Industrial animal farming is growing all around Africa, and farmed animal advocacy receives scant funding across the continent. By 2050, Uganda’s animal agriculture industry could grow significantly. By current predictions, hundreds of millions more animals will be held on large intensive farms, where living conditions are often poor. 

This study identifies four key priorities for animal advocates working in Uganda, that can most effectively protect the welfare of present and future animals. They are ranked as follows:

1. Preventing industrialized animal farming 
2. Pursuing effective and broad animal welfare regulations 
3. Protecting and improving fish welfare 
4. Protecting and improving chicken welfare

Right now, there’s little precedent for advocacy efforts in the realm of government outreach in Uganda, despite its effectiveness. Thus, the priorities are designed to identify the willingness of policymakers to support animal welfare. 

The top priority is preventing the further industrialization of animal agriculture. Industrialized farming seeks to farm animals as cheaply as possible. Because individuals are often packed close together, bred to grow at unnatural rates, and poorly fed or cared for, animals often live painful and short lives in these conditions. Such intensive farms also house many more animals than free-range or extensive farms, and so the scale of suffering is larger. Still, despite such poor conditions, a wealthier Uganda may transition to industrialized farming because of rising meat demands, as has happened elsewhere in the world.

Preventing this transition would mean that farmed animals could live better lives in smaller numbers on extensive (free-range) farms. Ugandan society could also benefit: avoiding the disease risk, antimicrobial resistance, and pollution associated with intensive farming would establish Uganda as a regional leader in public health; also, relying on non-commercial small-holdings would spread the industry’s economic gains among more households. Such advantages could help politically justify preventing industrialized farming. If successful, such a policy could improve the lives of hundreds of million animals by 2050.

If policymakers are unwilling to prevent industrialization, campaigns should next pursue broad animal welfare regulations. Policy considerations would inevitably vary across species: for fishes, stocking density and water quality will likely be primary considerations; for chickens, breed and litter quality tend to be central. Farm visits and local research will be vital in revealing specific challenges. Even so, any regulation should have three essential components: it should be legally binding, protect the largest groups of farmed animals (like fishes and chickens), and allow for regular future reviews. 

Currently, Uganda’s welfare standards are non-binding and vague, presented as optional improvements to living conditions. Campaigning for these standards to be converted into legal requirements is a possible first step. Alternatively, advocating for agricultural policy to place more focus on animal welfare may be more successful. But there is a fine balance to strike between reforms which are easily passed and those which aren’t meaningful enough. 

If pursuing these broader policy changes is unsuccessful, advocates should narrow their focus on the two largest, most intensively farmed groups of animals: firstly, fishes, who currently number 170 million in Uganda; secondly, chickens, who number 43 million. 

Intensive cage systems are common in Ugandan fish farming. Stocking density can exceed 300 fishes per m³ in these systems, affecting water quality, growth rates and overall welfare. Fish production could grow two to six times by 2050, highlighting the need for action now. For chickens, campaigns should focus on broiler breeds (those raised for meat), who make up 82% of Uganda’s chicken population. Currently, just under half of broiler chickens are raised in semi-intensive or intensive conditions, but this proportion could reach 90% by 2050. 

Campaigns in these areas could mirror the first two priorities — focusing on preventing industrialized farming, and implementing welfare laws — but specifically targeted at fishes, or broiler chickens if fish advocacy is unsuccessful. Broiler advocacy could also later expand to include layer hens, for whom pre-hatch sexing is proving a significant innovation in Europe. For each campaign, it’s important to weigh the potential benefits of successful reform against the damage a failed strategy could do. 

Overall, government outreach likely remains the strongest strategy to consider, because of its cost-effectiveness and wide reach. Opportunities in public campaigning and direct farm-work can be lower-risk, but can have more limited scope. It’s still crucial for advocates to connect with Ugandan farmers though, not just stakeholders and policymakers — because at present, information on local welfare conditions is lacking. 

It is important to note that the strategies and research discussed in this study are specific to the Ugandan context. However, successful reform in Uganda could provide lessons and inspiration to advocates across the continent of Africa, and more broadly. 

Finally, the authors provide a list of grantmakers, including Animal Charity Evaluators, LUSH, and Effective Altruism Funds, that could support the work of advocates in Uganda. Overall, despite the suffering facing animals in Uganda, there are many promising opportunities for advocates to work on.