Just commenting in the likelihood of a full-EU ban being low. FWIW I don't think it is currently more likely to happen than not, but I think you are underestimate the risk.
To block a regulation or legislation in the European Union under qualified majority voting rules, a "blocking minority" must be formed by at least four member states and represent more than 35% of the EU population.
Italy and Hungary have already banned cultivated meat. The Romanian Senate has also approved a ban (although I don't think it has been implemented). France and Austria have also called for moratoriums or greater regulation, and these countries could plausibly tip over into a ban. These five countries alone would lead to a ban at the EU level. Or if some other countries abstain rather than voting in favour of cultivated meat, it becomes even easier for fewer than these five countries to secure a ban.
Sorry I was out of the country without internet so only just getting back to this!
Of those eight grants, six received 100% of what they applied for. One organisation was partially funded because we collaborated with the Strategic Animal Funding Circle and they were excited to partially fund this organisation, otherwise we likely would have fully funded their grant. The final organisation we have been funding at the same level for a few years and weren't as excited about what they would do with additional funding compared to the other projects we were considering.
In general, our experience is that organisations that are seeking larger grants tend to apply to be evaluated by ACE, as the Recommended Charity Fund raises more money, so usually disburses larger grants and offers more stable funding. As we raise more funds for Movement Grants we might see orgs applying for larger amounts, as well as proactively encouraging applicants to think about what they would do with more funding.
We have started making improvements in our cost-effectiveness analyses, although we are constrained by a number of factors, namely limited team capacity, the volume of applications, the exploratory nature of applications, so I want to be honest in saying there is still room for improvement here.
Thanks for the questions, and do keep posting or email me if you have any other thoughts on how we can improve our grant making!
Draft amnesty equivalent of a comment (i.e. I haven't put much thought into it.) I really enjoyed this post and agreed with a lot of what is in there.
For context, I manage a modest sized grant portfolio in the animal welfare space and think a lot about these (that is, my) shortcomings.
As an example, I had a meeting with a grant recipient last week where they explained that one of their programs wasn't working out as planned. It was refreshing to hear this kind of honesty from a grant recipient because it is so rare.
Re experience outside of grant making, I have tended to volunteer as much as possible, but that is a limited substitute for all that you learn in paid campaigning.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has other ideas how to improve the problems Abraham describes here.
Thank you for this blog post and your clear explanation of why the suffering of wild animals matters too!
I run the Movement Grants program at Animal Charity Evaluators, and we are looking for more applications from individuals and organisations working to improve the lives of wild animals.
People reading this can let us know about their work by completing an Expression of Interest.
Unfortunately not, we disburse grants from late June and throughout July. This is because we award grants by comparing all of the applications we receive (typically ~200) against each other, rather than assessing applications one by one as they are submitted. This process takes several months to complete.
For the other recommended funds on the GWWC website, will you be evaluating the EA Infrastructure Fund, Founders Pledge Climate Fund, and the Founders Pledge Patient Philanthropy Fund? What will happen to their current recommended status in the meantime?
Also, did you evaluate GW's Top Charity Fund of All Grants Fund?
Just commenting in the likelihood of a full-EU ban being low. FWIW I don't think it is currently more likely to happen than not, but I think you are underestimate the risk.
To block a regulation or legislation in the European Union under qualified majority voting rules, a "blocking minority" must be formed by at least four member states and represent more than 35% of the EU population.
Italy and Hungary have already banned cultivated meat. The Romanian Senate has also approved a ban (although I don't think it has been implemented). France and Austria have also called for moratoriums or greater regulation, and these countries could plausibly tip over into a ban. These five countries alone would lead to a ban at the EU level. Or if some other countries abstain rather than voting in favour of cultivated meat, it becomes even easier for fewer than these five countries to secure a ban.
Hey Vasco,
Sorry I was out of the country without internet so only just getting back to this!
Of those eight grants, six received 100% of what they applied for. One organisation was partially funded because we collaborated with the Strategic Animal Funding Circle and they were excited to partially fund this organisation, otherwise we likely would have fully funded their grant. The final organisation we have been funding at the same level for a few years and weren't as excited about what they would do with additional funding compared to the other projects we were considering.
In general, our experience is that organisations that are seeking larger grants tend to apply to be evaluated by ACE, as the Recommended Charity Fund raises more money, so usually disburses larger grants and offers more stable funding. As we raise more funds for Movement Grants we might see orgs applying for larger amounts, as well as proactively encouraging applicants to think about what they would do with more funding.
We have started making improvements in our cost-effectiveness analyses, although we are constrained by a number of factors, namely limited team capacity, the volume of applications, the exploratory nature of applications, so I want to be honest in saying there is still room for improvement here.
Thanks for the questions, and do keep posting or email me if you have any other thoughts on how we can improve our grant making!
Draft amnesty equivalent of a comment (i.e. I haven't put much thought into it.) I really enjoyed this post and agreed with a lot of what is in there.
For context, I manage a modest sized grant portfolio in the animal welfare space and think a lot about these (that is, my) shortcomings.
As an example, I had a meeting with a grant recipient last week where they explained that one of their programs wasn't working out as planned. It was refreshing to hear this kind of honesty from a grant recipient because it is so rare.
Re experience outside of grant making, I have tended to volunteer as much as possible, but that is a limited substitute for all that you learn in paid campaigning.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has other ideas how to improve the problems Abraham describes here.
Thank you for this blog post and your clear explanation of why the suffering of wild animals matters too!
I run the Movement Grants program at Animal Charity Evaluators, and we are looking for more applications from individuals and organisations working to improve the lives of wild animals.
People reading this can let us know about their work by completing an Expression of Interest.
Unfortunately not, we disburse grants from late June and throughout July. This is because we award grants by comparing all of the applications we receive (typically ~200) against each other, rather than assessing applications one by one as they are submitted. This process takes several months to complete.
For the other recommended funds on the GWWC website, will you be evaluating the EA Infrastructure Fund, Founders Pledge Climate Fund, and the Founders Pledge Patient Philanthropy Fund? What will happen to their current recommended status in the meantime?
Also, did you evaluate GW's Top Charity Fund of All Grants Fund?