Animal Welfare Conditionality in the World Bank’s Legal Framework

The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [IBRD] / International Development Association [IDA]) may have passed a critical juncture in its consideration of animal welfare in the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). This paper analyses Bank’s legal framework and the extent to which animal welfare is considered. Overall, the analysis reveals an asymmetry in how the World Bank handles the welfare of wild versus farm animals. While the substantive welfare standards for wild animals are extremely low, a complaint can be brought fairly easily before theWorld Bank Accountability Mechanism. The opposite is true for farm animals. While the substantive standards for farm animals are comparably high, since an explicit standard exists in the ESF, holding theWorld Bank accountable for animal suffering is nearly impossible, because in many instances there are no project affected people.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht / Heidelberg Journal of International Law
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17104/0044-2348-2025-3-781
Primary Topic
Environmental law and policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Animal Welfare Conditionality in the World Bank’s Legal Framework

Moritz Pollack
Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht / Heidelberg Journal of International Law
Environmental law and policy
article

Animal Welfare Conditionality in the World Bank’s Legal Framework

Moritz Pollack
article en

Abstract

The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [IBRD] / International Development Association [IDA]) may have passed a critical juncture in its consideration of animal welfare in the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). This paper analyses Bank’s legal framework and the extent to which animal welfare is considered. Overall, the analysis reveals an asymmetry in how the World Bank handles the welfare of wild versus farm animals. While the substantive welfare standards for wild animals are extremely low, a complaint can be brought fairly easily before theWorld Bank Accountability Mechanism. The opposite is true for farm animals. While the substantive standards for farm animals are comparably high, since an explicit standard exists in the ESF, holding theWorld Bank accountable for animal suffering is nearly impossible, because in many instances there are no project affected people.

Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht / Heidelberg Journal of International LawVol. 85(3)
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Environmental law and policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.