Hide table of contents

Summary

  • FWI has an unusually large funding gap right now: $730K of our $920K 2025 budget.
     
  • Why donate to FWI? At an overall cost-effectiveness of about 1 fish helped per dollar, we’re probably not the most cost-effective organization right now at reducing immediate farmed animal suffering. However, we are investing in fairly novel interventions for helping fishes, such as satellite imagery monitoring and feed fortification, that we believe still make FWI a promising donation opportunity.
     
  • To learn more, you can see our Donation Page FAQ or our recent strategy post. Or just keep reading below!

The Value of Marginal Funding at Fish Welfare Initiative

As of this post’s date of publication, FWI currently has an unusually large funding gap for 2025. Specifically, we are still seeking to raise about $730,000 of our $920,000 2025 budget.

What impact and outcomes would your donation to FWI support? In terms of marginal cost-effectiveness, we roughly calculate that right now, donations to FWI help about 1 fish per dollar. These fishes are helped via water quality improvements or stocking density reductions, via our program that we run in India with currently 153 farms.

We’re still working to understand exactly the magnitude of improvement we make to these animals, so donations here should probably be regarded as less certain than, for instance, donations that advance cage-free or the Better Chicken Commitment for chickens. You can learn more about our thinking on our impact, and our process of estimating it, on our Impact Page.

In terms of pure cost-effectiveness, FWI is unlikely to be the most effective animal-focused organization to give to right now. For instance, both Shrimp Welfare Project (our archrivals) and the Aquatic Life Institute seem to be able to help aquatic animals more effectively than FWI (we also respect both of these organizations, and would encourage you to consider donating to them!).

We do (perhaps obviously) still believe that there are various reasons that make FWI an unusually promising donation opportunity:

  1. Investment in more cost-effective interventions in the future: About 67% of our current budget (specifically our R&D, exploratory programs, and China budget items) goes not towards having an immediate impact, but rather towards developing more cost-effective interventions in the future. And we do this in what we believe is an unusually rigorous and on-the-ground way. For example, see our recent studies focused on developing interventions surrounding satellite imagery and feed fortification.
     
  2. Investment in a moderately effective program right now: We estimate that we have currently improved the lives of about 2.2M fishes, and that our farm program has a programmatic cost effectiveness of about 7 fishes helped per dollar. (Our overall org cost effectiveness is about 1/7 this amount, as this is our one program aimed at generating an immediate impact and it only comprised about 1/7 of our operating budget in 2024.)
     
  3. Investment in an extremely neglected group of animals: FWI is one of the few organizations working on behalf of Indian major carps, of which several billion are farmed each year. Additionally, we believe that the findings of our studies can be translated—with some contextual adjustments—to similar farming contexts, such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, and the Philippines, which also have massive, neglected groups of farmed fishes. For instance, in terms of the total weight of aquatic animals farmed, these countries are ranked 3rd, 5th, and 12th respectively; in total, they likely farm over 10B fishes each year combined.
     
  4. Supporting fish advocacy in China: FWI is one of the few organizations that advocates for fishes in China. While we haven’t had any immediate impact there in terms of fishes directly helped, we believe our work (e.g.) has been significant in advancing the idea of fish welfare in the country where nearly half of the world’s farmed fishes live—likely the most important country for the aquatic animal advocacy movement.
FWI staff Kishore, Durga Prasad, and Vivek taking a water quality reading at an ARA partner farm, as part of the training for the ground truth component of our Satellite Imagery Study.

Programs that Marginal Funds will Support

Marginal donations will support the following programs in 2025:

  • 1–2 further studies on remote water quality monitoring, using either satellites or possibly drones, to develop this into a program to monitor and improve water quality at scale. See previous study.
     
  • Potentially 1 further study on feed fortification as a welfare improvement. In 2024 we ran an efficacy study under controlled conditions, and are now awaiting the findings. If they are positive, we will run a field study in 2025 to evaluate whether feed fortification improves welfare in real-world farm conditions.
     
  • An early-stage investigation into pre-slaughter stunning: In early 2025, we expect to receive the results from several short studies commissioned through our recently released request for proposals (RFP). If the findings are promising, in the latter half of 2025 we plan to transition to either pilot testing or initiating technological development.
     
  • Increasing the cost-effectiveness, scalability and evidence base of our farm program, the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture. In 2025, we plan to a) work to improve it to meet our minimum scaling thresholds, and b) conduct an outcomes evaluation on the efficacy of our water quality corrective actions. We also aim to improve the lives of 1M fishes with this program.
     
  • Policy advocacy in India, which operates at the central and state government levels in order to advance policies that promote fish welfare.
     
  • Our growing program in China, for which we intend to release a job description for our first local full-time staff member in the coming weeks. In 2025, with this new China Lead staffer, we intend to continue our field-building work (e.g.), including developing species-specific standards with our local partner ICCAW.
Fish sampling at day 60 of our feed fortification efficacy study. The purpose of this study is to understand the impact our custom-made feed has on a) welfare, and b) fish growth. We expect to publish the results next year.

Learn More

If you’re interested in learning more, the following resources may be helpful:

You are also welcome to contact us directly.

And whether or not you end up donating to Fish Welfare Initiative, we’re grateful for all the people out there who are giving away their money to make the world a better place. Thank you!

 

We’re also grateful to Jan Gaida for giving helpful suggestions to this post.

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for including the fish-per-dollar estimate! I know it doesn't account for the value of your speculative work, but having the number at all makes it a lot easier for me to reason about it.

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