FWI Identifies and implements welfare improvements for farmed fish in priority contexts, particularly India.
Above: An FWI staff member collects a water quality measurement at one of the farms in FWI’s farm program in Andhra Pradesh, India.
According to FWI, an estimated 73–180 billion fish are farmed for food each year, and fish farming (or “aquaculture”) is the fastest-growing food sector in the world. Farmed fish are often raised in poor conditions, with overcrowding, poor water quality, and slaughter via asphyxiation common causes of suffering to these animals.
Along with direct benefits to the fish themselves, better welfare could lead to improvements for industry, the health of society, and the environment.
Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) reduces the suffering of farmed fish by researching and executing welfare interventions. It primarily works in countries in Asia, a region it has identified as particularly high-priority.
India is FWI’s main country of operation, and there it conducts the following work:
FWI has also completed smaller projects in China and the Philippines.
In addition to the direct benefits of the above work, FWI believes it has had significant impacts in other, harder-to-measure ways:
As of November 2024, FWI estimates that it has improved the lives of about 2.2 million fishes. It also believes that, with its ongoings investments in R&D, the vast majority of its impact lies in its future programming.
For more information about the value and the pros and cons of a donation to FWI, see its website's donation page or this 2023 EA Forum post.
The impact-focused evaluator Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) conducted a review of FWI's work, in which they recommended FWI as a Standout Charity. They have since removed FWI from their list of recommendations, but stated: "Our opinion is not that FWI’s work is less effective now than when ACE first decided to recommend them in 2022. In fact, we think their work has become more promising since then, but our bar for recommendation has changed as our evaluation methods have evolved."
Additionally, we looked into ACE as part of our evaluator investigations, and decided to not currently rely on their charity recommendations. (We did choose to rely on their Movement Grants program, but this is separate from their recommended charities.) We still expect choosing ACE recommended programs to be significantly more impactful than choosing animal welfare programs without an impact-focused evaluation behind them, and we remain open to (some of) ACE's recommendations being among the most cost-effective donation opportunities in animal welfare.