FAW BOTEC Template

	A	B	C	E
1	A FAW BOTEC Template to Accompany RP's Welfare Range Estimates
2
3	Species	Layers		Key
4	Reform	Battery cage to cage-free		Inputs
5	Welfare range estimate for species in question	10%	This cell takes our estimate of the relevant animals’ welfare range—that is, the difference between the best and worst welfare states that an individual can realize, expressed as a percentage of the same difference for humans. Because the goal is to convert welfare changes in animals to DALY-equivalents averted, the relevant “best” state for humans isn’t the best in principle, but rather the average welfare level of the average human in full health. We arbitrarily assume that this is 10% of 100 (e.g., a -5 to 5 scale; 10 units in total).	Calculation
6	Negative portion of welfare range for species in question	50%	This cell allows us to express the judgment that the relevant animals have asymmetrical welfare ranges. That is, this cell lets us say that things can go worse for these animals than they can go well (or vice versa): e.g., that the scale isn't -5 to 5, but -9 to 1. We might imagine someone reaching this view by considering a question like this: "Suppose that 1 represents the welfare level of a chicken at a well-run farm sanctuary. Furthermore, suppose that 0 represents a neutral welfare state. Finally, suppose that any negative number would represent a state worse than death for a chicken. Given all that, what number should we use to represent the welfare level of a layer hen in a conventional cage?"
7	Pre-intervention welfare level as percentage of the animals' negative welfare range	50%	This cell allows us to separate disagreements about (a) how badly off animals are relative to the negative portion of their welfare range and (b) the skew of their welfare range. For instance, people might agree that layer hens are about as badly off as they can be in conventional cages (so, B7 = 100%) but disagree about how bad that is relative to layer hens’ average welfare level at full health in reasonably hospitable circumstances. Entering "0%" means that the animals are at the neutral point.
8	Post-intervention welfare level (if still net negative)	25%	Entering "100%" means that the animals remain as badly as off as they can be. Entering "0%" means that the animals have moved to the neutral point.
9	Post-intervention welfare level (if net positive)		Entering "100%" means that the animals are now as well as off as they can be. Entering "0%" means that the animals have moved to the neutral point.
10	Welfare gain per individual, assuming a life year of impact	1.25	This cell aggregates the welfare gain by either (a) summing the total welfare gained in the negative portion of the animals’ welfare range with the total welfare gained in the positive portion of the animals’ welfare range (if the animals are now net positive) or (b) subtracting the post-intervention welfare level from the pre-intervention welfare level (if the animals remain net-negative). Using B9 illustrates a change that crosses the neutral point.
11	Welfare gain per individual expressed as a DALY-equivalent averted	2.5%	This cell converts the welfare gain into DALY-equivalents. A DALY-equivalent is defined as the average amount of welfare that the average person in full health realizes in a year---i.e., the positive portion of the human welfare range. Since B10 already expresses the welfare gain over the course of a life year, this cell gives the welfare gain expressed as a percentage of the positive portion of the human welfare range.
12	Percentage of a life year affected per individual	200%	We assume that information about the effects of interventions comes in the form of estimates of population sizes in different farming conditions. So, we want to make it easy to move from population estimates to estimates of the amount of welfare gained. B11 does this by allowing us to reduce our estimate of the total welfare gained for animals living less than a year (e.g., broilers, by entering a percentage below 100%) or increase our estimate of the total welfare gained for animals living more than a year (e.g., layer hens, by entering a percentage over 100%). In this example, we have it set at 200% to reflect the fact that layer hens live roughly two years.
13	DALY-equivalents averted per individual adjusted for percentage of a life year affected	0.05
14	Counterfactual impact (in years)	10	Assumption for illustrative purposes. (Essentially, how soon would this change have happened without the intervention?)
15	Net # of animals benefitted	1,000,000	Assumption for illustrative purposes.
16	DALY-equivalents averted adjusted for counterfactual impact and net # of animals benefitted	500,000
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100