Nice idea! I'll share this with the Finnish EA community to ask if someone wants to volunteer. 

Thank you for continuing to share these! I likely would have donated less to the AWF if you didn't share public reports.

Did you see GWWC's 2025 strategy post? 

(1) I'm also a bit confused about the difference between charitable projects and hosted funds. First, I thought it means it's not possible to donate to funds via GWWC website, but after reading it again, I interpreted it as a change happening rather back-end and won't impact recommendations. Instead, it would be a change in the oversight GWWC promises for the funds. Have I understood it correctly?

I just found that Sebastian Schwiecker had written a blog post on the same topic.
Because of

 I was hoping there were good EA blog posts on this topic, but after spending a while with EA Forum search and Google I didn't find any.

... I'm leaving this link here :) https://effektiv-spenden.org/blog/wie-viel-soll-ich-spenden/

Congrats on making a brave strategic change! 

I'm wondering how you changed from Assiettes Végétales to Anima. Was it just a name change to better reflect the new strategy or a merger to Anima International (if it's also called that in non-profits)?

Fair enough! Thanks for sharing this perspective as well. I guess that a rights-based animal charity evaluator would focus more on making change through legislation and litigation, failing to notice other approaches to improve animal welfare. However, there could be something that the current approach of EA orgs is missing more easily, which the rights-based lens would include.

Thank you! Looks like what I was looking for :)

So, to summarize: 
- Some animal rights activists have impractical attitudes (for creating change effectively, such as not using non-violent communication) and alienating attitudes towards non-rights-based interventions to improve animal welfare. You find value in promoting other approaches than that.
- You find good arguments for welfarist tradition. 
- On the other hand, being against animal rights doesn't cling right and talking for animal rights can be a good shortcut. 
- You believe there is an overlap with welfarist and rights-based ethical theories that should be appreciated. 
Did I understand you right? 

Thanks for the response! I didn't first think of different moral value systems which obviously have an impact on how people view the issue of animal suffering and well-being. I still think a 'rights' mindset can be a valuable extension of utilitarianism, for implementing the change we want to happen on an institutional/legislative level to improve animal welfare. I also think it is easier to imagine personhood for non-human animals when using a rights-based approach. They are not just beings that events are happening to, but individuals for whom the ability to live a full life using their capabilities is instrumental for their well-being. And there talking about rights can be useful. That's how I'd quickly sum up how I think about it :)