What I learned from a week in the EU policy bubble

By Joris 🔸 @ 2025-03-30T20:52 (+131)

Last week, I participated in Animal Advocacy Careers’ Impactful Policy Careers programme. Below I’m 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 it’s not a super polished draft). I’ll 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 it’s 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

On EU careers – EA specific

Some miscellaneous notes


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:

  1. The number of high-impact nonprofit roles is limited, meaning there aren’t enough opportunities to absorb the existing talent pool.
  2. The roles where we see the greatest potential for heavy-tailed impact, such as fundraising, leadership, founding charities, and campaigning, aren’t necessarily the right fit for every talented, mission-aligned individual. Some may have greater potential for impact in roles outside the nonprofit space.
  3. 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 Grilo🔸 @ 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:

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 Grilo🔸 @ 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 they’re comfortable working outside a like-minded community and have the resilience to avoid value drift. That’s no small ask, but for the right person, it can be highly effective.

However, I’d 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 don’t 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 you’re 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:

Joris 🔸 @ 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 it’s important to remember these are Joris’ takeaways for his career path 🙂 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 didn’t 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 ☺️

Joris 🔸 @ 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 Grilo🔸 @ 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 “newer” policy areas within the EU, and the same opportunities don’t exist in animal welfare-related roles.

I agree.

  • Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didn’t 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 🔹 @ 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 reflections—especially on EU careers!