What I learned from a week in the EU policy bubble
By Joris đ¸ @ 2025-03-30T20:52 (+131)
Last week, I participated in Animal Advocacy Careersâ Impactful Policy Careers programme. Below Iâm sharing some reflections on what was a really interesting week in Brussels!
Please note I spent just one week there, so take it all with a grain of (CAP-subsidized) salt. Posts like this and this one are probably much more informative (and assume less context). I mainly wrote this to reflect on my time in Brussels (and I capped it at 2 hours, so itâs not a super polished draft). Iâll focus mostly on EU careers generally, less on (EU) animal welfare-related careers.
Before I jump in, just a quick note about how I think AAC did something really cool here: they identified a relatively underexplored area where itâs relatively easy for animal advocates to find impactful roles, and then designed a programme to help these people better understand that area, meet stakeholders, and learn how to find roles. I also think the participants developed meaningful bonds, which could prove valuable over time. Thank you to the AAC team for hosting this!
On EU careers generally
- The EU has a surprisingly big influence over its citizens and the wider world for how neglected it came across to me. Thereâs many areas where countries have basically given a bunch (if not all) of their decision making power to the EU. And despite that, the EU policy making / politics bubble comes across as relatively neglected, with relatively little media coverage and a relatively small bureaucracy.
- Thereâs quite a lot of pathways into the Brussels bubble, but all have different ToCs, demand different skill sets, and prefer different backgrounds. Dissecting these is hard, and time-intensive
- For context, I have always been interested in âa career in policy/politicsâ â I now realize thatâs kind of ridiculously broad. Iâm happy to have gained some clarity on the differences between roles in Parliament, work at the Commission, the Council, lobbying, consultancy work, and think tanks.
- The absorbency is super high, especially at the Commission, and many people can probably find a way to flourish and be impactful in Brussels (though it might take some time)
- Itâs hard to get the specific role you want, especially early in your career
- But by being very intentional and leveraging your network strategically, you can get a long way. I hate that this is how it works, but itâs so true. If youâre trying to enter the bubble, check your LinkedIn to see who in the bubble you know, and ask them for help!
On EU careers â EA specific
- Firstly, thereâs a small yet supportive network of aligned EA folks that were incredibly friendly and willing to help
- They give sometimes niche but very valuable advice, such as about this specific exam that you need to pass to be invited for many roles at the Commission:
- The exam is quite easy to pass, but itâs difficult to get invited to take it. However, as a lot of roles at the Commission require the exact same exam, consider applying to lots of roles even if you wouldnât take them, just to get invited to the exam. Youâll be a lot more hireable (for the roles you actually want) after.
- They give sometimes niche but very valuable advice, such as about this specific exam that you need to pass to be invited for many roles at the Commission:
- I arrived thinking that important topics (specifically in politics, Iâm not sure to what extent this applies to other work) would be âcoveredâ by semi-aligned folk (e.g. âGreen politicians are doing a good job already, thereâs little marginal impact to be had thereâ). That in turn made me think that taking strategic angles on topics tangentially related to what we want (e.g. working on trade instead of live animal transport, working on the CAP instead of slaughterhouse conditions) or working with less progressive parties would be a more fruitful approach, as you could maybe insert animal-relevant points there instead of replacing people already doing good work.
- But it turns out that the most important (animal) topics are covered by people who donât seem scope sensitive and seem at least somewhat unwilling to think in terms of trade-offs. For example, I was (maybe naively!) surprised to learn that one of the leading MEPs on animal welfare didnât know about the small body problem and didnât seem to have thought much about whether insects could suffer. As such, I think thereâd be a lot of scope for people to join âalignedâ politicians as parliamentary assistants (assuming theyâd be a good fit) and push strategic agendas.
- In general Iâm pretty excited about the impact potential of APAs (weirdly pronounced âahpahâ instead of âa-p-aâ). One lobbyist said âitâs insane, the power in the hands of 24 year oldsâ, while someone at the Commission complained that âa 200-page report that an expert at the Commission worked on for two years is at equal footing with what an MEP [plausibly with support of their APAs] came up with in a few daysâ
- One friend commented on my draft for this post: âyes, and what about becoming an MEP instead of APA, a bit harder but not impossible (â join a political party)â
- (Commission-specific) Some of the somewhat abstract career strategizing / optimizing I was doing is less relevant if itâs so hard to get in. One approach that was advised is to âget in, then reshuffleâ
- Shuffling around seems common at the Commission. That also means that itâs not impossible for someone with a background in biology to switch to full-time work on AI after just two years at the Commission. I donât think thatâd be a very plausible path in industry or at NGOs!
Some miscellaneous notes
- This was the first time that I really felt that my career plans are subject to my AI timelines â I concluded that building career capital at the Commission for (a hyperbolic) 20 years before switching to a role with real impact wouldnât work for me
- Being part of a structured program is great and probably much better than just trying to arrange your own visit. You get access to lots of experts, but still have the flexibility to dip out and meet people independently.
- So consider applying to the next round of the Impactful Policy Careers accelerator. Thereâs also the Talos Fellowship, focused on EU AI policy (applications are now open)
- If youâre interested in joining the Commission, reach out to your countryâs permanent representation in Brussels. Most of them have staff dedicated to helping nationals get into EU institutions
- If youâre trying to passively learn more about the EU bubble, subscribe to the Brussels Playbook newsletter by Politico
- And if youâre interested in EU careers, get in touch with EAs in Brussels!
lauren_mee @ 2025-03-31T15:57 (+15)
Thanks for writing this up, Joris! :)
One of the areas AAC is most excited to further develop is support for individuals who want to pursue impactful careers for animals outside of the nonprofit sector and particularly in policy, an area that seems significantly neglected in animal advocacy career support.
There are three primary reasons for this focus:
- The number of high-impact nonprofit roles is limited, meaning there arenât enough opportunities to absorb the existing talent pool.
- The roles where we see the greatest potential for heavy-tailed impact, such as fundraising, leadership, founding charities, and campaigning, arenât necessarily the right fit for every talented, mission-aligned individual. Some may have greater potential for impact in roles outside the nonprofit space.
- Policy change is a critical area that can have the most significant and lasting improvements for animals, and having dedicated advocates working within these structures, if they are a good fit, seems absolutely crucial to accelerating change for animals. Our research also identified it can additionally be hugely beneficial for the non profits working on lobbying for change from the outside.
That said, we still have a high degree of uncertainty about how to assess the impact of an individual in these adjacent roles compared to nonprofit positions. We feel more confident about policy roles, given past success stories within AAC and the broader EA community, as well as the career capital the roles can build for those working within the system. This year, a key focus for AAC will be deepening our understanding of the impact potential in these adjacent career paths, particularly within policy.
Vasco Grilođ¸ @ 2025-03-31T12:07 (+10)
Thanks for sharing, Joris! I also really liked the program. I can hardly imagine something better for people interested in helping animals working in EU's institutions.
Based on what I learned in the program, and my background beliefs, I guess:
- For over 90 % of the positions in the Commission, donating 10 % of one's net income to the Shrimp Welfare Project would imply over 90 % of one's impact coming from those donations. Relatedly, I think donating more and better is the best strategy to maximise impact for the vast majority of people working in impact-focussed organisations.
- The direct (expected counterfactual) impact of working in a random role in Animal Charity Evaluators' (ACE's) recommended charities is larger than that of a random APA, and this is larger than that of a random role in the Commision.
lauren_mee @ 2025-03-31T12:31 (+22)
I disagree quite strongly with this! But I think as discussed during this week it is because you have the need for greater certainty over direct impact and policy in general has a much messier theory of change and over a longer time period.
I also think this missed the point entirely of personal fit, which as a multiplier for every person's impact should be heavily weighted. It is unlikely that the people who were selected for the programme would get a random role at an ACE recommended charity at this current point, in fact many have tried and not succeeded.
Therefore offering them opportunities for potential impact and career capital through this programme should be compared against no role in the movement at all, not another hypothetical role at an ACE recommended charity.
Vasco Grilođ¸ @ 2025-03-31T13:50 (+2)
Thanks for sharing your views, Lauren!
I disagree quite strongly with this!
I find it hard to be confident considering the lack of detailed quantitative analyses about the counterfactual impact of policy roles.
But I think as discussed during this week it is because you have the need for greater certainty over direct impact and policy in general is a much messier theory of change.
My guesses above refer to the expected counterfactual impact of the roles. They are supposed to be risk neutral with respect to maximising expected total hedonistic welfare, which I strongly endorse. I most likely act as if I prefer averting 1 h of disabling pain with certainty over decreasing by 10^-100 the chance of 10^100 h of disabling pain, but still recognise 1 h of disabling is averted in expectation in both scenarios, and therefore think both scenarios are equally good.
I also think this missed the point entirely of personal fit which is a multiplier for every persons impact.
My guesses are about the impact of people in the roles, who have to be a good fit. Otherwise, they would not have been selected.
Therefore offering them opportunities for potential impact and career capital should be compared against no role in the movement at all, not another hypothetical role
I would also consider working outside animal welfare to earn more, and therefore donate more to the best animal welfare organisations. I think this may well be more impactful than working in impact-focussed animal welfare organisations.
lauren_mee @ 2025-03-31T15:38 (+9)
Thanks, Vasco!
I completely agree that for many people, earning more in another sector and donating to the most effective animal welfare organizations could be the most impactful path - especially if theyâre comfortable working outside a like-minded community and have the resilience to avoid value drift. Thatâs no small ask, but for the right person, it can be highly effective.
However, Iâd push back on this part:
"The direct (expected counterfactual) impact of working in a random role in Animal Charity Evaluators' (ACE's) recommended charities is larger than that of a random APA, and this is larger than that of a random role in the Commission."
One of the key reasons we ran this program is the very limited number of roles in high-impact nonprofits. Additionally, unless someone is in one of the hardest-to-hire-for positions, such as fundraising, leadership, founding a nonprofit, or campaigning, they are often more replaceable in these roles than they would be in an APA position and their impact is limited only to the difference between their skills and the next best candidate which for many roles is not that much. Additionally, most participants in our program donât have the specific skill set for those high-impact roles but to to excel in a policy role inside the system, which is a very important consideration.
I suspect the crux of the disagreement might be a skepticism about the potential impact of working within the system, which I'd love to discuss further. But to be fair, I also think the counterfactual impact of working in a "random role" at an ACE-recommended charity is much harder to quantify than youâre assuming.
Jan-Willem @ 2025-03-31T09:22 (+10)
Thanks for the write-up, Joris!
I think I agree with most of your observations. A few remarks:
- I've heard of several people under 30 who have had a relatively large influence on AI and biorisk policy within the European Commission. Perhaps this is because these are ânewerâ policy areas within the EU, and the same opportunities donât exist in animal welfare-related roles.
- Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didnât mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?
- Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?
Joris đ¸ @ 2025-03-31T09:36 (+7)
Thanks, those are helpful thoughts! Just to clarify: my excitement about APA roles shouldn't be read to mean that I think other roles are likely less impactful. It's super hard to assess it from the outside!
- That hypothesis for the Commission could most certaintly be true. We talked to three EA-aligned folks in the Commission and I think all three of them had pretty different experiences, from "I don't think I've had any impact in my two years at the Commission" to someone who thought he'd influenced quite some things positively (I hope I'm not misrepresenting them)
- For think tank / NGO work specifically, I annoyingly got food poisining on the day where we had various experts from NGOs visit, so was unable to take their perspectives into account. I know some other people who were in the program are reading this - maybe they can share some thoughts on this!
- I'm pretty unsure about impact via Council or member states. I also didn't get much clarity on secondments. We didn't discuss them much because the process to be sent to Brussels by a member state is different in every country
lauren_mee @ 2025-03-31T12:24 (+8)
I think itâs important to remember these are Jorisâ takeaways for his career path đ I think many others from the programme declared they are excited to work in the European Commission and will follow this path
<<Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didnât mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?>>
Just on this point the recommendation from our research and also from the SMEs were that 1) it was much more neglected and less replaceable to have someone working inside the system than an extra person applying for an NGO or think tank 2) people are much more likely to be more valuable to think tanks and NGOs after being in the system for a few years and building connections and understanding of how the system works 3) most NGOs are looking for people with experience from inside the system for their lobbying roles because of 2)
Of course this depends on relative fit for working inside the system but all else equal it seems one can add more value to the movement working inside first.
<<Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?>>
There are definitely people from the programme who were sceptical about the value of this before and left feeling much more clear that these paths were their best path to impact in future âşď¸
Joris đ¸ @ 2025-03-31T13:08 (+5)
Thanks for providing a bit of context on the ToC of the program / the case for working 'inside the system'! Sorry I didn't represent that as clearly in the post
Vasco Grilođ¸ @ 2025-03-31T12:20 (+4)
Thanks for the remarks, Jan. I also participated in the program.
- I've heard of several people under 30 who have had a relatively large influence on AI and biorisk policy within the European Commission. Perhaps this is because these are ânewerâ policy areas within the EU, and the same opportunities donât exist in animal welfare-related roles.
I agree.
- Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didnât mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?
Here are some related guesses.
Mihkel Viires đš @ 2025-04-09T18:44 (+3)
Good and highly valuable post, thanks for sharing your experience!
As an European, it does indeed feel like the EU and its institutions do not receive enough media coverage & public attention, compared to its impact and importance. Consider how few movies and TV series feature the EU's institutions as the setting where they take place, compared to say the UK or US. (For those looking for a good TV series about the EU, I recommend Parlement.)
marlon01 @ 2025-04-10T02:13 (+1)
Brussels is such a key hub for policy work. Love how AAC is spotlighting high-impact career paths. Excited to hear your reflectionsâespecially on EU careers!