Disclaimer:

{It should be noted that this write-up has no empirical evidence as no rigorous research was conducted into these claims. These however are careful assumptions generated from logical considerations and from recurrent dialogue with producers within our cage-free directory with whom we have a remarkable relationship.}

Animal Welfare League is a Ghanaian animal welfare organization that works to empower local communities in Ghana to adopt proper animal welfare standards. Since joining the Open Wing Alliance in late 2021, we have launched an extensive cage-free project in Ghana, which revolves around a comprehensive approach encompassing three essential pillars crucial to the enhancement of chicken welfare: Producers, Corporations, and Consumers. We believe that engaging these three stakeholders is a comprehensive and inclusive approach of realizing change for millions of chickens in caged confinement in Ghana. By working with producers, for example, we aim to establish strong alliances with them, understand their unique challenges, and collaboratively devise strategies to ensure both productivity and improved welfare for chickens. To achieve this, we host workshops specifically designed for producers, focusing on the themes of enhancing poultry welfare and productivity. 

In the course of our work, we have deeply engaged with the entire stakeholder value chain of the poultry industry in the country and through recurrent discussions, meetings, and field visits,  have noticed a concerning trend; the use of second-hand cages (imported from the global north) by many farmers and producers in Ghana. This led me to delve more into this problem and try to understand what is happening.

Understanding how many farmers use second-hand cages would first necessitate understanding the second-hand industry as a whole (in Ghana, and Africa as a whole.) This is a big industry, which includes many products like clothing, electronics, cars, and machinery, often considered cheaper  (and at other times more durable) compared to brand-new products (especially for clothing.) For example, Ghana imports about 100,000 vehicles per year of which 90% are used vehicles, with an estimated value of USD 1.14 billion annually mainly from the United States, Japan, and Germany also, In 2021, Ghana  imported used clothing worth over $214M primarily from United Kingdom ($80.8M), China ($48.4M), Canada ($15.2M) Poland ($9.63M), and Netherlands ($9.3M).  Just like any other industry, there are both positives and negatives, with the positives including: increased economic opportunities for SMEs, growth of repair and refurbishment industries among others. However, second hand goods can negatively impact local industries and manufacturers by undermining domestic production and hinder the development of local manufacturing capabilities. Additionally, the unrestricted influx of used goods almost always results in waste management challenges, as most African countries are not equipped to adequately dispose and recycle large volumes of discarded items.

The same phenomenon applies with  battery cages. Second-hand cages are considered relatively more affordable, and durable, compared to new cages, importing a brand new cage costs relatively about $260-500 per set and a used cage costs about $200-210 per set. We contacted a renowned battery cage importer in Ghana who revealed that the cost of a newly imported battery cage cost around GHC $350-383 per set, however some used cages cost even as low as $60 per set thus appealing to many farmers and producers, who are similarly looking to reduce costs associated with poultry production. 

But you may wonder, how would this be relevant to our animal welfare, and cage-free movement in the first place? What does this mean for the Africa cage-free movement as well? Firstly, understanding how the battery cage value-chain system works would enable us to work effectively to address and counter this problem before it becomes a big menace if it already is not. It helps us see why the fight against battery-cages should be a coordinated effort by advocacy groups in both African and global north countries ( to tackle both the manufacture, export, and import of battery cages.) It helps us realise why this is a global problem that necessitates joint work and collaboration. For example, The Poultry site, indicated on their site that a ghanaian producer contacted them for battery cages to allow him expand his flock from 2,000 hens to 20,000 hens. The site went on to add that there must surely be thousands of egg producers in the EU who would be happy to donate their used battery cages to poultry entrepreneurs in Africa. This begs the questions, are poultry farmers in the EU able to send their used battery cages to africa? How many cages are sent to Africa? How many birds are being trapped by these imported cages? Secondly, cages, like any other product, tend to have a life-span around 10 to 15 years, however this can be more or less depending on several factors, including the quality of production, maintenance, and the specific conditions in which they are used. Many of the cages being imported to African countries tend to have a few years till expiry, yet the farmers who use them continue past their expiry dates. This not only poses a significant threat to the welfare of the hens confined in such cages, and to the consumer as well but also raises the question of ethics - why should countries that have banned cages in their countries be able to export these cages to less developed countries? Is this not a transfer of animal cruelty to Africa? 

In terms of the Africa cage-free movement, it is evident there is a strong need for research and more data on this phenomenon, as it can vary between different African countries. There is also a need for awareness about this problem, hence training different animal advocacy groups in Africa about this significant problem and how they can tackle it. Lastly, groups like Animal welfare league definitely need more funding to conduct research studies on this, and to evaluate the best ways and approaches to solve this problem. 

 


 

Comments9


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

You may already be aware but there is some academic work on the export of used battery cages: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1477-9552.12513

"The results suggest that the cage bans were associated with an increase in intra-EU trade, and also an increase in exports of poultry equipment from EU member states to non-EU countries where conventional cages are still permitted. The results suggest that some banned cages were likely exported to countries outside the EU to be used in egg production."

Yes, exactly, I think the authors are making the same point and that some of these non-EU countries tend to be African countries.

Would banning exports of cages be a net positive for animals, or would it make transitioning to cage-free in high income countries so much more expensive, with developing countries still able to buy new cages, such that it would be negative for animals?

I wonder whether Animal Policy International should consider bundling bans of equipment that would be used to produce animal products that don’t meet local standards in with the import bans they’re campaigning for.

Or buyback programs, in some cases, under which the cages would be recycled or destroyed.

We've decided as a society to grandfather a lot of stuff that isn't up to current standards for the rest of the stuff's useful life. For instance, I'm generally allowed to continue using older buildings that don't meet accessibility standards . . . but if I significantly update the building or build a new one, I have to meet current standards. Grandfathering is often relatively uncontroversial, as it can be justified on both fairness and rule-utilitarian grounds.

In a circumstance where you don't want to grandfather, there's going to be a deadweight loss someone has to bear. I'd characterize allowing cage export as the equivalent of partial grandfathering -- the prior owners only recoup a portion, but only a portion, of the remaining value of their capital investment.  I don't know much about intercontinential shipping or customs, but I imagine the companies selling the cages after the ban are making significantly less than is being charged for them in Africa.

Farmers are a powerful lobby in many countries, and farming is often a low-margin business. Moreover, to the extent individual farmers would be bearing the deadweight loss, they are often in lots of debt and are generally sympathetic to the general public. So a ban on export is likely to be politically difficult and/or require a longer transition period. 

If all that is correct, it might be better in some cases to couple an export ban with a publicly-funded buyback program that paid as much as the previous owners could have counterfactually received from the third-party market. This is only true if you think the export ban would have a counterfactual impact on the number of cages in use (which may depend on possible alternative locations and transit costs).

A greater reminder that Animal Welfare League is doing well. But more resources will enhance a comprehensive research on this issue.

Well done, Jacob!

Well pointed out. The issue of second-hand battery cage in Africa is just ticking bomb waiting to blow up with devastating welfare consequences.

why should countries that have banned cages in their countries be able to export these cages to less developed countries? Is this not a transfer of animal cruelty to Africa? 

 

I wonder if there is a problem of racism here, both rhetorically and genuinely. 

What do you mean here? Can you elaborate ?

I heard that there were cage-free activists who claim that some global companies' differential animal welfare policies in the West and in Asia is racist, and demand for equally good policies in Asia. I wonder if exporting some morally inferior (and abandoned) equipments to Africa is a form of racism, either rhetorically and genuinely. 

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
In my past year as a grantmaker in the global health and wellbeing (GHW) meta space at Open Philanthropy, I've identified some exciting ideas that could fill existing gaps. While these initiatives have significant potential, they require more active development and support to move forward.  The ideas I think could have the highest impact are:  1. Government placements/secondments in key GHW areas (e.g. international development), and 2. Expanded (ultra) high-net-worth ([U]HNW) advising Each of these ideas needs a very specific type of leadership and/or structure. More accessible options I’m excited about — particularly for students or recent graduates — could involve virtual GHW courses or action-focused student groups.  I can’t commit to supporting any particular project based on these ideas ahead of time, because the likelihood of success would heavily depend on details (including the people leading the project). Still, I thought it would be helpful to articulate a few of the ideas I’ve been considering.  I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on these ideas and any other gaps you see in the space! Introduction I’m Mel, a Senior Program Associate at Open Philanthropy, where I lead grantmaking for the Effective Giving and Careers program[1] (you can read more about the program and our current strategy here). Throughout my time in this role, I’ve encountered great ideas, but have also noticed gaps in the space. This post shares a list of projects I’d like to see pursued, and would potentially want to support. These ideas are drawn from existing efforts in other areas (e.g., projects supported by our GCRCB team), suggestions from conversations and materials I’ve engaged with, and my general intuition. They aren’t meant to be a definitive roadmap, but rather a starting point for discussion. At the moment, I don’t have capacity to more actively explore these ideas and find the right founders for related projects. That may change, but for now, I’m interested in