A new policy brief says 16 international development banks provided about $13 billion to industrial animal agriculture from 2020 through 2024, exceeding the roughly $9 billion directed to smaller and more diversified livestock operations despite the institutions’ stated climate, biodiversity and poverty-reduction goals.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
International development banks, including the World Bank, International Finance Corporation and European Investment Bank, directed an estimated $13 billion toward industrial animal agriculture between 2020 and 2024, according to a new policy brief that questions whether those investments are consistent with the institutions’ stated environmental and development priorities.
The institutions publicly promote goals that include sustainable food systems, biodiversity protection and poverty reduction, along with efforts to address climate change. But a Sentient Media report examining the findings said development banks collectively provided substantially more financial support to large-scale industrial livestock operations than to smaller farms that may combine crops and livestock and maintain greater diversity among animal breeds.
From 2020 through 2024, 16 development finance institutions provided approximately $13 billion to industrial animal agriculture and about $9 billion to smaller, more diversified animal farming systems, according to the policy brief produced by the International Accountability Project and the Critical Research on Industrial Livestock Systems Network. Another $7 billion in animal-agriculture financing could not be categorized because the available information was insufficient. The policy brief has not been peer reviewed by a scientific journal.
The authors said the distribution of financing “indicates a growing preference among major development finance institutions to support large-scale, commercially oriented animal agriculture operations,” while systems that “often represent smallholder or small-scale producers” receive less. Mehroosh Tak, one of the report’s co-authors and an associate professor of economics at SOAS University of London, said researchers had long observed the direction of development-bank lending but had not previously quantified it to this extent. “We’ve known there’s a trend” toward financing industrial livestock, Tak told Sentient Media.
The report argues that increased financing for large-scale animal agriculture conflicts with development banks’ climate, biodiversity and poverty-reduction commitments. Critics of industrial livestock production point to forest and wildlife habitat destruction associated with growing feed crops such as soy and corn, along with soil degradation, reduced biodiversity and pesticide use connected to large monoculture systems. Large livestock facilities have also drawn criticism over intensive breeding and confinement practices, while researchers have linked heavy antibiotic use in animal agriculture to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotic-resistant infections across all sources are estimated to kill approximately 1.27 million people annually. Industrial livestock operations can also create air and water pollution through the management of large volumes of animal waste.
Tak said development lenders should reconsider whether intensive production systems are the best way to meet development goals and give greater attention to smaller, integrated farming models. She pointed to projects that provide households with a limited number of animals that can simultaneously improve nutrition and generate income. “So you give someone five chickens, they may be able to produce some eggs that they can sell in the local market but also keep some of the eggs for themselves. That’s a very good example of an integrated project,” she said. Tak argued that development institutions should listen more closely to communities saying that “intensive and industrial agriculture is bad for our community.”
Researchers calculated the distribution of development financing by analyzing investments made by the 16 institutions between 2020 and 2024 using the Factory Farming Finance Tracker, which is part of the Stop Financing Factory Farming initiative. Their analysis included institutions such as the World Bank, IFC and European Investment Bank.
The report also raises questions about whether development financing intended to improve food security in poorer countries can indirectly free corporate capital for expansion elsewhere. Alessandro Ramazzotti, a report co-author and researcher with the International Accountability Project, pointed to Guatemalan food company CMI Alimentos. Since 2018, the company has received financial packages totaling $725 million through IDB Invest, an arm of the Inter-American Development Bank Group. During that period, CMI Alimentos also expanded its Pollo Campero fast-food business in the United States, announcing in 2022 a plan to invest $190 million to open 100 U.S. locations. The company said it reached its 100th U.S. restaurant in 2024 and separately announced a goal of reaching 250 U.S. locations within five years.
Ramazzotti acknowledged that the researchers could not establish that development-bank money was directly spent on U.S. restaurant expansion. “I would say those funds from development banks are probably ringfenced,” he said, meaning the financing should be restricted to purposes established in the lending agreements. He argued, however, that such financing could still indirectly benefit other corporate operations because “the company frees up capital that it can reinvest in its U.S. operations.”
IDB Invest financing for CMI Alimentos has been associated with objectives that include improving food safety in Central America. Ramazzotti questioned the results, saying that despite hundreds of millions of dollars in financing since 2018, the “food security situation in Guatemala and the wider Central America region remains the same, with levels of food insecurity in the range of 15-35% of the population.”
The report also points to complaints from an Indigenous Xinka community in Guatemala, where residents have accused a CMI Alimentos intensive chicken operation of contributing to pollution and animal illness. The community consists of about 65 families, according to Ramazzotti.
“In Guatemala, when we talk to communities living near the farm, they were saying that their own chickens, their own animals were getting sick because of the impacts of the farm pollution on air quality and soil and water,” Ramazzotti said. He added that residents reported bad odors, dust and fly infestations and said they were spending more on medicine, drinking water and fly repellent.
Ramazzotti said community members told researchers that they received only limited compensation from the farm’s owners and were not consulted before the intensive poultry facility was established nearby. “Just one day they were told, yeah, there will be a big farm right next to your house. And they couldn’t say no.”
The policy brief argues that the $13 billion directed to industrial livestock systems represents more than a financing preference and raises a broader question about whether development institutions are advancing agricultural models that conflict with their own stated goals. Its authors are urging banks to place greater emphasis on smaller and more diversified farming systems, while acknowledging that $7 billion in animal-agriculture financing during the five-year period could not be categorized because the underlying records did not provide enough detail.
Original article
Comments