Insights On Animal Advocacy Funding In Africa
The number of farmed land animals in Africa is growing quickly. However, research suggests that advocacy initiatives to help these animals receive only a small fraction of global animal advocacy funding. According to the authors of this report, a clear picture of animal advocacy funding in Africa could help stakeholders decide how to direct resources to make the greatest possible impact.
In this report, the non-profit Animal Advocacy Africa (AAA) explored trends in Africa’s animal advocacy funding landscape from 2015-2022, including the animals, countries, and advocacy work that was funded the most. The authors first identified 73 relevant funders (excluding government, institutional, and in-kind funders). Then, after examining different public materials for each funder (e.g., website and government reports) as well as communicating directly with select grantmakers, they finalized a database of 2,136 relevant grants used to inform the study.
Funding Amount
Based on their findings, the total funding for animal-related causes in Africa in 2020 was $25-$35 million. Of that total funding, less than 2% was used to help farmed animals in 2020. Funding for farmed animals came mainly from organizations aligned with the effective altruism movement.
Between 2015-2022, 83 organizations received funding to help farmed animals. Both total and farmed animal specific funding increased from 2018 to 2020. Furthermore, funding for farmed animal advocacy substantially increased from 2020 onwards, with an estimated $1.5-$3 million given in 2022. However, the authors point out that farmed animal advocacy remains relatively underfunded in Africa.
Animal Groups
In 2020, wild animals and conservation received approximately 73% of all funding. Working animals received about 20%, while companion/stray animals received around 4%. As previously noted, farmed animals received less than 2%. Lab animals received 0%.
AAA highlights several unique funding trends. First, working animals in Africa received a higher proportion of funding than working animals in wealthier societies. Second, grants for wild animals and conservation were typically large amounts of money given to a small number of organizations. In contrast, grants for companion animals and farmed animals were much smaller amounts of money spread over more organizations. Third, funding in Africa followed a traditional conservation approach rather than addressing wild animal welfare and suffering.
Intervention Types
Different types of interventions were funded for different animal groups in 2020. Wild animal and conservation support focused on public outreach and capacity building (e.g., reducing poaching by improving law enforcement). Funding for working animals primarily went toward public outreach and direct help (e.g., educating guardians about humane care and providing food and water for the animals).
Meanwhile, funding for companion animals was mainly used for direct help (e.g., providing veterinarian services). Finally, support for farmed animals focused on plant-based outreach, education, food provision, and corporate outreach.
Countries Supported
In 2020 and 2015-2022, the country with the most overall funding amount was Kenya, followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Kenya, approximately 80% of funding went toward working animals, while 99% of funding in the DR Congo was for wild animals and conservation.
South Africa received 65% of all funding toward farmed animals in 2020 and 30% between 2015-2022. Kenya received the second highest amount for farmed animals, followed by Benin, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Limitations & Next Steps
According to the authors, the databases they used to inform this report contained some information gaps. For example, almost 41% of funders didn’t mention the type of intervention that was funded, while around 56% didn’t mention who received the funding. In addition, the databases were biased toward English-speaking funders and likely underrepresented other grantmakers (especially French-speaking organizations).
Nevertheless, AAA is 80% confident that the funders they assessed amounted to at least 50% of the total funding given to African animal causes. The authors also argue that their method of relying on real-world data is a stronger approach than using only self-reported surveys, which is often how data are gathered for funding reports.
The report suggests that advocacy for farmed animals in Africa needs more funding. Directing resources in this area can benefit the welfare of millions of individual beings — especially as factory farming continues to expand in the region. Animal advocates can raise awareness about the potential impact of funding directed toward animals in Africa. They can also encourage organizations to accurately, completely, and transparently report funding so that we can allocate our resources more effectively.