Introduction:
Recently, I made a case that “Africa needs greater strategic attention in the animal welfare space” because many systems shaping animal agriculture in Africa are still being formed. Growing populations, rising urbanization, rising incomes, and changing food consumption patterns are likely to increase demand for animal-source foods across much of the continent. I also pointed out that the biggest question is not whether Africa’s food systems will change, but how. As I have continued reflecting on the above, I have found myself increasingly wondering: who is shaping Africa’s food systems, now and in the future? As it is, many of the current discussions center around the work that advocates, consumers, funders, companies, and policymakers are doing.
Discussions from the recently released report, “The Bank Takes the Lead," have highlighted the rising influence and impact of development finance institutions in shaping food systems in Africa. When reading the report and subsequent discussions, one question kept coming to mind: if these institutions are helping shape Africa's agricultural future, should they also have a role in shaping its protein future?
My argument in this article is simple. If development finance institutions play a major role in determining how Africa meets its future protein demand through investment in animal agriculture, then engaging them deserves far greater strategic attention, both in our movement funding strategy and in our advocacy priorities.
Why Development Finance Matters
The report highlights the role of organizations such as the World Bank Group in determining the future of animal agriculture in Africa. They are important not only for individual initiatives in terms of financial and technical support, but they also influence policy and support the public-commercial sector alliance. Furthermore, they often invest in commercialization, intensification, and growth of the private sector, and determine the path of agricultural development (livestock) across Africa. This matters because the decisions made by these institutions may determine how Africa meets its future protein demand. The scale of their investment is astounding: for example, as stated in the report, “World Bank disbursements to African agriculture rose from $1.1 billion a year between 2015 and 2020 to nearly $3 billion a year between 2021 and 2024.” Much of that capital has flowed toward livestock and intensification. The pertinent question, I believe, is not where the money is going, but where it is not going.
Why Alternative Proteins in Africa?
This is where alternative proteins get into the picture. A large part of the argument surrounding alternative proteins is animal welfare or climate change. In Africa, however, this is important for another reason: they are aligned with many of the same goals that development financing institutions already prioritize: food security, cheap nutrition, local manufacturing, and resilient food systems. As demand for protein rises across the continent, livestock expansion is not the only path forward. Alternative proteins, done well, often require less land and water, can be produced locally, and tend to be more affordable per gram of protein. Rather than framing them as substitutes for animal-source foods, it may be more useful to see them as one additional pathway for meeting Africa's growing protein needs.
Case Example from Kenya: Sossi Soya
To further reinforce my point above, I would like to share a good proof of concept from Kenya: Sossi Soya chunks. This is an affordable plant-based food protein option manufactured by Promasidor Kenya. It is made from soybeans and contains an average of 40% protein. It is also very popular, especially among lower-income/earning groups, such as university students.
What makes Sossi a good case example is not just that it is a locally made alternative product, but largely that it’s affordable. It is also rich in protein, popular, and widely accessible. These are some of the factors that closely align with the priorities of the named institutions, which include improving food security, supporting locally made products, building resilient food value chains, and growing access to nutritious foods. For example, a mid-sized packet of Sossi costs 80 Ksh (0.62 USD) and contains 20g of protein. Such a packet (with additions of vegetables) can comfortably feed three people. An equivalent serving of beef would not only cost more but also feed fewer people. The former is also practical for local realities because of its long shelf life, as it does not need refrigeration.
I am not arguing that a product like Sossi should be scaled or not, but rather pointing out a possibility that we may be missing out on. Because if products like these already exist, what is the possibility that, given greater funding and technical support that these institutions have allocated towards livestock development, they would achieve? Is it possible that similar investments would help drive the growth and accessibility of affordable plant-based protein options in Africa?
Are We Overlooking a Gap?
A clear question is raised by Sossi's success: what would it take to see more similar products, on a larger scale, throughout the continent? The solution suggests a deeper structural issue.
A 2022 study by Faunalytics mapped the full landscape of protein investment in sub-Saharan Africa and identified three distinct investor visions operating in the region. The largest of these, what the report calls “smallholder intensification," is driven by development finance institutions, investing primarily in farmed chickens, eggs, dairy, and fish. On the other end of the spectrum, those adhering to the “Protein Diversification” vision, the small group of investors motivated by environmental and ethical concerns, have only a limited amount of capital to invest, and African alternative proteins don’t gain funding from virtually anywhere else.
Taken together, these reports reveal an interesting mismatch. Development finance institutions are investing billions of dollars in shaping Africa's future food systems, while funding and investment in African alternative proteins remain comparatively small. These two conversations appear to be unfolding largely independently of one another. This is why I primarily ask whether development finance actors should be part of our overall strategy.
Could this be an Opportunity for Us?
So is this gap a problem, or could it also be an opportunity? When reading the World Bank's "Food Systems 2030” report, one observation that stood out to me is that these institutions do not necessarily frame their work around “livestock production" in and of itself. Rather, they tend to emphasize broader objectives like improving nutrition, food security, reducing poverty, economic growth, and increasing investments by the private sector. This is also emphasized at a continental level through the 3FS Africa report, “External Development Financial Flows to Food Systems,” which cites the Kampala Declaration on Agrifood Systems Transformation 2026-2035 signed by all 55 African Union member states. It outlines six interdependent goals for the continent, which are "...scaling sustainable food production and trade, boosting investment in food systems transformation, achieving food and nutrition security for all, fostering inclusive and equitable livelihoods, building climate resilience, and enhancing governance and accountability."
This distinction matters because it provides for an interesting possibility, as alternative proteins may support/contribute to some or all of these goals above. Rather than perceiving them as drivers of livestock expansion, should we then consider the possibility of alternative proteins fitting in with their existing and broadening objectives?
My Strategic Question:
As I have mentioned above, this is not a question of whether these institutions would readily fund alternative proteins or whether this would be a straightforward endeavor. In fact, work on this would perhaps present challenges around market readiness, consumer preferences and tastes, and present political realities in many African countries. However, a strategic question for all of us remains: “If development finance institutions are likely to remain among the most influential actors shaping Africa's food systems over the coming decades, should engaging them become part of the alternative protein movement's long-term strategy?"
This may necessitate a new approach: perhaps more funding, policy work, or investment in strategic relationships with these institutions/actors. Given their strategic role and importance in Africa, this is worth looking into in depth.
Conclusion:
In my first article, I presented a case for why Africa deserves greater strategic attention in animal welfare. From the report “The Bank Takes the Lead,” we have seen that these major development finance institutions are actively shaping the food systems right now. Therefore, if alternative proteins genuinely offer pathways toward improving nutrition, strengthening food security, supporting local industry, and reducing reliance on conventional livestock production, then understanding how they fit within development finance priorities deserves much closer attention. Maybe the gap lies in engagement. Whether that means new research or new funding earmarked specifically for this kind of engagement, the first step is simply deciding it matters enough to act on.
As always, feel welcome to reach me directly at [email protected].
