In this series of conversations, we'll be discussing global food sustainability with guests to bring a deep understanding of the environmental and cultural challenges facing our society and creative ideas on how to address them. I'm Ash Sweeting and welcome to the ash cloud. Today we are joined by Rory Peter, the executive director of the Global Roundtable on Sustainable beef. Rory has used his broad experience as both a livestock producer and working on development programs in South Asia and Africa, to oversee the growth of the global roundtable network to include 24 countries with common goals on climate, nature, positive production and animal welfare. roundtable members collectively aim to reduce their climate impact by 30% by 2030, on a pathway to climate neutrality, and become a net positive contributor to nature by 2030, across the vast landmass, under the management of beef producers globally,
there's probably more land under the management, you know, people producing beef than any other individual commodity, having access to beef producers. And all of that land means you can also have impacts on how that land is managed, if you choose to do so. And at the moment that there's this oppositional attitude that we need to either control or tell people to stop doing things. I don't think that works for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's private land for the most part. And, you know, people will continue to do what's viable on that land. But secondly, you will get much more positive engagement, if you incentivize the behavior that you want to see,
it began by bringing people together with diverse and frequently opposing points of view,
the first meeting of the global roundtable, or what was pre global roundtable was in 2010, in Denver, and at that time, we had some pretty beefy security guys in the room in case things went pear shaped. And it was just a question of trust. A lot of those people, as you say, they've never sat in a room before they had not. They've not talked to each other, they didn't necessarily trust each other. And as we sat in meeting rooms over the course of the next, you know, 1012 years, people built that trust. And it's just a question of getting together regularly enough that you actually know the individuals and get to a place where you can, okay, we may not all want exactly the same thing. But we all want the same direction of travel. And we can actually learn from each other.
methane emissions are a key focus,
while people say yeah, okay, capital have always produced methane, ruminants have always produced methane and wild ruminants will always continue to produce me think it's something which is within our control, we can actually influence that. And if it reduces climate impact, why would we not want to do it? Having said that, the producers will always do, yeah, but who's going to pay for it? That's that's the big question at the moment.
existing technologies can have a real impact.
There are also genetics companies working specifically on reducing methane. So I think that will become a thing in the future. And undoubtedly, breeding has an impact. We just, it's much more difficult to quantify at the moment. And the same is actually true of grazing management. We know that when you manage your grazing Well, a you get, you know, better use of your resources. So it's more efficient, but the you can also sequester carbon,
the opportunities and challenges are frequently bundled together.
We hear so much about deforestation, particularly in Latin American countries. But what people often fail to recognize is that producers were you know, whether they're crop producers or livestock producers, in those areas that are actually some of the biggest Guardians of the forest, because they're required by law to have, let's say, in the Amazon, it's 80%. So if you own a property in the Amazon, you are required to have 80% of that in native vegetation. That is a big cost a big public good, I would say, that is a cost to the private individual.
For real impact investment needs to align with desired outcomes. We've heard
Endless calls to protect native vegetation, both in the Amazon and other biomes around the world. But we do not see the level of investment that actually competes with agriculture. Until we see real money that can improve livelihoods going into those places. We're not going to see the level of protection that people want to see,
a huge investment disparity continues to exist between livestock and the other agricultural industries.
In agricultural development projects in lower income countries. It was about 2%. So 2% of the funds that went into agriculture went to livestock and the other 98% went into whichever crops it might be. So there is an absolutely massive disparity. And while that's over, you know, official development assistance, the same applies to government investment in their
own countries, how to livestock fit into our society's
well what is the social role of beef production, both for the producer side, but also for the, for the rest of society, like me make sense of landscapes, provision of nutrition, and provision of employment and livelihoods in lower income countries, particularly those which are more arid livestock is the cornerstone of food production and is in desperate need of support.
Rory, thank you very much for joining me today.
Thanks for asking me.
Climate change and biodiversity are two of the greatest environmental and foods tax sustainability challenges that we're currently facing. And the beef industry is frequently held within the media and other conversations as being a key contributor to both of those issues. How isn't how and what's the global roundtable for sustainable beef doing to address those issues on the ground, but also within those conversations and debates that are going on across the broader society?
Yeah, we set goals in 2021, for three things for Bofors climate, nature, positive production, as we term it, and animal welfare. And the goal on climate is to reduce our climate impact by 30% by 2030, on a pathway to find neutrality. And our nature positive goal is to become a net positive contributor to nature by 2030. And we follow that up with activity. So in terms of climate, we have developed a lifecycle footprint guideline for the beef industry, because it wasn't a global one, we base that on the work of FAO is leap project. And this can now be applied in any country and New Zealand was the first country to use that in well, beef and lamb New Zealand was the first to use it on a national level. And it's now available to many countries that don't yet have a footprint and obviously a baseline. So the important first step on knowing that you're actually reducing your impact. So that's one of the things we've done. And we're now obviously looking at projects that are having an impact in reducing climate impacts as well as improving biodiversity. So think about grazing management projects, carbon sequestration, but when you do that, you're not just locking away carbon in the soil. You're also improving other ecosystem functions like water and biodiversity.
Okay, what are there any particular tools or projects or areas that you because if you think through the, the, I guess the research landscape and ideas and technology generation landscape, there's a lot of talk about various different things. There's also what's less frequently discussed is the various timeframes immediately available, medium term and long term. And I guess, took for these different technologies or strategies to be implemented. How do you see that rolling out? And I guess what, what do you see or what most excites you, in the immediate term, the medium term in the long term?
So I think in the short term, there's a lot of focus on feed additives, particularly in more intensive situations where you've got cattle feeding from a bunk because you can add a feed additive that control the mountain, and that can happen pretty much instantaneous. Is impact on the amount of enteric emissions. So that those are being adopted by some pretty big players, certainly trialed at large scale by companies like JVs, in Brazil and Cargill, in the US. And you know, those projects will definitely have an impact at the feedlot level. Having those available for use in range land or grazing situations is a little bit more complicated. But there is work at the moment on developing a rumen bolus, which would be a slow release version of the same kind of product. At the moment, I'm not aware that those are actually commercially available, but that they're reaching the stage that they're they're viable to use, the point will always be, how much does that cost? And who bears the cost? Because individual producers are not, at the moment in most countries under any requirement to do this. So it would be a benefit to come for any, you know, a processing company who maybe has a science based target, and that falls within their scope three emissions. So I can see that there will be some projects where the bigger corporations up the supply chain are supporting the implementation of these kinds of projects, but we're not quite there yet.
Okay, what about the use of existing tools or for practice practices that farmers or producers currently use or have in their back pocket like breeding for reduced emissions? And then, I guess, I guess, you know, the grazing management side of things, how do you see those fitting into the process?
Yeah, so the genetic side, there's also been quite considerable advances on that. And we have a few genetics companies involved in juris B who've been working on this. There are a couple of breeds, Hereford I know in some countries has included residual feed intake in their genetic indexes. And that is kind of a proxy. So if you if you select for bull with a lower RFI, you can also reduce the amount of methane but it's not at the moment that is not indexed in such a way that you can say, well, if we use this tool, we're going to get a reduction of X percent a meeting. So while we know that it would have an impact, we don't quite know exactly what the impact is. And we don't know whether that's consistent in all situations. So there's, you know, there are trials going on at the moment to work these details out. And there are also genetics companies working specifically on reducing methane. So I think that will become a thing in the future. And undoubtedly, breeding has an impact. We just, it's much more difficult to quantify at the moment. And the same is actually true of grazing management. We know that when you manage your grazing Well, a you get, you know, better use of your resources. So it's more efficient, but the you can also sequester carbon. The problem with it is that at the moment, not enough, I guess, has been invested into soil testing and sampling methodologies to make sure that we can do it cheaply. So at the moment, soil testing is pretty expensive. And people are kind of slow to adopt it. There are tons of projects at the moment on soil carbon sequestration, and people being paid money already. And you know, in Australia, there are I believe, 350 projects. So clearly in Australia that the government has set up a mechanism which is allowing farmers to do this. And I know that the carbon farmers of Australia have been very active in getting that or working. But I have a feeling that in some countries where there are projects that they're kind of they're ahead of the science. In other words, they've set up a project before they really know how to quantify what they're doing. And I would be a little bit nervous about entering into something like that, because you need to make sure the methodology is right. Otherwise, you may get stung later if it turns out that you haven't requested what you almost do.
On that note, do you see I guess, industry strategic risk, if you've got these people out there ahead of the science, and they they can't necessarily quantify things as robustly as they should. And then if they end up falling flat on their face because they were running too far ahead of the science then they bring well that tarnishes the industry as a whole and And what can be done to manage that from that strategic risk perspective?
Yeah, I do think it's a concern. And the other side of that, which I think probably relates to it is about selling of credits to entities entirely out of the chain, I would, I would say what's really important for producers is in setting, like, it's important that we get this carbon in the soil, it's important that our soil is healthy. And it's important that other ecosystem functions are running in a positive way. And if we can keep that on the farm or on the property, then you know, we'll have got the benefit already. Sure, it'd be nice to be paid some extra for that. But let's wait till the science catches up, and then then look for the payments rather than chasing the payment before we really know what we've actually achieved. I think it's a risk, because as you pointed out at the beginning, the beef industry is widely criticized for all kinds of things, sometimes, unfairly and sometimes fairly. So we need to make sure that we do these things properly. Otherwise, people will will just sort of shrug and say, oh, yeah, yeah, that's the beef industry for you. So I'm, I'm nervous about getting too far ahead of time. With
with regard to the conversation about the beef industry, and what you just mentioned, in terms of being blamed frequently, for a lot of the climate issues, the debate is generally quite simplistic cows produce methane, they lead to deforestation, they're bad. And that doesn't consider so many other of the impacts or engagements industry has, within our societies, things like the fact that the industry is a huge employer in certain parts of the world, both as on the on the production side of things, but also on the processing or logistics side of things. There's millions or hundreds of millions of acres that are actually managed by the beef industry, probably more landmass on the planet is managed by the beef industry. So in terms of actually getting access to that land, there's a there's a conduit through the beef industry that that no other industry provides, as well as the fact that, you know, especially in parts of Africa, and other and South Asia, potentially owning livestock is a is a sign of social status, a sign of wealth as well. So they fit into societies differently there as well. And in our western societies, eating beef is a big part of many of our sort of cultural and social interactions. So do you see expanding the conversation to include these greater complexities as being something that needs to be done? And if so, what can we do to broaden that that perspective?
Yeah, I think at the moment, there's been such a polarization on all kinds of issues. And, and there are a number of groups who have chosen to oppose the beef industry, because it doesn't fit with their vision of how the world should function. But the simple fact is, you're right, there's probably more land under the management, you know, people producing beef than any other individual commodity. And I don't have any facts to back that up. But it just feels logically correct, because by its nature, grazing is an extensive operation, not an intensive one. So we tend to use the most marginal areas. And those areas are large, because they can't produce much and they can't produce crops. So you know, there's a simplistic idea that if everybody stopped eating meat, they could eat more crops, we don't have more land to produce crops, except in areas which are biodiversity hotspots like the Amazon anyway. So sure, you could grow more soy in the Amazon, but I'm pretty sure that nobody wants us to do that. So to provide food from these vast acreages of grasslands range, Hansen savannas, yeah, we have to use ruminants. So that is something that's kind of commonly glossed over. And that's you find out having access to beef producers, and all of that land means you can also have impacts on how that land is managed, if you choose to do so. And at the moment that there's this oppositional attitude that we need to either control or tell people to stop doing things. I don't think that works for a number of people. Isn't, firstly, it's private land for the most part. And, you know, people will continue to do what's viable on that land. But secondly, you will get much more positive engagement if you incentivize the behavior that you want to see. So I really think that there needs to be a shift from this oppositional attitude towards a more cooperative one, what, you guys have got this resource, which we think is important to the world, how do we work with you so that we're all getting the best out of it?
On that note,
you've,
you've, you've now got over 100, members of the global roundtable. And I guess when when you're looking through the list, you you see what you could describe as potentially strange bedfellows, you've got a number of major environmental NGOs, you've got some global food companies, and then all the usual players of those people involved in either research and development in the beef industry, or the pharma alliances and stuff like that. What do you think's changed in terms of that brought these, what people would have seen as necessarily on different sides of the bank to the same table. And also, I'd be really interested to hear, from your perspective, how you've as the leader of, of the global roundtable, how you've managed to bring them together as well, and what that process has been
like. It's quite interesting. So when we first had the first meeting of the global roundtable of what was pre global roundtable was in 2010, in Denver, and at that time, we had some pretty beefy security guys in the room in case things went pear shaped. And it was just a question of trust. A lot of those people, as you say, they'd never sat in a room before they had not. They've not talked to each other, they didn't necessarily trust each other. You know, so you had these NGOs, which, for whatever reason, in different countries didn't resonate well, with the producer community, you had processes do you didn't like talking to producers, because they felt that they, you know, they were they had the upper hand, and they wanted to keep it. So there were lots of reasons why these people didn't talk. But I think the beef industry was under such a lot of pressure at that time, that everybody realized we needed to at least get together to define sustainability. And as we sat in meeting rooms over the course of the next, you know, 1012 years, people built that trust. And it's just a question of getting together regularly enough that you actually know the individuals and get to a place where you get okay, we may not all want exactly the same thing. But we all want the same direction of travel. And we can actually learn from each other. So it's been really interesting. It's been quite difficult sometimes. But um, you know, there's lots of good things have come out of it. And we've now got round tables, 12 round tables around the world, so national level ones covering a total of 24 countries, because some have more than one country.
And how is how is having that diverse group of people at the table changed the debate, the discussion, and potentially, you know, the the ideas or solutions that have been pursued?
Well, usually, I would say that at the beginning, there was a lot of defensiveness from the beef industry, you know, people saying, well, it's not true, or it wasn't me or, you know, everybody else is to blame as well, to the point now, where everybody is saying, Yeah, look, this is a problem. We know that there are things that we're already doing that can improve the situation, we're researching new options. It's just a far more positive attitude two, we can be part of the change that we all need. And, and one of the biggest changes, I would say, was the the actual recognition that climate change is a thing that probably sounds really weird to most people, but there was a strong attitude amongst the producer community 10 years ago that that climate change wasn't really a thing or that it wasn't caused by human activities, or that there was nothing that any of us could do to solve it and that that has really changed.
With regards to what you mentioned about the blame game and people pointing the finger at at the beef industry, and I guess LSC, that's looking backwards. And actually where we've got to, at the current situation is, you know, fossil fuels and the oil energy industry has an absolutely monumental part to play in it. There's there's concrete production as there's so many other things. And it's a bit like if you're, if you're on a boat that sinking and you start blaming who put the hole in the hole, it's rather than a relevant conversation, because while you're arguing about whose fault it is, the boat suddenly is continually getting lower and lower in the water. And one of the one of the ways I see this is it's not really relevant, what's to blame us humans at the end of the day are to blame because of what's happened over the last post industrial revolution period. But where the beef industry comes into it, one is the access to possibly more land than across the planet than any other x other industry. And the other thing is that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than any of the others. So it's almost like the beef industry has the most leverage to make change. Aside from and that's apart from the blame game. So how do you how do you see that debate kind of being more evolved in a positive direction? To see the the option opportunities the beef industry provide rather than looking backwards?
Yeah, I mean, the whole land issue and that the sheer amount of land, the sheer area that's available, is clearly something that has been recognized by other industries, because they are going to produce this and they're asking them for carbon credits. So that's already been recognized. And there are already transactions taking place, I think, pretty high profile example was with the Walmart Cattle Company in Australia, a couple of years ago. And I think it was gates that they sold the credits to. And the other thing about methane is that it's also a really quick impact. So Methane is a very potent gas, but it only remains in the atmosphere for 10 to 12 years. So if you can reduce methane from any source, and that includes from the fossil fuel industry, where they have leaky pipelines, fixing those, it has a huge impact and the same if we can reduce it from cattle, because that potent gas will completely disappear within 10 years. So you're taking all of that warming away. And I think that recognition, while people say yeah, okay. Capital have always produced methane, ruminants have always produced methane. And wild ruminants will always continue to produce methane. It's something which is within our control, we can actually influence that. And if it reduces climate impact, why would we not want to do it seems just kind of obvious when you stop and think about it.
Oh, completely, completely.
So having said that, with having said that, the producers will always say, Yeah, but who's going to pay for it? That's, that's the big question at the moment.
Isn't that one of, I guess, the key attributes to it goes back to the you know, for something to be truly sustainably sustainable, it needs to be technically or scientifically sustainable, as well as socially sustainable as well as financially sustainable. And it's like a tripod, if you don't have all three legs there, the whole thing is not going to stand up for
very long and upset and we're asking producers and, you know, society has been asking producers, for more and more, you know, we need transparency, we want to know where are these coming from so that we know that it's having a positive environmental impact, we want to know that the animals have been treated well. And we want it to have less of an impact on climate. So all of these things they're being asked for, and they're not receiving necessarily more money at the farm gate. So you know, there there comes a point where the cost of doing all these things, obviously, they're going to need to be paid for it because otherwise there'll be no beat, you know, people will simply do things which which pay them better.
With regard to the gaps in terms of technology, or cultural change, or other areas where or investment or financial gaps where do you see the greatest need to put more attention or resources or investment
there are lots of areas where I think more investments needed. Like we hear so much about It deforestation, particularly in Latin American countries. But what people often fail to recognize is that producers were, you know, whether their crop producers or livestock producers in those areas are actually some of the biggest Guardians of the forest, because they're required by law to have, let's say, in the Amazon, it's 80%. So if you own a property in the Amazon, you are required to have 80% of that in native vegetation. That is a big cost a big, public good, I would say, that is a cost to the private individual. And we've started to see some projects. Last year at COP 27. A group, including ito marfrig, Rabobank and a few others put together, a company called beyond us, and they're going to protect 4 million hectares of land. And I think that kind of investment is going to be important in the future, because your governments aren't doing it, like we've heard endless calls to protect native vegetation, both in the Amazon and other biomes around the world. But we do not see the level of investment that actually competes with agriculture. I think it's logical that the Brazilian government wants the livelihoods of its population to improve. So they want to see economic development, and the amount of money that flows in for that wildly offsets anything that's supposed to be protecting the forests. So until we see real money, that can improve livelihoods going into those places, we're not going to see the level of protection that people want to see. So that's one area of investment. And that's a huge amount of money. Like that's not a technical thing. That's just a structural thing. How do we protect biodiversity?
