2022 Effective Animal Advocacy Forum Survey: Results and analysis

Introduction

In September 2022, the Effective Animal Advocacy (EAA) Coordination Forum (now titled the Animal Advocacy Strategy Forum) was held with the purpose of bringing together key decision-makers in the animal advocacy community to connect, coordinate, and strategize. The attendees represented approximately 20 key groups in the effective animal advocacy space.

At the end of the forum, 25 participants filled out a survey that sought to better understand the future needs of effective animal advocacy groups and the perceptions of animal advocates about the most important areas to focus on in the future. This report analyzes the results of that survey.

Key Takeaways

On average, respondents to the EAA Survey believe that:

• The largest share (29%) of effective animal advocacy resources should be spent in Asia and the Pacific, followed by Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (26%).
• Farmed fish and farmed invertebrates received the highest allocations of resources among respondents (16.5% and 17.1%, respectively), shortly followed by egg-laying hens and broiler chickens (12.8% and 13.1%, respectively).
• The plurality of resources should be spent targeting businesses (34%), followed by government institutions (28%).
• There’s about a 60% chance that an area that should receive over 20% of the EAA funding currently receives less than 5% of it.

In addition, a plurality of respondents believes that:

• EAA needs more people who are experts on the developing world/populous-yet-neglected countries (17/25 votes), government and policy (16/25), and/or figuring out what matters most and setting priorities (13/25).
• Their EAA organization is sometimes (9/25 votes) or often (10/25) funding-constrained and it is sometimes hard (11/25) to find outstanding candidates for roles.

When asked about issues facing the effective animal advocacy movement:

• The lack of a strong evidence base (11/25 votes) and ability to appeal to the people most able to contribute to EAA cause areas (10/25) were the most commonly cited problems for EAA.
• Epistemic uncertainty regarding interventions (10/25 votes) and a lack of influence over the public, donors, and others with power (10/25) were generally cited as the most pressing problems in EAA.

Resource Allocation Questions

In the first portion of the EAA survey, respondents were asked to use sliding scales to allocate the optimal proportion of effective animal advocacy resources across regions, animal types, and target audiences. Specifically, respondents were asked to consider the question:

“What percentage of resources should the EAA community devote to the following [regions/animals/audiences] over the next five years? Think of the resources of the community as something like some fraction of Open Phil's funding, possible donations from other large donors, and the human capital and influence of the ~1000 most engaged people.”

The following three questions summarize their approximate optimal resource allocations.

Allocation by Region

Overall, the respondents prioritized Asia and the Pacific and Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as the regions of top priority for spending EAA resources over the next five years. Specifically, the average allocation to Asia and the Pacific was 29.2% and the mean allocation to Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand was 26%. Respondents were more divided on the relative importance of the “Western” countries, as the standard deviation was 13% for such countries compared to a standard deviation of just 8.4% for Asia and the Pacific.

The average allocations to all other regions were at or below 15%. Table 1 and Fig. 1 show the summary statistics for respondents' optimal allocations by region.

Table 1: Summary Statistics - Optimal EAA resource allocation by region

Region	Mean allocation, percent (Std. dev.)
W. Europe, US, Can., Aus., N.Z. (WE/NA/Aus/NZ)	26.0 (13)
Latin America and the Caribbean (LA)	15.2 (6.7)
North Africa and the Middle East (NA/ME)	9.6 (5.6)
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)	8.7 (6.6)
E. Europe (EE)	11.3 (5.6)
Asia and the Pacific (A/P)	29.2 (8.2)

Figure 1: Boxplot - Optimal allocation of EAA resources by region¹

Allocation of Resources by Animal Type

The two animal types that respondents chose to allocate the most resources to were farmed fish and farmed invertebrates, whose mean allocations were 16.5% and 17.1% of resources, respectively. Egg-laying chickens and broiler chickens received mean allocations of around 13% each. Other animal types’ mean responses were below 10% of allocated resources. Farmed mammals received the least resources.

Table 2 and Fig. 2 show the summary statistics for respondents' optimal allocations by animal type.

Table 2: Summary Statistics - Optimal allocation of resources by animal type

Animal (label in boxplot)	Mean allocation, percent (Std. dev.)
Farmed cows (cows)	3.5 (4.7)
Farmed pigs (pigs)	5.6 (4.7)
Other farmed mammals (O/M)	3.3 (3.7)
Egg-laying chickens (Egg hens)	12.8 (10)
Broiler chickens (Broiler)	13.1 (9.1)
Other farmed birds (O/B)	2.4 (2.8)
Farmed fish (Fish-F)	16.5 (7.7)
Farmed invertebrates (Inv-F)	17.1 (10.2)
Wild-caught fish (Fish-WC)	9.8 (6.5)
Wild-caught invertebrates (Inv-WC)	9.0 (9.8)
Other wild animals (WAW)	6.7 (6.5)

Figure 2: Boxplot – Optimal allocation of resources by animal type

Allocation of Resources by Target Audience

On average, respondents allocated about 34% of resources to targeting businesses and 28% of resources to targeting governments. Movement building and targeting public opinion were less popular, but not overwhelmingly so–they received 20% and 17% of resources on average, respectively.

Table 3 and Fig. 3 show the summary statistics for respondents' optimal allocations by target audience.

Table 3: Summary Statistics – Optimal allocation of resources by target audience

Target Audience	Mean allocation, percent (Std. dev.)
Government	28.4 (9.9)
Business	33.7 (11.8)
Public	17.2 (8.7)
Movement	20.6 (8.4)

Figure 3: Boxplot – Optimal allocation of resources by audience

Effective Animal Advocacy Constraints and Prioritization Questions

Skills Needed by Effective Animal Advocates over the Next Five Years

Respondents were asked, “What types of talent do you currently think EAA as a whole will need more of over the next 5 years?” and could choose up to six options.

The top three skills/talent pools that respondents estimate will be needed by EAA over the next five years are:

1. Experts on the developing world or specific neglected but populous countries (17/25 votes)
2. Government and policy and/or lobbying experts (16/25 votes)
3. The ability to really figure out what matters most and set the right priorities (13/25 votes)

Other popular responses (but which were not mentioned by a majority of respondents) included skills related to management (12 votes), economics and social sciences (11 votes), and entrepreneurship/founding new organizations (10 votes).

The skills, topics, and qualities that were given between 4 and 7 votes each were:

• Personal background and experience that differ from those of existing members/staff (7 votes)
• Biology, ecology, or other expertise related to wild animal welfare (7 votes)
• Fundraising (7 votes)
• Movement building (6 votes)
• Alt-protein technical expertise (6 votes)
• Forecasting ability (5 votes)
• General operations (5 votes)
• One-on-one social skills and emotional intelligence (4 votes)
• Campaigning (4 votes)

Finally, the skills, topics, and qualities that received three or fewer votes were:

• Communications (other than marketing and movement building) (3 votes)
• Marketing and outreach (2 votes)
• Generalist researchers (2 votes)
• High level of knowledge and enthusiasm about effective altruism (2 votes)
• Broad general knowledge about many topics (1 vote)
• Philosophers (1 vote)

Additionally, three respondents chose “Other” and listed the following skill gaps:

• “Political organizing/working with political staff and campaigns”
• “People with experience in the industries we are targeting”
• “People with investment mobilization expertise and people with highly specialized skillsets, like consultants in highly niche areas”

Likelihood of Neglecting Important Areas

Respondents were next asked, “What do you estimate is the probability (in %) that there exists an area which ought to receive over 20% of EAA Resources (time, money, etc.), but currently receives little attention (i.e., less than 5% of resources)?”

The median response was that there is a 60% chance of an important area being neglected, with an interquartile range between 30 and 75%.

As seen in Figure 4, the plurality of respondents (7 of 25) said it was somewhat likely (between 60 and 80%)² that EAA is neglecting an important cause area, and six believed there was an 80% to 100% chance that an area is neglected. Nevertheless, five respondents believed that the probability of an area being neglected was between 40% and 60%, five believed it was between 20% and 40%, and two believed it was between 0% and 20%.

Figure 4: Probability of an important area being neglected

Funding Constraints

When asked, “Overall, how funding-constrained is your organization?” the plurality of respondents (10) said that funding their organization is “often a practical limiting factor." This was followed closely by the nine respondents who say that funding is sometimes a practical limiting factor.

Only four respondents say their organization is always funding-constrained, and two say it is never funding-constrained.

Talent Constraints

Next, respondents were asked, “Overall, how talent-constrained is your organization?”

The plurality of respondents (11) says that it is somewhat hard to find outstanding candidates.

Six say that they could hire some outstanding candidates if they chose that route, and three say they could hire many outstanding candidates. However, five say it is quite hard to find outstanding candidates.

Most significant problems characterizing EAA

Respondents were asked to choose up to three issues that they feel are “most significant” from a list of “specific problems characterizing EAA or EAA organizations that people sometimes mention.” If respondents chose “Other,” they were invited to specify.

The top two problems that respondents believe characterize EAA or EAA organizations are:

1. A generally lacking evidence base (11 votes)
2. The area doesn’t sufficiently appeal to a significant portion of the people most able to contribute to our cause area (10 votes)

Between five and seven respondents listed the following problems as highly significant:

1. [EAA is] too inward-looking (7 votes)
2. [EAA] lacks people with the skills that are most crucial to progress in our cause area (6 votes)
3. Breakdown in coordination, possibly caused by growth (6 votes)
4. Lack of demographic diversity (5 votes)
5. Too elitist (5 votes)
6. Lack of vetting capacity to evaluate new organizations and interventions (5 votes)

All other possible problems received three or fewer votes. These included:

• Lack of opportunities for moderate involvement/participation
• Lack of mentorship and training for new members
• Not professional enough/too much blending of social and professional interactions
• Risk of major PR problems
• Too morally demanding and/or focused on self-sacrifice
• People in the community are too often obnoxious, rude, and/or socially awkward/inappropriate

Additionally, three people answered “Other,” and said that the following are the most significant problems:

• “I often get the feedback that EAA is too focused on DEIJ and not enough on impact on animals (e.g. ACE)”
• “Lack of people with management experience, lack of management training, lack of people with real world (non-nonprofit work) experience, too much of a focus on theory and not practicality, not enough focus on systems change and how that happens, lack of willingness to open minds to different approaches which cannot be proved easily through evidence”
• “Movement is very US-oriented, lack of understanding of different cultural aspects”

Most Pressing Problems Facing EAA Currently

Finally, respondents were asked to respond to the question “What do you think is the most pressing problem facing the EAA community right now?”

Categorized broadly, ten respondents listed movement capacities as the most pressing problem facing the EAA community, and ten listed epistemological problems/uncertainty about effective interventions as the most pressing. Eight listed personnel capacities, and five listed diversity issues as the most pressing issues (some respondents said multiple problems were most pressing).

The movement capacities that respondents think EAA lacks include: lack of organizing ability/public engagement, power, buy-in from potential funders, and cohesion both between EAA organizations and with other EA causes.

Regarding interventions and epistemology, respondents listed it as problematic that EAA doesn’t know much about the effectiveness of interventions other than corporate campaigns, and that there is a lack of funding for or interest in studying this problem further. In particular, respondents wanted to know more about the efficacy of interventions that target invertebrates, target China, are large in scale, and/or are difficult to quantify. One said there is not enough emphasis on truth-seeking in EAA.

The personnel capacities that respondents wish EAA members had in greater frequency include management skills, an understanding of human psychology, and real-world organizing experience. Recruitment issues were commonly mentioned.

Similarly, five respondents said that either lack of diversity broadly, or lack of geographic diversity specifically, was most important. One said that the movement is too purist/deontological compared to other effective altruist areas.

Acknowledgments

This report is a project of Rethink Priorities–a think tank dedicated to informing decisions made by high-impact organizations and funders across various cause areas. It was written by Laura Duffy. Thanks to William McAuliffe for helpful feedback and to Adam Papineau for copy-editing.

If you are interested in RP’s work, please visit our research database and subscribe to our newsletter.

Notes

---

1. The orange lines on the boxplots represent the median response, whereas the lower and upper edges of the box are the 25th- and 75th-percentile responses, respectively. The upper “whiskers” of the boxplot extend to the highest data point from the median which is also less than 1.5 times the interquartile range (the distance between the 75th and 25th percentile data points) from the 75th-percentile data point. The analogous situation applies to the lower whisker. All data points that fall further than 1.5 times the interquartile range from their nearest quartiles are considered outliers and are marked explicitly as circles.  ↩

2. That is, including 60% and excluding 80%. All of the following ranges, except for the 80% to 100% range (which includes both endpoints), include the lower bound and exclude the upper bound.  ↩