Roughly 80-90% of farmed animals live in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs),[1] yet the animal welfare movement has seen fewer milestone victories in these contexts than in High-Income Countries (HICs)[2]. The standard advocacy models used in HICs (corporate campaigning, consumer pressure, legislative reform, etc.) rely on infrastructure that is often absent in LMICs, such as formalised supply chains, consolidated corporate buyers, and strong legal enforcement.
Fortunately, the animal welfare movement is not alone in these challenges. There is a long history of field-based projects in LMICs designed to shift farming practices to improve farmer productivity, sustainability, and well-being. Collectively, this broad category of work is referred to as agricultural development (“agri-dev”). The strategies and lessons generated through this work may offer relevant and useful insights for the development of animal welfare initiatives in LMICs.
Authors Karthik and Tom visiting the field office of DVARA, an agri-dev organisation in Maharashtra, India
To identify more context-driven strategies LMIC animal welfare actors could use, this report asks the question:
What can the animal welfare movement learn from strategies employed by agri-dev actors to effectively change farmer practices in LMICs?
To explore this question, we conducted a narrative literature review and primary field research in India. We identified six primary high-level lessons that were cross-cutting for all strategies:
Complex “asks” need more training and incentives. This forces a trade-off between smaller welfare gains that are cheaper to implement, or larger welfare gains that are more expensive to implement.
Programmes must be tailored to local context to succeed. Design with context in mind, work with partners who understand the context, and focus on larger farmers who tend to be more similar to each other.
Trust is essential for farmer buy-in. It can be built through local partners and intermediaries.
Financial incentives aren’t enough alone; they often need technical and social support to sustain.
Farmers face many significant barriers (e.g., education, financial, infrastructural) at once. Programmes must account for these barriers to be viable for farmers to implement.
Full compliance is unrealistic, so aim for the level that keeps impact cost-effective.
We also identified 20 priority strategies used by agri-dev actors that we felt were relevant for the animal welfare movement. We grouped these strategies across three dimensions: organisation types that deliver interventions to support farmer adoption of new practices (8 reviewed), how farmers are trained in new practices (5 reviewed), and how they are incentivised to adopt them (7 reviewed).
We evaluated each strategy across five criteria: effectiveness (at achieving their intended outcome), resource intensiveness, tractability, scalability, and their risk of stimulating harmful industrialisation. This analysis was conducted with a specific focus on the value for CALF’s work within India, though we expect that many of the insights will translate into other contexts. Here are our summarised results (scores range from 1 to 7):
Strategy
Strategy Explanation
Effectiveness
Low Resource Intensity
Tractability
Scalability
Low Industrial- isation Risk
CALF’s Opinion
Organisation Types
Intermediaries
Buy and sell farmers’ products, offering fair, stable prices in exchange for meeting welfare standards.
6
3
4
6.5
5
Recommend for trialing
↳ & Processing
Also process products (e.g., sorting and packaging eggs) to raise prices, funding welfare incentives.
7
2
2.5
5
5
Recommend for trialing
↳ & Contract Farming
Formal agreements with farmers on what and how to produce, often with inputs and guaranteed prices.
7
1.5
3.5
5
2.5
Recommend for trialing
Collaborating with Agri-Dev Organisations
Adding welfare into existing agri-development programmes, leveraging their skills and farmer trust.
6
6
5
5
3
Recommend for trialing
↳ & Self-Help Groups
Reaching village women’s savings groups, who do most day-to-day animal management, via agri-dev partners.
5
5
6
3
4
Needs more investigation
Farmer Producer Organisations
Formal farmer collectives whose rules could include welfare mandates.
4
5
4
4
6
Needs more investigation
Certification
Voluntary audited standards, ideally earning farmers a price premium for higher welfare.
4
3
5
4
6
Do not recommend
Direct-to-Farmer Technology Providers
Digital platforms, chatbots, or SMS engaging farmers directly at scale, no intermediaries.
2.5
4
4
2
6
Do not recommend
Training Mechanisms
Training & Visit (T&V) Systems
Trained extension agents deliver structured welfare training to farmer groups on a fixed visit schedule.
5
6
6
5
5
Recommend for trialing
Model Farms & Field Schools
Working farms demonstrating welfare-compliant practices for hands-on observation and learning.
6
3
5
3.5
6
Conditional — short-term only
Mass Communication (ICT)
Messages delivered at scale via channels such as SMS, apps, radio, or social media.
1
7
7
7
7
Conditional — simple behaviour changes only
Veterinary Services
Vets or community animal health workers advising on welfare.
5
4
5
4
4
Do not recommend
Information & Call Centres
Physical hubs and remote services providing agricultural advice.
1
6
6
6
6
Do not recommend
Incentive Mechanisms
Collective Bargaining
Farmer groups negotiating better input costs or product prices.
6
4
5
6
3
Recommend for trialing
Market Access
Linking welfare-compliant farmers to buyers, sometimes with transport or guaranteed purchases.
6
3
4
6
3
Recommend for trialing
Value Addition
Processing products (e.g., grading, packaging eggs) to raise value, sharing the margin with welfare-compliant farmers.
7
2
2.5
5
5
Recommend for trialing
Credit Systems
Loans tied to or supporting welfare compliance, financing practices needing upfront investment.
7
4
2.5
6
3
Needs more investigation
Conditional Payments
Payments or discounted inputs contingent on adopting welfare practices.
5
3
6
3
6
Conditional — short-term only
Market Information
Price data informing when, where, and what to sell.
1.5
7
7
7
5
Do not recommend
Insurance Products
Coverage against production and price risks, potentially conditional on welfare improvements.
4
3.5
2
6
2
Do not recommend
Each agri-dev strategy reviewed across our key criteria in a 7-point Likert Scale
A summary of each strategy and their key considerations is shared in section 3 of the full report (you can also see a more in-depth breakdown of each score here.). This is an initial step. The strategies identified here require rigorous field testing, and the evaluations we offer are preliminary. We present them not as definitive answers but as structured starting points.
This report offers three key lessons for animal movement actors operating in LMICs:
Learn from agricultural development. The strategies above (in particular those flagged as “recommended for trialing”) are templates the animal welfare movement should consider using. Agricultural development organisations may themselves make strong partners in implementing these.
When building a theory of change, consider three dimensions: training mechanisms, incentive mechanisms, and organisation types. Make a deliberate decision about each one, even if that decision is to leave it out. Revisit and refine those decisions as the work develops.
Expect complex, interlocking challenges. These include farm and farmer heterogeneity, low education levels among farmers, the importance of trust, compliance issues, and the reality that the largest welfare gains typically demand the most complex behaviour changes. Navigating these will take time, and will only succeed with clear awareness of the barriers, deliberate planning, and openness to learning along the way.
See full data set here. Note that the numbers for total farmed fish are from 2017 and based on low-end estimates from fishcount, meaning that they are significantly more speculative. Data Sources:
Learning from Agricultural Development to Reshape Animal Welfare Work in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
This is a cross-post of the executive summary from The Centre for Animal Life and Farming’s first report. See the full report here.
We will also be hosting a webinar on 25th August 2026 to discuss these findings with the animal welfare movement.
Executive Summary
Roughly 80-90% of farmed animals live in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs),[1] yet the animal welfare movement has seen fewer milestone victories in these contexts than in High-Income Countries (HICs)[2]. The standard advocacy models used in HICs (corporate campaigning, consumer pressure, legislative reform, etc.) rely on infrastructure that is often absent in LMICs, such as formalised supply chains, consolidated corporate buyers, and strong legal enforcement.
Fortunately, the animal welfare movement is not alone in these challenges. There is a long history of field-based projects in LMICs designed to shift farming practices to improve farmer productivity, sustainability, and well-being. Collectively, this broad category of work is referred to as agricultural development (“agri-dev”). The strategies and lessons generated through this work may offer relevant and useful insights for the development of animal welfare initiatives in LMICs.
To identify more context-driven strategies LMIC animal welfare actors could use, this report asks the question:
To explore this question, we conducted a narrative literature review and primary field research in India. We identified six primary high-level lessons that were cross-cutting for all strategies:
Complex “asks” need more training and incentives. This forces a trade-off between smaller welfare gains that are cheaper to implement, or larger welfare gains that are more expensive to implement.
Programmes must be tailored to local context to succeed. Design with context in mind, work with partners who understand the context, and focus on larger farmers who tend to be more similar to each other.
Trust is essential for farmer buy-in. It can be built through local partners and intermediaries.
Financial incentives aren’t enough alone; they often need technical and social support to sustain.
Farmers face many significant barriers (e.g., education, financial, infrastructural) at once. Programmes must account for these barriers to be viable for farmers to implement.
Full compliance is unrealistic, so aim for the level that keeps impact cost-effective.
We also identified 20 priority strategies used by agri-dev actors that we felt were relevant for the animal welfare movement. We grouped these strategies across three dimensions: organisation types that deliver interventions to support farmer adoption of new practices (8 reviewed), how farmers are trained in new practices (5 reviewed), and how they are incentivised to adopt them (7 reviewed).
We evaluated each strategy across five criteria: effectiveness (at achieving their intended outcome), resource intensiveness, tractability, scalability, and their risk of stimulating harmful industrialisation. This analysis was conducted with a specific focus on the value for CALF’s work within India, though we expect that many of the insights will translate into other contexts. Here are our summarised results (scores range from 1 to 7):
isation Risk
Contract Farming
Self-Help Groups
Training Mechanisms
Incentive Mechanisms
Each agri-dev strategy reviewed across our key criteria in a 7-point Likert Scale
A summary of each strategy and their key considerations is shared in section 3 of the full report (you can also see a more in-depth breakdown of each score here.). This is an initial step. The strategies identified here require rigorous field testing, and the evaluations we offer are preliminary. We present them not as definitive answers but as structured starting points.
This report offers three key lessons for animal movement actors operating in LMICs:
Learn from agricultural development. The strategies above (in particular those flagged as “recommended for trialing”) are templates the animal welfare movement should consider using. Agricultural development organisations may themselves make strong partners in implementing these.
When building a theory of change, consider three dimensions: training mechanisms, incentive mechanisms, and organisation types. Make a deliberate decision about each one, even if that decision is to leave it out. Revisit and refine those decisions as the work develops.
Expect complex, interlocking challenges. These include farm and farmer heterogeneity, low education levels among farmers, the importance of trust, compliance issues, and the reality that the largest welfare gains typically demand the most complex behaviour changes. Navigating these will take time, and will only succeed with clear awareness of the barriers, deliberate planning, and openness to learning along the way.
See full data set here. Note that the numbers for total farmed fish are from 2017 and based on low-end estimates from fishcount, meaning that they are significantly more speculative. Data Sources:
Cattle, poultry, and pig data from FAO, 2025 – with major processing by Our World in Data
Farmed fish data from fishcount (2017)
See the full data set here. Data sources:
Company pledge data from Chicken Watch (2026)
Income classification data from The World Bank.