My vote may be surprising for someone working at @AnimalAdvocacyAfrica. So let me explain:
I think work in Asia (I am more uncertain about Latin America—so I’ll focus on Asia vs. Africa) may be more important overall compared to Africa—because of the reasons mentioned in the post and the sheer magnitude of animal farming there.
The Asian movement is already significantly larger and more established. Page 17 of Stray Dog Institute’s State of the Movement 2024 report shows movement “expenses by the region in which they are spent”. Asia receives somewhere around 4-5 times the amount of funding as Africa (hard to disentangle Northern Africa and Western Asia). Spending an additional $500K would only mean something like a 3% increase for the Asian movement, but more like a 10-15% increase for Africa (rough approximations).
Given its size, the Asian movement is likely better able to effectively absorb significant additional funding and talent—in absolute terms. I don’t think the African movement could effectively absorb the kind of funding Asia receives at this point in time.
In relative terms, things look different. I think the African movement has substantial room for growth and should receive much more attention. Relatively modest absolute amounts in global comparison (like the $500K mentioned above) could go a very long way to grow effective animal advocacy in Africa.
A simple heuristic, given that I’m very uncertain about the question, could be to aim for similar growth ratios for both movements—at an ambitious rate but one that still allows for resources to be absorbed effectively.
I agree with Moritz’s view on this. Africa and African organisations still need to develop the capacity to absorb as much funding. But then again, there is a need to prioritise Africa when you begin to consider how long it takes to get political support and for this political support to materialise into actionable policies. I am of the opinion that starting early is best in the African situation because government laxity is a concern, and they may likely entertain advocacy that helps them to create jobs or develop the economy (which is a major concern, by the way). Talk about the economy is not always at the forefront of animal welfare discourse.
Thank you for explaining clearly Moritz, especially the capacity to absorb funding.
From what i have noticed, there are students who have shown interest in animal welfare in some African countries. What’s often missing out is not willingness or talent, but structured support and coordination to help these groups scale effectively
Kudos to Animal Advocacy Africa for already providing this type of foundation and training . I think with time, Africa will get the capacity to absorb more resources
Thanks Maxwell! We’re working hard on trying to increase the capacity for the African movement to absorb more of this funding effectively. I hope and think our alumni (like yourself) will play a key part in this!
My vote may be surprising for someone working at @AnimalAdvocacyAfrica. So let me explain:
I think work in Asia (I am more uncertain about Latin America—so I’ll focus on Asia vs. Africa) may be more important overall compared to Africa—because of the reasons mentioned in the post and the sheer magnitude of animal farming there.
The Asian movement is already significantly larger and more established. Page 17 of Stray Dog Institute’s State of the Movement 2024 report shows movement “expenses by the region in which they are spent”. Asia receives somewhere around 4-5 times the amount of funding as Africa (hard to disentangle Northern Africa and Western Asia). Spending an additional $500K would only mean something like a 3% increase for the Asian movement, but more like a 10-15% increase for Africa (rough approximations).
Given its size, the Asian movement is likely better able to effectively absorb significant additional funding and talent—in absolute terms. I don’t think the African movement could effectively absorb the kind of funding Asia receives at this point in time.
In relative terms, things look different. I think the African movement has substantial room for growth and should receive much more attention. Relatively modest absolute amounts in global comparison (like the $500K mentioned above) could go a very long way to grow effective animal advocacy in Africa.
A simple heuristic, given that I’m very uncertain about the question, could be to aim for similar growth ratios for both movements—at an ambitious rate but one that still allows for resources to be absorbed effectively.
I agree with Moritz’s view on this. Africa and African organisations still need to develop the capacity to absorb as much funding. But then again, there is a need to prioritise Africa when you begin to consider how long it takes to get political support and for this political support to materialise into actionable policies. I am of the opinion that starting early is best in the African situation because government laxity is a concern, and they may likely entertain advocacy that helps them to create jobs or develop the economy (which is a major concern, by the way). Talk about the economy is not always at the forefront of animal welfare discourse.
100% agreed on starting early. And then growing the capacity as fast as we can effectively!
Thank you for explaining clearly Moritz, especially the capacity to absorb funding.
From what i have noticed, there are students who have shown interest in animal welfare in some African countries. What’s often missing out is not willingness or talent, but structured support and coordination to help these groups scale effectively
Kudos to Animal Advocacy Africa for already providing this type of foundation and training . I think with time, Africa will get the capacity to absorb more resources
Thanks Maxwell! We’re working hard on trying to increase the capacity for the African movement to absorb more of this funding effectively. I hope and think our alumni (like yourself) will play a key part in this!