Hide table of contents

Farmed Animal Funders is pleased to invite eligible donors beyond our existing membership to join our Aquatic Animal Funding Circle. 

Funding circle prospectus assembled by Farmed Animal Funders, adapted and expanded from proposals submitted by, and subsequent conversations with, Rethink Priorities and Aquatic Life Institute.

Summary

In line with Farmed Animal Funders’ (FAF) mission to replace factory farming with a more humane and sustainable food system through funder collaborations, FAF is hosting an Aquatic Animal Funding Circle, which aims to reduce suffering for farmed aquatic animals, including the 100 billion fish and 440 billion shrimp farmed annually, and prevent the growth of aquaculture. As aquaculture takes off with the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization calling for a 75% increase in aquaculture farming, we know that the best time to intervene was decades ago—and the second best time is now.

The Aquatic Animal Funding Circle aims to reduce suffering for farmed aquatic animals by:

  1. Coalescing major funders (giving $250,000+ annually to reform or replace factory farming) interested in allocating some of their giving or expanding their giving to help aquatic animals
  2. Learning about key barriers, theories of change, funding gaps, and the most promising interventions and groups to reduce aquatic animal suffering
  3. Soliciting proposals for funding in a joint RFP round
  4. Co-evaluating proposals, to actively learn about each other’s evaluation styles
  5. Co-funding the most promising opportunities to reduce aquatic animal suffering with a co-funding goal each cycle of at least $1 million USD
  6. Updating our assumptions and strategies as we learn from funding impacts

Examples of interventions the funding circle might fund include:

  • Harm reduction interventions, such as certifier campaigns, corporate engagement, and policy work.
  • Interventions to prevent the growth of aquaculture altogether, such as strategic litigation, legislative bans, or exceptional, near-term alternative protein opportunities.
  • Movement strategy research and coordination, particularly given the early stage of the aquatic animal welfare movement.

The Aquatic Animal Funding Circle includes several FAF members, and we are open to including non-FAF members on a case-by-case basis who have a sincere interest in donating at least $100k to aquatic animal welfare interventions per funding round. 

Aquatic Animal Funding Circle members are encouraged to attend monthly meetings, participate in the grant evaluations, and co-fund the grants that meet their philanthropic goals.  If there is a funding gap at the end of each funding circle, FAF will share the funding opportunities with other donors and seek to close any funding gaps. 

To join the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle, starting January 2025, please reach out to Zoë Sigle, Farmed Animal Funders’ Director of Programs, at aquaticanimals-fc@farmedanimalfunders.org.  If you are interested in being aware of funding circle grants and opportunities to co-fund but can’t actively participate in the funding circle, let Zoë know. 

The Case for Aquatic Animals

The movement to protect farmed aquatic animals is a nascent movement when compared with the movement to protect farmed land animals. Despite being a relatively new area for funder focus, the number of farmed aquatic animals eclipses the number of farmed land animals and is expected to grow. 

Aquatic animals, including finfishes and shrimps, are farmed in the hundreds of billions and caught from the wild in the trillions. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has called for a 75% increase in aquaculture farming. We know that the more entrenched an industry, the more difficult it is to oppose the industry. 

In recent years, a range of organizations supporting farmed aquatic animal welfare have launched and have demonstrated successful interventions, such as:

Given the very limited funding for improving (or preventing) the lives of hundreds of billions of farmed aquatic animals, the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle aims to increase funder attention towards aquatic animal welfare initiatives. The Aquatic Animal Funding Circle will lead a joint funding round for organizations and projects that:

  • support interventions that institutionally eliminate some of the cruelest practices in aquaculture, such as certifier campaigns, corporate engagement, and policy work.
  • prevent the growth of aquaculture altogether, such as via strategic litigation, legislative bans, or exceptional, near-term alternative protein opportunities
  • conduct strategy research and coordinate movement actors, which is essential for the long-term success of younger movements like farmed aquatic animal welfare advocacy

Some interventions the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle might support include:

Harm Reduction

Certifier Outreach

Supporting (and pressuring, such as via benchmarking reports) certifiers to introduce and/or improve the animal welfare standards for aquaculture certification schemes. 

 

Measurable Outcomes

  • Number of certification schemes improved
  • Number of animals impacted and estimated hours of suffering reduced by each improved standard

Corporate Engagement

Persuade major retailers and foodservice companies to adopt improved animal welfare requirements for various species of aquatic animals in their supply chains.

 

Measurable Outcomes:

  • Number of major retailers publicly launching measurable and timebound aquatic animal welfare policies
  • Number of animals impacted and estimated hours of suffering reduced by each improved standard

Policy Work

Educating policymakers on the reasons for including aquatic animals in bills related to animal sentience or welfare or otherwise including aquatic animal welfare in aquaculture regulations.

 

Measurable Outcomes:

  • Number of bills or regulations passed in highly influential jurisdictions with actionable outcomes for farmed aquatic animals
  • Estimated number of aquatic animals impacted by these policy improvements

Farmer Engagement

Educating farmers on farmed aquatic animal welfare and following up with audits, equipment support, or other practical support.

 

Measurable Outcome: Number of animals impacted and hours of suffering reduced, as measured by farm population sizes and confirmation of improvements via auditing. 

Preventing Growth

Legislative Bans

Rejecting the establishment of octopus farms will send a clear market signal that this practice is unsustainable, unnecessary, and extraordinarily cruel, thus establishing a precedent for banning the introduction of other aquatic animals in the future.

 

Advocating for legislative measures and regulations that restrict or prohibit the farming of additional species for human consumption.

 

Measurable Outcome: Number of coastal state-level or higher jurisdictions with strong potential to expand aquaculture into new species that pass legislative bans on new species of aquaculture.

Strategic Litigation

Apply creative litigation strategies, such as water protections or rights to fish, to prevent or shut down coastal aquaculture operations.

 

Measurable Outcome: Number of influential and impactful states or jurisdictions with precedent-setting rulings in favor of preventing or shutting down aquaculture operations.

Alternative Proteins

Supporting research and innovation in plant-based alternatives to farmed aquatic animal products, when near-term exceptional opportunities arise.

 

Measurable Outcome: Major advances are made to bring commercially viable products to market.

Movement Research & Coordination

Research

Conduct applied movement (and scientific, as needed) research to scope untapped opportunities and possible future trajectories for the movement to more strategically accelerate the end of aquaculture. With so many species being farmed under different systems that vary across geographies, the movement still needs to identify ask(s) that will be most tractable and replicable.

 

Measurable Outcomes

  • Number of high-quality species-specific asks developed that balance both impact (focused on species with high farmed populations and welfare improvements that reduce significant hours and/or intensity of suffering) and tractability (measured in the long-term by the ability for organizations to secure and enforce asks).
  • Impact of interventions ultimately proposed, assuming they are funded by the Funding Circle or otherwise.

Coordination & Capacity Building

Support the development of new infrastructure to ensure better coordination between organizations (e.g., an “OWA-equivalent” for aquatic animals; setting milestones for specific species farmed under the most intensive conditions), share best practices, and track progress.

 

Measurable Outcome: Qualitative feedback from involved organizations on whether they believed the intentional coordination had an additive impact.

Funding Circle Logistics

Objectives

The Funding Circle coalesces major funders interested in expanding their giving to help aquatic animals. Success is measured by:

  1. Increased movement giving (in terms of both dollars and the number of major donors) to reduce the suffering of farmed aquatic animals
  2. Animals positively impacted by funding from the joint RFP that would not have otherwise been impacted
  3. Funding Circle members who report having learned more about aquatic animal welfare interventions and/or grant evaluation best practices

Activities

Over six months, the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle will meet monthly to:

  • Learn about key barriers, theories of change, funding gaps, and the most promising interventions and groups to reduce aquatic animal suffering
  • Solicit grant proposals in a joint RFP round
  • Co-evaluate proposals
  • Co-fund the most promising opportunities to reduce aquatic animal suffering

After the initial six-month funding round, the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle will debrief and decide on the most beneficial path forward, whether setting a schedule for more funding rounds, spend more time learning about various aspects of the farmed aquatic animal protection movement, or assessing impact reports from past grantees.

Eligibility to Join

Beyond FAF members, we welcome non-FAF members to join the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle on a case-by-case basis. Funders with sincere interest in co-funding at least $100k to aquatic animal interventions in 2025 are eligible to join. FAF staff will assess non-FAF members prior to their joining the Funding Circle to confirm strong fit (particularly, mission alignment and collaborative spirit).

Member Expectations

Aquatic Animal Funding Circle members are encouraged to attend monthly meetings, participate in the grant evaluations, and co-fund the grants that meet their philanthropic goals. 

If a funder wants to donate to help aquatic animals but lacks the bandwidth to attend meetings and evaluate grants, they may still receive funding recommendations and make grants accordingly. In this case, please email Zoë, who will share recommendations at the end of the funding round.

Funding Decisions

Each funder retains full autonomy over their funding decisions. Funders should only join the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle if they have a sincere interest in significantly funding aquatic animal welfare interventions or interventions to slow the growth of aquaculture.

How to Join

To join the Aquatic Animal Funding Circle, please reach out to Zoë Sigle, Farmed Animal Funders’ Director of Programs, at aquaticanimals-fc@farmedanimalfunders.org.

Monthly meetings begin in January!

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
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