EA Animal Welfare Fund's 3-Year Grantmaking Strategy

By KarolinaSarek🔸, Neil_Dullaghan🔹 @ 2025-11-20T19:17 (+124)

Read the grantmaking strategy as a visualized PDF here

Over the last year and a half, the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF) has implemented organizational improvements, such as increased staffing, communications, evaluation, and fundraising efforts, enabling us to expand the scope and sustainability of our impact. To capitalize on these changes, we are refining our 3-year grantmaking strategy to maximize our support for non-human animals. In this update, we describe the role we believe AWF can play in the animal welfare space, outline our approach to key trade-offs, and summarize our funding priorities in each of our focus areas. While we planned the strategy for the next 3 years, we expect that through this period our strategy will inevitably evolve as the landscape of opportunities changes and we learn about the impact of the work we supported; we plan to revisit our portfolio annually and publish updates if we make any significant changes.

The Problem We See

Most animal suffering occurs among groups of animals, regions, and supply chains where animal welfare has received disproportionately little attention from philanthropists, governments, businesses, and even the animal advocacy movement. In many of these areas, animals are raised and sold through independent, often smaller-scale farmers, traders, distributors, processors, and local markets, and governments often lack the resources or authority to monitor conditions or enforce standards. These areas also tend to have fewer validated interventions and less developed animal advocacy movements. 

Barriers to making progress

We believe that making progress in these areas requires testing novel ideas and scaling proven ones. However, there are numerous barriers to making this progress, including:

Even in areas that receive a lot of attention, critical opportunities can fall through the cracks when they are in difficult-to-reach geographies, time-sensitive, or not yet ready to absorb the minimum amount of funding other grantmakers provide because they lack necessary structures, staff, or maturity.

Our Role in the Movement

AWF will remain a place where promising ideas to help animals have access to opportunities at any time and where work that would provide counterfactual, cost-effective impact will be supported when and where it is needed most.

We believe we can further add value to the ecosystem by:


By playing this role, we aim to provide value to:

Our Goals

We exist to reduce animal suffering by rigorously evaluating, funding, and catalyzing the most effective interventions for the world's most neglected animals, supporting the people and programs with the greatest potential to create lasting impact.

We fund projects that:

More specifically, key long-term objectives we are working towards include (but are not limited to):

Key Pillars for Delivering Impact

We maintain a balanced portfolio that includes both:

AWF aims for maximizing “total” diversity of approaches addressing animal suffering rather than “AWF’s” diversity, which means that AWF will specialise in particular segments as long as there are good grantmakers who prioritize other areas we find important. In fact, in many cases, AWF’s success will be contingent on other grantmakers successfully holding their own distinct strategic position in the ecosystem. Our strategy includes a focus on flexibility and frequent reevaluation of our strategic priorities to ensure we remain supportive of neglected opportunities if other funders’ priorities change.

AWF will devote the greatest effort to finding, creating, funding, and supporting opportunities with these key factors in mind:

  1. Large neglected groups of animals: Shrimp, other invertebrates, wild animals in large numbers, and farmed animals (including chickens and fish) in the Global South. These collectively make up the bulk of current and projected future animal suffering but receive relatively little attention from other major funders. While we believe searching for opportunities in areas that do not already have dedicated funding is a key instrument for finding counterfactual value, we will not support more fringe areas unless we find opportunities with promising paths to impact.
     
  2. Global South focus, Global North opportunism: We believe our active effort should be placed on work based anywhere in the world that affects farmed animals in the Global South because of its large share of animal suffering and relatively small amount of support from animal welfare funders. We remain excited to support work affecting animals in the Global North when important gaps or opportunities emerge. 
     
  3. Intervention pluralism: We don’t believe there is one silver bullet that solves all problems in animal suffering. As we focus on paths to impact that influence institutional actors rather than individuals, we will support various reinforcing ways of targeting different stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, corporate engagement, producer/farmer engagement, government advocacy, research and development of technologies, and movement-building.
     
  4. Strategic funding across organizational stages: For large groups of neglected animals (shrimp, other invertebrates, wild animals), where other funding doesn’t exist, we actively offer support, from piloting novel interventions to scaling organizations that can deliver significant impact. For less neglected groups of animals (chicken and fish), we focus primarily on early and mid-stage work, with exceptions for top-tier opportunities when funding gaps threaten promising work of later-stage organisations (e.g., a sudden unexpected shortfall in a keystone campaign).
     
  5. Uncovering new areas: We will maintain some share of funding for exploring new opportunities that might offer the same or larger counterfactual impact as existing areas (e.g., humane pest control, pain reduction, wild animal interventions).

Areas where AWF does not expect to provide future support  

Given what other grantmakers are doing, the scale of the problem, or the current evidence on tractability, we do not expect our support to deliver additional impact in:

Learning, Evaluation, Adaptation

Track success

AWF will track the success of grants to discover interventions that lead to measurable changes in laws, corporate policies, or welfare practices. We will double down on what is working, support promising projects to overcome obstacles to progress and monitor their outcomes, and help talent to shift to more promising work if their experiment fails.

Review portfolio annually

AWF will revisit its portfolio balance annually to respond to shifts in the funding landscape, new evidence, and changes in peer funders’ priorities. We intend to refresh the entire strategy in three years.

Respond to the ecosystem 

We are prepared to step into areas deprioritised by other funders if this is necessary to achieve optimally impactful ecosystem coverage and to step out of areas that become crowded and no longer offer high impact.

Join us in making impact for animals

DONATE NOW

_________________________________________________________________

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the experts, grantees, fund advisors, AWF fund managers and communication staff who all contribute to this work.

 


Vasco Grilo🔸 @ 2025-11-22T08:22 (+13)

Thanks for the post, Karolina and Neil!

While we believe searching for opportunities in areas that do not already have dedicated funding is a key instrument for finding counterfactual value, we will not support more fringe areas unless we find opportunities with promising paths to impact.

Have you considered funding work targeting soil animals? I think this is more cost-effective at the margin than funding work targeting farmed invertebrates.

On finding opportunities with promising paths to impact, how are you thinking about the effects on soil animals of work on farmed animals? I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. I estimate cage-free welfare reforms change the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes 1.15 k times as much as they increase the welfare of chickens for my preferred way of comparing welfare across species. Moreover, I suspect electrically stunning shrimp is one of the interventions outside research which more clearly increases welfare, as it narrowly focuses on decreasing pain during slaughter, and I still do not know whether it increases or decreases animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. For my preferred way of comparing welfare across species, I calculate electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp.

Neil_Dullaghan🔹 @ 2025-11-25T19:19 (+4)

Thanks for your question Vasco, and raising this issue in the community. Currently, we believe reducing uncertainty about the sentience and conditions of such animals is the first step, before considering interventions to affect them or how interventions aiming to reduce suffering of other animals affects these soil animals. Figuring out ways to reduce this uncertainty is an area we’d be happy to receive applications about. 

Vasco Grilo🔸 @ 2025-11-25T19:34 (+2)

Thanks for the reply, Neil! I agree the priority is decreasing uncertainty about the individual welfare per animal-year (not sentience) of soil animals, and how to increase it. Have you considered actively working to get applications related to that? I think it would be worth it. As I commented above, I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals.

Neil_Dullaghan🔹 @ 2025-11-26T11:54 (+4)

Hi Vasco, 
Please see the response to Fai's question on caged broiler farming, where the answer is the same in this case.

Vasco Grilo🔸 @ 2025-11-26T19:06 (+2)

Thanks, Neil. Relatedly, Mal Graham said the Arthropoda Foundation would be interested in funding research on soil animals if they had sufficient funding.

That said, our [of Bob Fischer and Mal Graham, who "make most of the strategic and granting decisions"] confidence in our own position is not high. So, we’d be willing to fund things to challenge our own views: If we had sufficient funding from folks interested in the question, Arthropoda would fund a grant round specifically on soil invertebrate sentience and relevant natural history studies (especially in ways that attempt to capture the likely enormous range of differences between species in this group).

Fai @ 2025-11-23T17:34 (+4)

Thank you for the post! 

Protect numerous and neglected species from intensive confinement systems as new forms of animal agriculture emerge

I wonder if you consider the potential rise of meat consumption in Africa due to the projected wealth increase in many African countries to be one of the greatest new factory farming crisis? And if yes, do you consider that to be one of the greatest priority areas? 

Neil_Dullaghan🔹 @ 2025-11-25T19:24 (+4)

Thanks for the question Fai!
Various projections of rising meat consumption and with it farming more animals in more intensive conditions seems one of the ways animal suffering gets much larger in future decades and exeracerbates the moral atrocity already happening. 

This is why we are intentionally spending more of our effort looking for opportunities in Africa to prevent and roll back intensive farming methods liked caged hen farming and other forms of new animal farming that could be more scalable in Africa than Europe or the USA due to lower costs and more room to grow.
However, we don’t expect AWF will deliver most impact by focusing on reducing meat consumption in Africa specifically. There are other sources of funding specifically focused on that work and other promising opportunities that others won’t support that we think AWF should prioritize. Furthermore, we haven’t identified tractable, cost-effective opportunities to reduce the growth of factory farming in general, and that’s why we focus on particular practices and efforts that affect welfare of animals trapped in the system.


 


 

Fai @ 2025-11-26T04:06 (+3)

Thanks for sharing! I have a follow up question:

This is why we are intentionally spending more of our effort looking for opportunities in Africa to prevent and roll back intensive farming methods liked caged hen farming

Is the rise of caged broiler systems also under your radar? That includes its rise in China (where this system started), Asia, and Africa.

Neil_Dullaghan🔹 @ 2025-11-26T11:52 (+4)

Yes it's on our radar, partly thanks to you!

Part of AWF's resources will be allocated to uncovering new areas (new in terms of currently not receiving a lot of attention and resources from the movement) where opportunities might offer the same or larger counterfactual impact as existing areas. Caged broiler farming is an idea that will be considered as part of our process for shortlisting "new areas" to explore and actively support, in collaboration with the animal advocacy community. If anyone wants to work on this issue, we're very happy to learn more from them. 

Joey Bream🔸 @ 2025-11-27T13:51 (+1)

Very clearly laid out, well done both!