effective collaboration is essential for disease surveillance, vaccination campaigns, emergency preparedness, and rapid response to animal health threats.
Equally important is supporting the veterinary workforce itself. Veterinarians have been operating under extraordinary pressure throughout the war. Continued investment in professional development, equipment, safety, and workforce wellbeing is critical to ensuring that veterinary services remain available where they are needed most.
Above all, resilience means adaptability. The veterinary system must be able to respond quickly to changing security conditions, population movements, disease risks, and infrastructure disruptions. This requires flexible service delivery models, contingency planning, and the ability to maintain essential services even during periods of instability.
Q: After conducting this assessment and working closely with affected communities, what gives you hope about the future of rural recovery and resilience in Ukraine?
A: What gives me hope is the extraordinary resilience, adaptability, and determination we continue to see in rural communities across Ukraine. Despite immense challenges—including displacement, insecurity, loss of income, and damaged infrastructure—people are finding ways to continue producing food, caring for animals, and supporting their families.
I am also encouraged by the way communities are coming together. Even under difficult circumstances, we see the emergence of peer networks, knowledge-sharing groups, and local initiatives that support animal health, agricultural production, and mutual assistance.
Another important source of optimism is the role of women. Across the communities we visited, many women are not only maintaining household production systems, but actively seeking new knowledge, adopting innovative approaches, and exploring additional income opportunities.
From a systems perspective, I am also encouraged by the way veterinary professionals continue to serve communities under extremely difficult conditions. Their commitment to maintaining animal health services—often with limited resources and under significant security risks—demonstrates a strong professional ethic and provides a critical foundation for recovery.
Finally, I find hope in the simple but powerful relationship between people and animals. Whether in livestock production or companion animal care, those relationships continue to provide stability, purpose, and continuity in people’s lives. That connection helps sustain both livelihoods and emotional wellbeing, even in the most challenging moments.
Taken together, these elements suggest that recovery in rural Ukraine will not begin from scratch. The foundations are already there—in people’s skills, networks, determination, and relationships with animals. Our role is to strengthen and connect these existing capacities so they can grow into more sustainable and resilient systems in the years ahead.
