About IVETGO
The International Veterinary Governance Observatory
An independent comparative research initiative examining how veterinary services and veterinary professions are regulated across different jurisdictions — starting from a deliberately different point: the animal.
—
Countries scored
Full governance score
—
Countries tracked
Audit in progress
—
Sub-nationals scored
States & provinces
26
Fields per jurisdiction
VSB review framework
Our starting point
The animal. The person responsible for it.
IVETGO identifies the overall system used to regulate the veterinary profession and the individuals with that responsibility. Additional animal welfare legislation will also be incorporated in due course, and we will evaluate things that affect animal health and welfare — always with the animal as the central focus.
Radical Transparency
Every data point links to its primary source. We distinguish between reviewed, partial, and placeholder entries — and we never hide uncertainty.
Methodological Rigour
Our Veterinary Scrutiny Board (VSB) review protocol applies a consistent 26-field framework across all jurisdictions, enabling genuine cross-border comparison.
Global Scope
We track all 27 EU member states, non-EU Europe, and key jurisdictions worldwide — with a commitment to expand coverage as resources allow.
Independence
IVETGO is not affiliated with any veterinary regulatory body, professional association, or government. Our analysis is funded by open-data grants and individual supporters.
The Animal
The animal is the patient — the silent stakeholder at the centre of every veterinary interaction. Governance quality directly determines the standard of care that animals receive, yet animals have no voice in regulatory design. IVETGO exists, in part, to speak to that gap.
The Person Who Pays the Bills
The client — the owner or keeper who funds veterinary care — bears the financial and emotional cost of the system but rarely has meaningful recourse when things go wrong. Strong governance protects clients as much as it protects animals: transparent regulators, accessible complaints processes, and published disciplinary outcomes all matter to the person writing the cheque.
IVETGO is currently in beta testing
Its comparative scoring methodology is being tested, refined and expanded as additional jurisdictions are examined. Once IVETGO becomes fully operational, the scoring methodology will itself be fully transparent — the criteria, weighting, evidence base and methodology used to reach each jurisdiction's score will be published so that the results can be understood, scrutinised and independently challenged or replicated.
IVETGO asks not only whether veterinary professionals are appropriately regulated, but also who makes the rules, who is accountable for them, and whether the regulatory system ultimately serves the interests of animals and those responsible for their care.
Research methodology
How we assess veterinary regulation
Our comparative framework examines governance, transparency, professional accountability, consumer protection, regulatory independence, access to information, complaints and redress, animal-centred safeguards, and the clarity and proportionality of reserved veterinary activities.
Primary Source Identification
For each jurisdiction, we identify the statutory regulator, its enabling legislation, and all publicly accessible governance documents — council membership lists, meeting papers, annual reports, and disciplinary decisions.
VSB Review Protocol
Our 26-field Veterinary Scrutiny Board framework captures: regulatory structure, governing body composition (size, veterinary vs lay ratio, appointment model), transparency indicators (published members, meeting papers, annual reports, conflicts register), and consumer protection metrics (complaint mechanism, disciplinary separation, appeal route).
Verification & Dating
Each reviewed entry records the exact date of last verification. Sources are checked against live official websites. Where a URL is unavailable or a page has moved, we flag the field as unverified rather than carry stale data.
Status Classification
Entries are classified as Complete (all 26 fields verified), Partial (core fields verified, some gaps), or Placeholder (jurisdiction identified, review pending). Placeholder rows are clearly marked and never presented as substantive findings.
Open Publication
All data is released under CC BY 4.0. Researchers, journalists, and regulators are encouraged to reuse, cite, and build on our work — with attribution.
Methodology Qualification
IVETGO conducts desk-based regulatory research, source verification and comparative review. An IVETGO review is not a statutory examination, professional assurance engagement or legal opinion. Information reflects the official and other identified sources available at the stated review date and may require amendment when legislation, regulatory structures or published information change.
What we measure
The VSB review framework
Each jurisdiction is assessed against a consistent 26-field framework, enabling genuine cross-border comparison across regulatory structure, governing body composition, transparency indicators, and consumer protection metrics.
Regulatory Structure
- Regulator name & ID
- Official website
- Enabling legislation URL
- Governance model
- Federal / unitary structure
Governing Body
- Total member count
- Veterinary member count
- Lay member count
- Appointment model
- Published member list
Transparency
- Published meeting papers
- Annual report availability
- Conflicts of interest register
- Disciplinary decisions published
- Statistics published
Consumer Protection
- Complaint mechanism strength
- Disciplinary separation
- Appeal route
- Consumer protection rating
Data quality
Transparency about what we know
We distinguish clearly between reviewed, partial, and placeholder entries. We never hide uncertainty — every field records its source and the date it was last verified.
All 26 VSB fields verified against primary sources with a recorded review date.
Core fields verified; some secondary fields pending further research or source access.
Jurisdiction identified and queued for review. No substantive data yet available.
Common questions
Frequently asked questions
Who funds IVETGO?
At this stage, IVETGO is a non-commercial project in active beta testing. It is not funded by any veterinary regulatory body, professional association, or government. We believe the methodology we have developed has applicability well beyond the veterinary field — to any profession or sector where regulatory governance can be measured and compared. In due course, we may convert to a subscription model; any charges introduced would be designed to allow individual users and researchers to access the data quickly, easily, and at low cost.
How do you verify data?
All data is verified against primary sources — official regulator websites, statutory instruments, and published governance documents. Each field records the URL of its source and the date it was last checked. Where a source is unavailable or a page has moved, the field is flagged as unverified.
Can I use IVETGO data in my research or journalism?
Yes. All data is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licence. You are free to use, share, and adapt the data for any purpose, including commercial use, provided you credit IVETGO as the source.
My jurisdiction's data is wrong or out of date. What should I do?
Please use the Contact & Submissions page to flag the error. We welcome corrections from regulators, researchers, and practitioners. All submissions are reviewed against primary sources before being incorporated.
Why are some jurisdictions listed as "Placeholder"?
Placeholder entries identify jurisdictions that are queued for review but have not yet been researched. We include them so users can see the full scope of our intended coverage and request prioritisation of specific jurisdictions.
Does IVETGO take positions on regulatory policy?
No. IVETGO is a data observatory, not an advocacy organisation. We publish what we find. Interpretation and policy conclusions are for researchers, policymakers, and the public to draw.
Help us improve the data
If you have governance data, corrections, or source material for any jurisdiction, we want to hear from you. All submissions are reviewed against primary sources before being incorporated.