Executive summary: This exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of Anima International’s animal advocacy programs in Poland finds that several interventions—particularly the “Stop the Farms” campaign and cage-free reforms—appear highly cost-effective in reducing farmed animal suffering, though the results are highly uncertain due to reliance on subjective estimates, especially around years of impact, pain intensity, and counterfactual scenarios.
Key points:
All programs analyzed were estimated to help multiple animals per dollar spent, with “Stop the Farms” and broiler reforms showing particularly high cost-effectiveness under certain metrics, though future estimates are more speculative than past ones.
Two welfare metrics—DCDE (Disabling Chicken Day Equivalent) and SAD (Suffering-Adjusted Days)—produce different rankings of interventions, revealing that cost-effectiveness assessments hinge on how different pain intensities are weighted; cage-free reforms appear far more effective under SADs, while broiler reforms dominate under DCDEs.
Uncertainty is a central theme throughout the analysis, with many inputs based on the intuitions of campaign staff, subjective probabilities (e.g., chances of policy success), and debatable pain intensity weightings derived from small informal surveys.
Some interventions might have counterproductive effects, such as displacing animal farming to countries with lower welfare standards or increasing wild animal suffering via reduced animal agriculture.
Despite uncertainty, Anima International’s programs compare favorably to those evaluated by ACE and AIM, especially under the SAD metric, suggesting they may be a strong candidate for funding—especially for donors comfortable with hits-based giving.
The author introduces a novel method for estimating ‘years of impact’ and pain conversion metrics, but emphasizes that further research is needed to validate these approaches and develop more objective frameworks for animal welfare cost-effectiveness analysis.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of Anima International’s animal advocacy programs in Poland finds that several interventions—particularly the “Stop the Farms” campaign and cage-free reforms—appear highly cost-effective in reducing farmed animal suffering, though the results are highly uncertain due to reliance on subjective estimates, especially around years of impact, pain intensity, and counterfactual scenarios.
Key points:
All programs analyzed were estimated to help multiple animals per dollar spent, with “Stop the Farms” and broiler reforms showing particularly high cost-effectiveness under certain metrics, though future estimates are more speculative than past ones.
Two welfare metrics—DCDE (Disabling Chicken Day Equivalent) and SAD (Suffering-Adjusted Days)—produce different rankings of interventions, revealing that cost-effectiveness assessments hinge on how different pain intensities are weighted; cage-free reforms appear far more effective under SADs, while broiler reforms dominate under DCDEs.
Uncertainty is a central theme throughout the analysis, with many inputs based on the intuitions of campaign staff, subjective probabilities (e.g., chances of policy success), and debatable pain intensity weightings derived from small informal surveys.
Some interventions might have counterproductive effects, such as displacing animal farming to countries with lower welfare standards or increasing wild animal suffering via reduced animal agriculture.
Despite uncertainty, Anima International’s programs compare favorably to those evaluated by ACE and AIM, especially under the SAD metric, suggesting they may be a strong candidate for funding—especially for donors comfortable with hits-based giving.
The author introduces a novel method for estimating ‘years of impact’ and pain conversion metrics, but emphasizes that further research is needed to validate these approaches and develop more objective frameworks for animal welfare cost-effectiveness analysis.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.