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

75

1
0

Reactions

1
0

More posts like this

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
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
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 achieve 25% on its Frontier Math
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