Ocean advocates are hailing a federal judge's decision that deemed a nationwide permit for industrial aquaculture structures unlawful.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the permit for finfish nets and cages was found to violate several environmental laws.

Center for Food Safety Legal Director George Kimbrell called that a win against corporate interests pushing to industrialize the open ocean.

"It's an important victory protecting our oceans," said Kimbrell, "their native ecosystems, and the communities that rely on them."

Still, Kimbrell said the court ordered both sides to return to court later this month with a plan on how to remedy the matter.

The ruling comes as an increasing number of Maine communities adopt emergency aquaculture moratoriums, but backers of large-scale aquaculture say it's needed to meet a growing seafood demand.

Maine's abundant coastline and working waterfronts make it an ideal place for an aquaculture business, and numerous small-scale shellfish and marine plant farms are boosting local economies.

But commercial fishermen say the growth of large, foreign-owned fish farms endangers both the ocean and their livelihoods. Kimbrell said a battle to privatize the ocean is underway.

"Taking parts of the ocean and saying, 'you can't fish here, and instead this is going to be an area we're going to allow a corporation to use exclusively for a certain number of years,'" said Kimbrell. "In this case, these are 10-year permits that would have been established."

Kimbrell said federal courts covering the Gulf of Mexico previously struck down efforts to establish industrial aquaculture there.

He said despite intense lobbying efforts by proponents, Congress has never passed a law authorizing large-scale aquaculture in federal waters.





get more stories like this via email

By Sophie Kevany for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Kentucky News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Fifteen development banks and a fund tasked with supporting sustainable economic growth are investing billions of dollars to expand factory farming in the global south and other lower income countries, a new analysis from the non-profit Stop Financing Factory Farming finds. The lower income countries where banks are funding industrial agriculture are often the same countries that are more vulnerable to the extreme weather linked to climate change, which itself is fueled by industrial meat and dairy operations. The analysis finds 15 banks and one fund, including the World Bank Group and the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, invested just over $3 billion on animal agriculture in 2023, with over three quarters of the funded projects described by the researchers as factory farms. Another $3.4 billion was marshaled from other private and public funders.

Factory farms are responsible for between 11 and 20 percent of global greenhouse emissions, as well as a host of other impacts like water pollution, pandemic risks and animal suffering. The analysis is based on data from a civil society database called the Early Warning System, which collects funding information from project websites.

Development Bank Investments May Contradict Climate Goals

A number of climate models predict populations in developing countries will consume more meat as incomes increase, yet the new analysis finds the investments from development banks encourage the production of feed crops for farm animals, not humans, worsening food insecurity. Many of those animals are exported: a 2021 paper found developing countries provide nearly 80 percent of international poultry exports by volume, for instance.

"These investments often generate negative consequences for local communities and for animal welfare... [creating] hurt at many levels, locally, globally and for the environment, the climate, people and animals," Alessandro Ramazzotti, a researcher with the International Accountability Project, tells Sentient. The International Accountability Project is a member of the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition.

Factory farm investments hurt the financiers themselves, as well, Ramazzotti says. "Development banks have climate change goals and if they keep investing in animal agriculture, especially when this is industrial, large-scale, they are not going to meet those commitments."

This tension is especially clear at the World Bank Group, the largest development investor by volume in factory farming projects. The bank says it is aligned with the Paris climate agreement goal of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It also published a report suggesting subsidies be redirected away from "emissions-intensive, animal-source foods," which account for almost 60 percent of total food-related emissions.

Despite its climate goal and the report, one of the World Bank's members, the International Finance Corporation, invested $501 million in factory farming in 2023, including a $47 million loan for a multi-story pig farm, the analysis finds.

A statement from the International Finance Corporation reads in part: "Animal protein is important for nutrition, especially in several of our client countries where early childhood and maternal undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies remain pervasive and animal-source foods consumption is far below the recommended amount. There are 1.3 billion people whose livelihoods are tied to livestock and we also know this sector is responsible for over 30 percent of the global GHG emissions...IFC works with livestock clients that are committed to enhancing animal health and welfare, protecting the environment, and promoting food safety...By investing in sustainable solutions that intensify production and improve efficiency in livestock operations, it is possible to reduce global GHG emissions and eliminate deforestation in direct and sourcing operations while providing affordable and safe food in emerging markets."

Shifts from Beef to Pork Present Risks and Tradeoffs

In the past several years, analysts for development banks have also argued for shifts from large-scale beef operations to pork and poultry, citing the lower emissions associated with these foods. A 2021 document drafted by the European Investment Bank, described non-ruminant meat - essentially pork and poultry farms - as a climate-friendly investment option. Last year, the same bank invested $427 million in factory farming, the new analysis says.

Shifting factory farms from one animal to another because they produce lower emissions does not make it a good idea, says Ramazzotti. "In the case of the multi-story pig farm in China, that is supposed to limit the environmental impact, yes, but then what about animal welfare?" There are other impacts to consider, Ramazzotti adds. "Farms like that are a big risk for human health, because they are a great place for viruses to develop."

A spokesperson for the European Investment Bank responded in part that "EIB Group's lending policies for farming, agriculture and the bioeconomy are fully aligned with the EU's strict legal framework, including European Green Deal policies, as well as with legislation regarding animal welfare." The full statement is here.

The spokesperson also criticized the report's characterization of some projects as "entirely unrelated to animal production."

In an email to Sentient, Ramazzotti provided a specific description of each of these projects, and responded more generally: "those three projects have been included because the EIB's project disclosures are among the worst of all MDBs in terms of transparency - and therefore one of the most challenging institutions to analyze and hold accountable." The full response is here.

The contradiction between climate goals and climate investments are not unique to development banks. The United Nations has reported that animal agriculture is a disproportionate threat to biodiversity and the environment, and that eating more plants would reduce those threats, improve human health and lower the risk of pandemics. Meanwhile, the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, an initiative that aims to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, invested $175 million on industrial animal agriculture last year, the analysis finds.

Funding Better Projects

In Mongolia, Ramazzotti highlighted the irony of development bank funding for an industrial cattle project in a country already suffering from extreme weather known as the dzud. The dzud is characterized by dry summers and freezing winter temperatures, heavy snow and frozen ground. "And here, the International Finance Corporation is proposing an investment in an industrial cattle farm. As I understand, the investment is not likely to benefit, or only marginally, local people and it will increase the pesticides on feed crops and the methane produced by cattle, plus the farm is near a coal producer, and in a valley, which makes everything worse for the local people," he says.

Stop Financing Factory Farming is asking the financiers to stop funding industrial livestock operations at this scale, and instead shift investments toward farming systems that put "communities first and protect the planet."

In response to Sentient's request for comment on the report, the United Nations, the Green Climate Fund and the African Development Bank did not immediately comment on the analysis.

Yet a change of direction is entirely possible, the analysis finds, citing the same Green Climate Fund for supporting some low-carbon projects. One example is a fund to help women farmers in Cote D'Ivoire adapt to climate change in a variety of ways, including boosting financial literacy and knowledge of land rights.


Sophie Kevany wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

A Utah grant program is aiming to incentivize farmers to optimize their water use.

Historically, Utah agriculture has accounted for up to 80% of the state's water consumption, but the state's Agricultural Water Optimization Program is an initiative using state and federal funds to lower the financial barriers for ag producers to modernize and update their irrigation equipment.

Hannah Freeze, Agricultural Water Optimization Program manager for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, said it covers half the cost of purchasing new, more efficient equipment. She explained the Utah Legislature and the federal government have allocated $276 million for the program and describes it as a step in the right direction, especially with agriculture being what she called "nonnegotiable."

"It is essential to everything that we do in life," Freeze pointed out. "As we continue to use the scarce water that we have for agricultural purposes, this program allows our producers to be the best stewards of that precious resource. Our farmers are truly the first environmentalists."

Freeze added the program boils down to helping farmers use the scarce water the state has to still be able to meet agricultural demands. She noted it was only after capturing federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act that the program "got a big shot in the arm." Since 2019, the program continues to see increased interest but has only been able to fund around half of the projects in the state.

The 2025 application period runs through Feb. 28.

Freeze stressed the biggest requirement to be eligible for the program is for a project to be directly tied to agricultural water use. She recognized irrigation needs across the state of Utah are diverse.

"We try to be open to all of the different needs based on the regions that the producers are in," Freeze added. "The real hard stop is, you've got to have 'ag water' to be able to participate. And other than that, we try to be accommodating with all the other projects."

Freeze emphasized the program has committed hundreds of millions of government dollars to help optimize water use and while the state helps administer half of the cost of the infrastructure projects, the other half comes from the farmers themselves.

"If that doesn't say they are stepping up, they are here to help, they are at the table and they understand the role that they play as we optimize water use in the West, I don't know what does," Freeze concluded.


get more stories like this via email

A company working to create sustainable energy sources is investing in corn to make jet fuel, which it said burns far cleaner than the traditional, petroleum-based version.

Some Iowa farmers see it as a market for their crops in addition to the ethanol they already create.

Alyssa Shousse, a corn farmer near Griswold, sees producing jet fuel with her corn as an opportunity to create sustainable energy from her crops beyond ethanol and on a much bigger scale. Jets used nearly 100 billion gallons of fuel last year.

"It's an absolutely insane number," Shousse acknowledged. "If there's a better way that we can break into that market, make it a little bit more renewable, I think any of that is good for making a better impact for the environment."

Supporters want federal lawmakers to create incentives to encourage more sustainable airline fuel production in Iowa and across the U.S., perhaps creating incentives mirroring the support ethanol receives.

Patrick Gruber is CEO of the fuel development firm Gevo, which has facilities in Iowa and is part of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Coalition. He said it is competitive with traditional jet fuel and far more environmentally friendly.

"A petro-jet spews out about 22 pounds of CO2 per gallon," Gruber pointed out. "We can eliminate that whole footprint of 22 pounds."

Supporters argued sustainable aviation fuel burns cleaner than traditional jet fuel. They want to expand the practice to include more sectors of agriculture. Critics have countered the effects of agricultural-based jet fuel are still up in the air.


get more stories like this via email