It’s certainly a problem that AVA LA is inaccessible for organizations operating in LMIC’s. We’re navigating some unfortunate tradeoffs here primarily because of wealth inequality in the world (something that is far outside the scope of animal advocacy to fix). I think funders are far more likely to come to a US based conference as most funders are US (and to a lesser extent Europe) based.
A couple questions I have:
Do you have suggestions for alternative cities that are both accessible to funders (primarily based in the US and to a lesser extent Europe) and cheaper? Mexico City, some Texan cities, etc.. come to mind but still face tradeoffs.
I do think Reducetarian faces some of these tradeoffs a little better by being in slightly cheaper cities.
What is the benefit of coming to AVA that your organization is missing (i.e. are you primarily seeking funding, connections, etc...)?
If an organization in Asia or Latin America receives funding from ACE (approximately $30,000 per year), it is unrealistic to expect them to afford a conference that requires at least $2,000–$3,000 in total expenses (registration, flights, accommodation, food, etc.). The opportunity cost is huge—this money could be directly invested in impactful projects rather than covering travel expenses. While Los Angeles may seem attractive due to its proximity to funders, this does not justify the excessive costs, especially when meetings with funders could be pre-arranged online or through smaller, more accessible gatherings. Scholarships, while helpful, are limited and tend to favor organizations already based in the U.S. or Europe or individuals with strong English and networking skills, which does not always correlate with real impact. A better approach would be to establish a more transparent selection process for scholarships and redirect funds toward on-the-ground work. A $30,000-a-year organization that wants to take the next step needs to attend AVA USA, as things currently work, to access funders of a higher caliber and open new opportunities.
Mexico City would be a much better alternative, as it is well-connected, significantly more affordable, and still accessible to North American funders. The issue is not just financial but structural—conferences should serve the movement, not just those who can afford them. High-impact organizations should not have to spend the equivalent of a month’s worth of funding just to access funders, when these conversations could happen online or in more accessible locations. It is also important to highlight that just the entrance fee for AVA costs $480.
It’s certainly a problem that AVA LA is inaccessible for organizations operating in LMIC’s. We’re navigating some unfortunate tradeoffs here primarily because of wealth inequality in the world (something that is far outside the scope of animal advocacy to fix). I think funders are far more likely to come to a US based conference as most funders are US (and to a lesser extent Europe) based.
A couple questions I have:
Do you have suggestions for alternative cities that are both accessible to funders (primarily based in the US and to a lesser extent Europe) and cheaper? Mexico City, some Texan cities, etc.. come to mind but still face tradeoffs.
I do think Reducetarian faces some of these tradeoffs a little better by being in slightly cheaper cities.
What is the benefit of coming to AVA that your organization is missing (i.e. are you primarily seeking funding, connections, etc...)?
If an organization in Asia or Latin America receives funding from ACE (approximately $30,000 per year), it is unrealistic to expect them to afford a conference that requires at least $2,000–$3,000 in total expenses (registration, flights, accommodation, food, etc.). The opportunity cost is huge—this money could be directly invested in impactful projects rather than covering travel expenses. While Los Angeles may seem attractive due to its proximity to funders, this does not justify the excessive costs, especially when meetings with funders could be pre-arranged online or through smaller, more accessible gatherings. Scholarships, while helpful, are limited and tend to favor organizations already based in the U.S. or Europe or individuals with strong English and networking skills, which does not always correlate with real impact. A better approach would be to establish a more transparent selection process for scholarships and redirect funds toward on-the-ground work. A $30,000-a-year organization that wants to take the next step needs to attend AVA USA, as things currently work, to access funders of a higher caliber and open new opportunities.
Mexico City would be a much better alternative, as it is well-connected, significantly more affordable, and still accessible to North American funders. The issue is not just financial but structural—conferences should serve the movement, not just those who can afford them. High-impact organizations should not have to spend the equivalent of a month’s worth of funding just to access funders, when these conversations could happen online or in more accessible locations. It is also important to highlight that just the entrance fee for AVA costs $480.