What I learned from a week in the EU policy bubble

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 aren’t 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, 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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I suspect the crux of the disagreement might be a skepticism about the potential impact of working within the system

I believe there are positions within the system which are more impactful than a random one in ACE's recommended charities. However, I think those are quite senior, and therefore super hard to get, especially for people wanting to go against the system in the sense of prioritising animal welfare much more.

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.

I guess this also applies to junior positions within the system, whose freedom would be determined to a significant extent by people in senior positions.

David T

I guess this also applies to junior positions within the system, whose freedom would be determined to a significant extent by people in senior positions

The obvious difference is that an alternative candidate for a junior position in a shrimp welfare organization is likely to be equally concerned about shrimp welfare. An alternative candidate for a junior person in an MEP's office or DG Mare is not, hence the difference at the margin is (if non-zero) likely much greater. And a junior person progressing in their career may end up with direct policy responsibility for their areas of interest, whereas a person who remains a lobbyist will never have this. It even seems non-obvious that even a senior lobbyist will have more impact on policymakers than their more junior adviser or research assistant, though as you say it does depend on whether the junior adviser has the freedom to highlight issues of concern.

Thanks, David.

The obvious difference is that an alternative candidate for a junior position in a shrimp welfare organization is likely to be equally concerned about shrimp welfare.

I understand this. However, the key is the difference in impact, not in concern about animals. I agree people completing the program care much more about animals than a random person in a junior position in EU's institutions, but my impression is that there is limited room for the greater care to translate into helping animals in junior positions. The Commission has 32 k people, whereas the largest organisation recommended by ACE, The Humane League (THL), has 136, so hierarchy matters much more in the former.

And a junior person progressing in their career may end up with direct policy responsibility for their areas of interest, whereas a person who remains a lobbyist will never have this. It even seems non-obvious that even a senior lobbyist will have more impact on policymakers than their more junior adviser or research assistant, though as you say it does depend on whether the junior adviser has the freedom to highlight issues of concern.

Makes sense. On the other hand, a lobbyist can interact with more policymakers than an APA. I do not know whether a lobbyist is more or less impactful than an APA. I think it depends on the specifics.

Thanks Vasco – I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I think there are a few different things getting a bit mixed together here, so I’d love to tease them apart and explain where I still see things differently.

You mentioned that the key is the difference in impact, not concern about animals. But I’d argue that this concern does in fact translate to impact, especially when we’re thinking in terms of counterfactuals and replaceability. For example, if someone applies for a role at SWP, their counterfactual impact is likely just the difference between them and the next-best candidate—who is almost certainly also deeply concerned about shrimp welfare. But in an EC role, the counterfactual is likely that the position goes to someone who wouldn’t raise animal issues at all. So the marginal impact is potentially much greater, even in junior positions.

We’ve already seen specific examples, particularly in the UK, where junior staff inside government have been able to push for progress on animal welfare that would never have happened through lobbying alone. These aren’t abstract hypotheticals. Another specific i found out yesterday, someone was able to pass something through their local gov that led to 400 million animals being spared that wasn't even on the radar before they entered. It seems extremely unlikely that this kind of leverage and counterfactual would be the case for the best vs. next best candidate in an NGO.

2. Hierarchy matters, but so does initiative, positioning, and timing.

Yes, the Commission is large and hierarchical. But so is almost every institution with leverage over major policy. What we’ve seen that once someone is in, they can navigate toward departments and roles where they’re better positioned to influence change. That’s part of what this program is about: helping people enter the system with the long game in mind.

It’s not a passive process—it requires individuals to actively find their leverage points and pockets of influence. A lot depends on the individual’s initiative and ability to spot opportunities—but that’s true in any sector, whether in NGOs or in policy. I would say though if that doesnt appeal its a sign working in civil service is not a good fit.

You noted that lobbyists can reach many policymakers, which is true. But that doesn’t mean they’re more impactful than internal actors—it’s highly dependent on context. And critically, lobbyists themselves will tell you (and did on our programme) that what they need most are credible insiders who understand the system, have networks, and can champion ideas from within.

3. External lobbying vs. insider influence is a false binary.

We often hear people argue for becoming a lobbyist instead of going into the system. But I think this skips a vital step: the most effective lobbyists often were insiders first. Without that institutional knowledge, they lack the credibility and relational capital that drives real traction on issues that aren’t already politically salient—like shrimp welfare, for example.

So to me, the idea that someone without any government experience should just jump into policy advocacy seems less plausible than a pathway that starts inside the system, builds knowledge, and later leverages that from a lobbying or NGO position if that’s where personal fit leads.

So overall, I’d say the value of this programme comes not from comparing against some hypothetical “random” NGO role, but from offering people a realistic path into a system that’s historically been quite closed off to animal advocates and an opportunity to build essential career capital to be a more effective advocate in the future.

Thanks for the great clarifications, Lauren! Strongly upvoted.

Another specific i found out yesterday, someone was able to pass something through their local gov that led to 400 million animals being spared that wasn't even on the radar before they entered. It seems extremely unlikely that this kind of leverage and counterfactual would be the case for the best vs. next best candidate in an NGO.

Interesting example! I would be interested to know more, but I understand it may be sensible information to share publicly. I think one can help 400 M shrimp donating 26.7 k$ (= 400*10^6/(15*10^3)) to the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP). So, if your example was representative of the impact of a career in policy inside the system, and the impact per animal helped in your example matched that of SWP (which I estimated to be 0.0426 DALYs averted), maximising donations could still be better. For a career of 40 years, one would only need to donate 668 $ (= 26.7*10^3/40) more to SWP per year relative to the career in policy inside the system.

Will reply properly later

Jan-Willem

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 “newer” policy areas within the EU, and the same opportunities don’t exist in animal welfare-related roles.
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?
Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?

Joris 🔸

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

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 🔸

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

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 🔹