Hide table of contents

Introduction

This payout report covers the Animal Welfare Fund's grantmaking from October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 (3 months). It follows the previous April–October 2024 payout report.

As mentioned in the recently published 2024 review and the previous payout report, the Animal Welfare Fund made a conscious decision to increase transparency and prioritize more frequent communications about our work. As part of those efforts, we've resumed regular publication of detailed payout reports after previously reducing our public reporting to focus fund manager capacity on grant evaluations. With additional support now in place, we've streamlined our reporting process to provide comprehensive information about our grants and their intended impact. Given that these are recent grants, outcome data will not be included in the initial payout reports. We plan to share these reports quarterly to keep the community informed of our grantmaking activities.

  • Total funding recommended: $1,328,106
  • Total funding paid out: $1,012,822
  • Number of grants paid out: 11
  • Acceptance rate (excluding desk rejections): 13/49 = 26.5%
  • Acceptance rate (including desk rejections): 13/182 = 7.14%

One of our grantees, who received $291,000, requested that we do not include public reports for their grants (you can read our policy on public reporting here). One grant has been approved but not yet paid out.

Highlighted Grants

Highlighted grants correspond to grants that the AWF team rated highly, usually because they thought the grant was very likely to be very cost-effective or the potential upside was likely very high.

Anonymous ($108,000): Creation of local bad-cop “groups” in Asia to drive corporate compliance of 2025 cage-free commitments

In October 2024, the Animal Welfare Fund provided a $108,000 grant to support the creation of local groups in five key countries in Asia to pressure companies to fulfill their 2025 cage-free commitments. Localized, targeted pressure significantly increases compliance with corporate cage-free commitments, but Asia currently lacks an existing mechanism to apply this pressure. Leaders across Asia will initiate these bad-cop groups to conduct consistent outreach and pressure at local and regional offices. These leaders will also collaborate with other regional and international animal welfare groups to initiate campaigns against companies who do not fulfill their commitments. The model used for this system of localized pressure has been historically successful in increasing compliance with cage-free commitments. While the organization establishing these local groups is new, the team involved have strong track records of animal welfare advocacy and a strong plan for implementation. The leadership is well-connected, which will allow them to strategically collaborate and identify supporters to initiate advocacy efforts.

Through these efforts, these groups aim to get 10 companies to announce that they will meet their cage-free commitments and 15 companies to report their progress. The countries involved slaughter nearly 800 million hens per year, so ensuring the fulfillment of these cage-free commitments will improve the wellbeing of vast numbers of hens and will set a strong precedent for other companies to comply with cage-free commitments. Therefore, given the importance of ensuring fulfillment of cage-free commitments, we believe this project has high expected value.

Open Wing Alliance ($200,000): Funding for strategic regranting to drive fulfillment of the 2025 cage-free corporate commitments in key regions

In December 2024, the Animal Welfare Fund provided a grant of $200,000 to Open Wing Alliance (OWA) to support cage-free advocacy efforts through accountability work on existing commitments as well as strategically securing new commitments. This grant is meant to support OWA’s regranting to organizations around the world, especially in the Global South. With many deadlines for cage-free commitments approaching in 2025, this is a particularly critical time to push for implementation, which was one important motivation for this grant. These efforts will directly decrease hen suffering significantly.

This project addresses one of the largest global sources of animal suffering. OWA has a strong track record and an in-depth understanding of the need for additional cage-free work. We assessed that OWA have a room for more funding, so we recommended this grant to support their efforts. This project has a high likelihood of increasing the wellbeing of millions of hens and is especially cost-effective.

Other writings

The following articles or posts published since the last payout report can provide a good overview of the Animal Welfare Fund, or otherwise be very helpful to donors and community members.

  • Ask Us Anything
    • The fund managers of the AWF held a week-long Ask Us Anything to provide clarity on any questions related to AWF’s operations, evaluation strategy, priorities, hiring process, and any other topics of interest.

Grants Funded through Partner Organizations

For some applications submitted to the fund, the AWF evaluates the proposal and recommends them to partner organizations to fund the proposal. In these cases, the partner organization completes due diligence, issues a grant agreement, and pays out the grant, but the AWF still receives progress reports from the organization to track the grant’s success. These grants are included in the “total funding recommended” but not the “total funding paid out.” During this period, the AWF recommended two grants to be funded by partner organizations:

  • Çiftlik Hayvanlarını Koruma Derneği (Farmed Animals Protection Association) ($60,000): General support to cover 15% of our operational budget in 2024
  • Sinergia Animal ($218,284): General support for animal welfare corporate policies and institutional meat reduction programs

Other Grants We Made During This Time Period

Below is a list of 8 other grants, totaling nearly $414,000, that the Animal Welfare Fund made during this period to support work on animal welfare in many countries.

GranteeAmountGrant PurposeAward Date
Indonesian Cage-free Association (Asosiasi Bebas Sangkar Indonesia)

$50,000

Creating a new org that exclusively focuses on campaigning for highly impactful and tractable animal welfare issues

November 2024

AETP - Animal Enterprise Transparency Project

$28,500

Funding to increase capacity and successfully run campaign aimed at banning cages in Slovenia with potential effects on the rest of the European Union

November 2024

Eurogroup for Animals

$97,000

Pilot project for a research and advocacy connector to strengthen political animal advocacy in Europe

November 2024

Sam Yan Press

$13,000

Top-Up: Sam Yan Press promotes ethical living in Thailand through translated texts, seminars, documentaries, and collab

November 2024

Bob Fischer

$43,974

Academic research on tools for incorporating animal welfare into benefit-cost analysis

November 2024

Animal Law Italia

$81,000

A 1-year project for advancing aquatic animal welfare in Italy and Europe through advocacy and corporate outreach

December 2024

Anonymous

$15,348

4 month salary to conduct research, create resources, and build skills relating to the aquatic animal stunning systems

December 2024

Tälist

$85,000

8-month stipend to validate platform impact by prioritizing employer engagement over candidate support

December 2024

Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I was initially impressed and considered donating to the fund in the future, but then noticed the ~$300K grant without a public report. I can't see myself donating to a fund that doesn't say what it's doing with almost 30% of its disbursed funds.

I don't have any insight into why this grantee wanted to remain anonymous.

I do know of some situations in the animal advocacy space, and advocacy space in general, where it is strategic to not have on the public record (or as little as possible) where one is receiving funding from. Reasons for this might include:

  • Increased government scrutiny and harassment as a 'foreign agent' by receiving money from abroad.
  • Exposing how groups and initiatives might be connected can damage how their targets interact with them. Ie bad and good cop initiatives having the same funding source can often damage the ability of the good cop to carry out their role.
  • A local organisation, with large amounts of funding from abroad, can easily be criticised for not representing local interests.
  • Sometimes it is simply just really useful for adversaries and people, organisations you want to influence to know as little about you as possible.
  • Probably more reasons I'm not thinking of right now

I hear the concern you raise and also see there are cases where the tradeoff with transparency on distributed funds and setting the grantees up for success may be in conflict. Might some insight into why the grant is anonymous help bridge that gap? 

For example:

One of our grantees, who received $291,000, requested that we do not include public reports for their grants as doing so is likely to negatively impact their ability to carry out their work by exposing publicly how they are connected to other organisations.

One idea I've had to try and resolve this issue for donors is to have all private grants audited by a trusted animal welfare person who doesn't work on the fund (e.g. Lewis Bollard) and commit to publishing their comments in payout reports. I think they'd be able to say things like "I agree that the private grants should be kept private and on average they were about as cost-effective as the public grants".

I'll take <agree> <disagree> votes to indicate how compelling this would be to readers.

I would find this compelling but I think there are pretty strong social incentives to not disagree publicly with the fund managers so you either need a mechanism to get around that or need someone who is very happy to disagree publicly and incur social/reputational costs 

Personally I don't believe in a "trusted person", as a concept. I think EA has had its fun trying to be a high trust environment where some large things are kept private, and it backfired horribly.

I'll take <agree> <disagree> votes to indicate how compelling this would be to readers.

That was the aim of my comment as well, so I do hope more people actually vote on it.

I think a reasonably independent reviewer who is not perfectly trustworthy would still be better than no reviewer at all.

Thanks, Guy. I am very much for transparency in general[1], but I do not think it matters that much whether I know what happens with 70 % or 100 % of AWF's funds. Even in a worst case scenario where there was no information about 30 % of the money granted by AWF, and the enspecified grants had a cost-effectiveness of 0, AWF's cost-effectiveness would only decrease by 30 %. This would be significant, but still small in comparison with other considerations. In particular, I estimate the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) has been 173 times as cost-effective as cage-free campaigns. AWF has funded both SWP and cage-free campaigns, so they implicitly estimate the marginal cost-effectiveness of SWP and cage-free campaigns has not been that different[2]. I suspect our disagreement is mostly explained by me believing excruciating pain is more intense, and lack of scope-sensitivity in AWF's grantmaking decisions, which is based on grantmakers' ratings of grants (from -5 to 5) instead of explicit cost-effectiveness analyses.

  1. ^

    Not necessarily in this case. I would have to know the details.

  2. ^

    If they thought SWP was way more cost-effective at the margin, they would just fund SWP and not cage-free campaigns.

Zero effect is not the worst case.

I agree, but unspecified grants being neutral in expectation would still be very pessimistic for someone enthusiastic about the specified grants.

It's impressive that this post was published before the end of January for the quarter prior. Would love to see that kept up for this and other funds!

Curated and popular this week
Omnizoid
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Edit 1/29: Funding is back, baby!  Crossposted from my blog.   (This could end up being the most important thing I’ve ever written. Please like and restack it—if you have a big blog, please write about it). A mother holds her sick baby to her chest. She knows he doesn’t have long to live. She hears him coughing—those body-wracking coughs—that expel mucus and phlegm, leaving him desperately gasping for air. He is just a few months old. And yet that’s how old he will be when he dies. The aforementioned scene is likely to become increasingly common in the coming years. Fortunately, there is still hope. Trump recently signed an executive order shutting off almost all foreign aid. Most terrifyingly, this included shutting off the PEPFAR program—the single most successful foreign aid program in my lifetime. PEPFAR provides treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS—it has saved about 25 million people since its implementation in 2001, despite only taking less than 0.1% of the federal budget. Every single day that it is operative, PEPFAR supports: > * More than 222,000 people on treatment in the program collecting ARVs to stay healthy; > * More than 224,000 HIV tests, newly diagnosing 4,374 people with HIV – 10% of whom are pregnant women attending antenatal clinic visits; > * Services for 17,695 orphans and vulnerable children impacted by HIV; > * 7,163 cervical cancer screenings, newly diagnosing 363 women with cervical cancer or pre-cancerous lesions, and treating 324 women with positive cervical cancer results; > * Care and support for 3,618 women experiencing gender-based violence, including 779 women who experienced sexual violence. The most important thing PEPFAR does is provide life-saving anti-retroviral treatments to millions of victims of HIV. More than 20 million people living with HIV globally depend on daily anti-retrovirals, including over half a million children. These children, facing a deadly illness in desperately poor countries, are now going
 ·  · 27m read
 · 
(This post draws heavily on earlier writing co-authored with Jesse Clifton, but he’s not listed as an author since he hasn’t reviewed this version in detail.) Should we always be able to say whether one outcome is more likely, less likely, or exactly as likely as another? Or should we sometimes suspend judgment and say “none of the above”, that the answer is indeterminate? Indeterminate beliefs (often modeled with imprecise probabilities)[1] could have far-reaching implications for anyone who cares about the distant consequences of their actions. Most notably, we might be clueless about how our decisions affect the long-term future, if our estimates of our net effects on long-term welfare ought to be severely indeterminate. Perhaps we don’t have reason to consider most interventions good in expectation for the far future, even if we also don’t have reason to consider them bad or precisely neutral in expectation. Before we can assess the case for cluelessness concretely, then, we should see if rationality requires us to have (or “act as if” we have) determinate beliefs. Here, I’ll argue that the positive arguments for having determinate beliefs in general are uncompelling, and indeterminate beliefs motivate different decision-making procedures than determinate beliefs. That is, there’s a viable alternative to “going with your best guess”. By itself, this claim doesn’t imply large changes in cause prioritization. But in my experience, accepting that indeterminate beliefs are plausible and decision-relevant goes a long way in making the case for cluelessness compelling. Key takeaways: * The “degrees of belief” studied in this post are not, e.g., our acceptable betting odds, or a probability distribution that (along with a utility function) rationalizes our preferences. Rather, they are our basic judgments of the plausibility of different possible outcomes. And the rationality of our decisions under uncertainty depends on these beliefs. (more) * A prima facie mot
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
There’s something deeply wrong with the world, when the median US college graduate’s starting salary is a dozen times higher than the price to save another person’s entire life. The enduring presence of such low-hanging fruit reflects a basic societal failure to allocate resources in a way that reflects valuing those lives appropriately. (If you personally earn over $60k, and agree that your least-important $5k of personal spending is not nearly as important as a young child’s entire life, I’d encourage you to reallocate your budget accordingly and save someone’s life today. Then, if you’re happy with the results, consider taking the🔸10% Pledge to make it a regular thing. This should be the norm for anyone who is financially comfortable.) It’s a tricky thing. If you really let yourself internalize this fact—that children are dying for want of $5000—it can be hard to think of anything else. How can life just go on as normal, when children are dying and we could easily prevent it? Why don’t more people treat this as the ongoing moral emergency that it is? Where is the urgency? Why aren’t most of the people around us doing anything? Will you break through the barrier? Psychological Defense 1: moral delusion In order to live anything approximating a “normal life”, in these circumstances, we need to develop psychological defenses to block out the cacophony of global demands. And so we do. (Few are willing to be the sorts of radical altruists profiled in Strangers Drowning. I know I’m not!) We learn to turn away, and ignore the needs of the world outside our local bubble. If people try to draw our attention back, we may even react with hostility: accusing them of being “preachy”, or “holier-than-thou”, or engaging in some kind of underhanded “guilt-tripping.” (How dare you break the social contract of mutually supporting each other’s delusions of decency, as we sip champagne while children starve?) We find—and elevate—other moral causes, preferably ones “closer to h