We should prioritize slowing the spread of industrial animal agriculture in future high-production regions over investing in advocacy in currently high-production regions that remain neglected in terms of farmed animal advocacy.

disagree

agree

As the farmed animal advocacy movement expands globally, a strategic question emerges:

Should we prioritize preventing or slowing the spread of industrial animal agriculture in future high-production regions (e.g. parts of Sub-Saharan Africa) over investing in advocacy in currently high-production regions that remain neglected in terms of farmed animal advocacy (e.g. parts of Asia and Latin America)^[1]?

Some important notes

1. In this post, to prioritize X over Y means preferring to direct new funding and talent towards X rather than Y.
2. All of these regions—future high-growth and current high-production areas in Africa, Asia, and Latin America—are underfunded relative to the number of animals affected and the scale of advocacy challenges they face. Ideally, they would all receive significantly more funding and attention. The purpose of this debate is not to pit neglected regions against each other, but to explore which might be most impactful for marginal resources.
3. The following points are generalizations that don’t necessarily capture the full diversity of contexts within each region, and there will be exceptions. For example, in many LMICs in Sub-Saharan Africa, animal agriculture is generally less entrenched, whereas in Asia and Latin America it tends to be more established—though this is by no means a hard rule.

Why I’m writing this

My intention with this post is to provide a few preliminary pointers to spark discussion, rather than to present a comprehensive set of arguments and data. If you have additional evidence, perspectives, or counterarguments, please share them in the comments.

I’m writing from my perspective as @Hive's Asia Ambassador. At Hive, we provide a platform for nuanced, impact-focused discussions about strategy in the farmed animal advocacy movement, and we think this debate could benefit from a wide range of perspectives. If you’d like to continue the conversation beyond the Forum, you can join the Hive Slack, where many advocates explore these questions in more depth. We’re curious how others in the movement are thinking about these strategic regional decisions—especially if you work in or with these areas.

Background 

This debate is inspired by research exploring interventions that might be effective in combating the rise of factory farms in Sub-Saharan Africa, e.g. this report by Bryant Research and @AnimalAdvocacyAfrica. (Interested readers could also refer to Animal Advocacy Africa's various reports, and @Animal Ask's reports on Egypt, Ghana, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.)

According to a previous post by Animal Advocacy Africa:

At present, Asia leads and will continue to lead all continents in terms of the total number of farmed land animals. This can largely be attributed to factory farming in China, Indonesia, and India. Nevertheless, Africa’s livestock numbers are expected to increase by a much larger absolute number and at a higher rate than Asia’s projected 26% rise from 2012 to 2050. [Emphasis in original.]

At the same time, Asia and Latin America are among the top regions driving global farmed animal production. Asia alone is responsible for the vast majority of land animals slaughtered for meat each year^[2], and it also leads aquaculture production by a wide margin^[3]. Latin America is the second-largest contributor to global aquaculture^[4]. While industrial animal agriculture is more entrenched in these regions, advocacy remains underfunded relative to the scale of animal suffering.

For example, the Stray Dog Institute’s 2024 State of the Movement report shows organizations from Africa, Asia, and Latin America contributed only around 6% of the total in-scope expenses^[5] tracked by its survey–with those from Sub-Saharan Africa contributing the least.

Arguments for preventing or slowing industrial animal agriculture in future high-production regions

1. Prevention may be more effective than reversal: It seems easier to prevent a system from becoming established than to dismantle it after it has taken root. In regions where industrial animal agriculture hasn't yet become the dominant model, there may be opportunities to promote alternative food systems, influence policy development, and shape consumer preferences before powerful industry interests become entrenched.
2. Influencing growth trajectories creates compounding benefits: Small advocacy wins early in a region's development can significantly alter growth trajectories, potentially preventing decades of animal suffering through compounding effects. Early-stage interventions may have outsized long-term impacts.

Arguments for investing in advocacy in currently high-production regions that remain neglected in terms of farmed animal advocacy

1. Established systems may be more vulnerable to change: Perhaps counterintuitively, it might be easier to reform or replace industrial animal agriculture once it's established rather than prevent its emergence. In regions where factory farming is already widespread, there may be more documented evidence of its negative impacts on animal welfare, public health, the environment, and local communities—providing advocates with powerful arguments for change.
2. Relatedly, industrialization creates more structured advocacy targets: As animal agriculture industrializes, it typically consolidates into fewer, larger, and more structured corporate entities. These companies are often more sensitive to consumer pressure, regulatory changes, and reputational damage than numerous small-scale producers. Having clear targets for corporate campaigns and policy advocacy can make strategic interventions more feasible and impactful.
3. Building on movement experience: The farmed animal advocacy movement has developed significant expertise and experience working within contexts where industrial animal agriculture is already established. Our more successful campaigns and interventions come from these contexts. Leveraging this existing knowledge base in similar high-production regions might yield more reliable results than pioneering entirely new approaches in pre-/near-industrial contexts.
4. ​​Intensification may be driven by powerful economic forces: It might not be feasible to significantly alter the trajectory of intensification because of various driving forces (economic, demographic, political, etc). Rising incomes, urbanization, and population growth create strong market incentives for industrial animal agriculture. If preventing intensification is unlikely to succeed, resources might be better directed toward mitigating harm in regions where industrial systems are already operating at scale.
5. Uncertainty about future trajectories: It is not necessarily guaranteed that industrialization will follow the same path in all regions. Some areas might develop hybrid systems or leapfrog directly to more sustainable alternatives due to unique economic, cultural, or environmental factors. This uncertainty makes it difficult to predict where preventative efforts would have the greatest impact.

This is a complex topic, and as farmed animal advocates, we have so much to learn and have lots of uncertainty. If you've read this post in full and would like to contribute to the discussion, but are worried that you don't have much to contribute, please err towards contributing. Myself and the team at @Hive would be grateful for it. Thank you for reading!

Thanks to Sofia Balderson, Thomas Billington, Megan Jamer, Haven King-Nobles, Björn Ólafsson, Moritz Stumpe, Toby Tremlett, and Kevin Xia for reviewing a draft version of this post. Their feedback was invaluable, and this post doesn’t necessarily reflect their views. All mistakes are my own.

1. ^{^}

    In this post, I use this definition of various regions.

2. ^{^}

   Our World in Data. Land animals slaughtered for meat, 1961 to 2023.

3. ^{^}

   Our World in Data. Aquaculture production.

^{^}

Our World in Data. Aquaculture production.

^{^}

In-scope expenses are defined in the report as the portion of an organization’s expenses going to work that directly or indirectly benefits animals farmed or caught for food.

Show all footnotes