Factory farming in Africa: development banks see it as a good idea, but it’s bad for the climate

In sub-Saharan Africa, pastoral livestock farming – where cattle, goats and sheep roam freely across grasslands, grazing at will – has been the main form of livestock production. It has been a source of livelihoods for centuries, if not millennia.

But now, industrialised, mass livestock farming – factory farming – is being increasingly funded by development banks.

This is a problem because factory farming is a high-emissions method of producing livestock. Once funds are poured into this, it becomes expensive to move away to climate-friendly farming.

Funding industrial animal agriculture locks African countries into decades of high greenhouse gas emissions (known as carbon lock-in). This is because countries’ regulations, skills and markets begin to evolve around industrial animal production.

Farmers take on debt to buy the costly machinery and inputs like antibiotics needed for industrial animal farming. Corporations consolidate control over farms, and consumer preferences shift towards more meat and dairy. These are patterns that are difficult to reverse.

I am an interdisciplinary researcher who studies how food systems are financed, how industrial animal agriculture affects the environment, and what this means for countries’ climate futures. In a recent study, I examined 55 livestock projects funded between 2018 and 2024 by three development banks – the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation – in low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

My research found that 22 of these projects involved industrialisation of animal agriculture. In total, multilateral development banks invested over US$1 billion in industrialising animal agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa between 2018 and 2024.

This nearly matches the funding for strengthening traditional pastoral systems (US$1.8 billion) during the same period. In other words, multilateral development banks are now promoting industrial livestock in low-income countries by funding it.

My research shows that development banks in sub-Saharan Africa ought to move away from funding industrial livestock expansion. This will help sub-Saharan Africa avoid long-term greenhouse gas lock-ins that make climate change worse.

Instead, these funds must be redirected to supporting pastoral or smallholder farming. These systems emit far fewer greenhouse gases and are better for the environment. They are also critical for food security and food sovereignty (having enough food to not rely on imports) for local populations.

Reshaping Africa’s food systems

The World Bank, the African Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation’s billion-dollar push towards industrial animal agriculture is reshaping food systems in the region.

Industrial animal agriculture involves farming large numbers of livestock intensively. It’s based on concentrated animal feeding operations that take place in large-scale, high-density facilities. It also features modern abattoirs where thousands of animals can be slaughtered every day and robotic milking equipment for cows.

It mirrors the factory farming systems of wealthier nations, instead of focusing on producing food to meet the needs of local people.

Industrial animal agriculture is also one of the causes of climate change, contributing between 12% and 19.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. These include methane emissions produced when livestock break wind when they digest their food. Carbon dioxide is also released when forests are cut down to plant feed crops. Nitrous oxide is released into the atmosphere when microbes break down nitrogen in animal manure.

Industrial animal agriculture can provide smallholder farmers with processing facilities that they’ve long asked for. But this is mainly done so that the farmers can produce food they can sell on the export markets, rather than food that meets local nutritional needs.

Another way development finance reshapes food systems is that it is often catalytic. If development banks continue to promote industrial livestock systems, private investors will quickly follow. This could trigger a chain reaction that ultimately displaces traditional systems entirely.

What needs to happen next

The good news is that greenhouse gas lock-ins have not yet taken hold in sub-Saharan Africa. This is because industrialised animal agriculture has just begun. Livestock production is still mainly pastoral and smallholder-based.

Civil society organisations have started campaigns such as Stop Financing Factory Farming. They’re urging multilateral development banks to stop funding high-emission systems.

The G20 Sustainable Finance Working Group also made it clear in its meetings in 2025 that new projects must be designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The G20 said funds must be spent in innovative ways that prevent global warming.

This growing international pressure means that multilateral development banks must reassess their investments in industrial animal agriculture.

There is still time for multilateral development banks to change course. They can redirect funding to climate-smart alternatives like agroecological systems – nature-based farming systems where animals graze freely.

Plant-based foods like beans, grains, nuts and seeds are examples of low-emission, nutritious food that could be farmed. New lab-grown meat or fermented meat should also be supported to meet the growing demand for protein.

It’s vital that funds be set aside to strengthen pastoral systems. My research found that the World Bank alone invested US$807 million in pastoral development projects during the study period. These included building drought-resistant water systems for livestock, and restoring rangelands and grazing areas. They also created livestock market facilities and provided veterinary services.

Pastoral farming has supported Africa’s dryland communities for generations without harming the environment. Maintaining this is important. Other development banks can learn from the World Bank’s approach.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Divya Narain, University of Oxford

Divya Narain consults for Friends of the Earth, US and has received research funding from the Tiny Beam Fund.