Brazil
Ranked #7 of 24 on the AWPRI, with a score of 0.492 in 2022. A higher score means heavier animal use, weaker welfare governance, or research tilted further towards automation.
Risk Profile
Variable scores in 2022. The solid shape is Brazil and the dashed shape is the 24-country mean. A higher score means heavier exposure, weaker governance or a stronger tilt towards automation. The range chip above gives the highest and the lowest composite score this country has recorded across 2010–2022, which describes the country's own history and is not a confidence interval. Point at any vertex to see the variable's name and scores. The numbered key is below the chart.
- 1Farmed animals slaughtered per capita
- 2Aquatic animal share of flesh supply
- 3Meat supply per capita
- 4Animal share of protein supply
- 5Animal welfare legislation, stock
- 6Rule of law
- 7Animal welfare legislation, five-year flow
- 8Civic space
- 9Civil liberties
- 10AI research intensity
- 11Precision agriculture research intensity
- 12Animal welfare research base
Variable Breakdown
L1. Animal-use exposure (four variables)
L2. Governance capacity (five variables)
L3. AI amplification (three variables)
Each bar is this country's score on the 0 to 1 scale, which is the country's position between the lowest and the highest value any of the 24 countries recorded in 2022. A score of 1 means that no country in the panel stood further along that variable in that year, and does not mean that the underlying quantity reached any absolute maximum. The welfare pathway states how the variable connects to animal welfare. A direct variable counts animals or counts the law that covers animals. An indirect variable measures a condition under which welfare law is enforced or contested. An assumed variable is a proxy whose link to welfare outcomes this project asserts and has not demonstrated. The full statement for each variable is in the codebook.
What Moves This Country's Score
Pushing the score up
- Farmed animals slaughtered per capitascore 0.869 vs panel mean 0.488 · weight 0.0833 · +0.0317 of the composite · L1. Animal-use exposure
- Meat supply per capitascore 0.815 vs panel mean 0.570 · weight 0.0833 · +0.0204 of the composite · L1. Animal-use exposure
- Animal share of protein supplyscore 0.894 vs panel mean 0.744 · weight 0.0833 · +0.0125 of the composite · L1. Animal-use exposure
Pulling the score down
- AI research intensityscore 0.150 vs panel mean 0.501 · weight 0.1111 · −0.0390 of the composite · L3. AI amplification
- Aquatic animal share of flesh supplyscore 0.035 vs panel mean 0.416 · weight 0.0833 · −0.0318 of the composite · L1. Animal-use exposure
- Civic spacescore 0.140 vs panel mean 0.222 · weight 0.0667 · −0.0055 of the composite · L2. Governance capacity
Each figure is the variable's weight in the index multiplied by its distance from the 24-country mean in 2022. Added up over all 12 variables they come to +0.0278, which is exactly Brazil's distance from the panel's mean composite of 0.464. Because the weights differ between layers, a variable can be further from the mean than another and still move the score less. These figures are accounting terms and not causal estimates. The figures state which components of the index this country's score is made of, and do not state what would happen to animals if the underlying quantity changed.