What's the news right now about an environmentally sound,
socially responsible and economically viable beef value chain?

The first meeting that led to the foundation of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef was held in 2010. I think it is fair to say that at that time, top of mind for many of our founding members was the impact of the beef industry on tropical forests.

Deforestation was in the headlines then, as it still is today. There was less awareness of climate change as a global issue, and it was certainly less connected to food production than it is today.

The quandary facing us now is that we know the beef industry does not have to have a negative impact on climate or biodiversity, but that it often does.

We also know that climate and biodiversity are inextricably linked when it comes to the conversion of forests or native grasslands for pasture or feed production.

Our Hot Topic Discussion in March focused on the use of the term regenerative and its relation to Nature Positive Production. We heard several examples of how a range of practices can contribute to improved performance, biodiversity and reduced climate impact.

We know that livestock production systems in many parts of the globe are reservoirs of biodiversity, providing valuable mixed use habitat for wildlife alongside food production.

In Canada for example, cattle production is approximately 33% of Canada's total agricultural land, YET it provides two-thirds (68%) of the wildlife habitat capacity. Those same ranches store a phenomenal amount of carbon in the soil and contribute to a healthy ecosystem. They are part of a climate and biodiversity positive food system.

We must be careful however, not to imply that all cattle production systems are climate and biodiversity positive. Management is critical to both outcomes, and it seems that often management that benefits biodiversity also benefits climate, as demonstrated in the film series “Roots So Deep” and the associated published research.

Adoption of systems that benefit climate and biodiversity is therefore one of the tools that we can encourage in order to help us meet our global climate and nature positive goals. The direct relationship between national roundtables and the cattle sectors in their countries is the mechanism that can deliver context relevant change.

In the calls for a reduction of global livestock numbers, we frequently see land take and the associated emissions cited as the reason for requiring a change. Encouraging systems that increase biodiversity, such as silvopastoral systems, where appropriate, is one strategy to meet our goal.

We should also take baseline emissions scenarios into account as compared to livestock grazing or mixed livestock and wildlife. This recent paper shows that emissions from wildlife can be equivalent to those from livestock, and that the loss in food production by removing livestock would not automatically yield any climate benefits.

Since livestock grazing systems also provide more wildlife habitat than croplands, it seems fair to conclude that in biodiversity, food security and climate terms, livestock production provides a useful compromise in many geographies when managed well.

There are a variety of actors that can leverage a change. While there is a lot of talk about carbon or biodiversity offsets that could earn producers extra money, I personally believe that we should be focusing more on insets. I cannot see the logic of selling the credit for your own good work to an organisation that continues to pollute with impunity, and thus losing the ability to make a claim about your own sustainability.

To make insets work, we need the whole value chain, including the financiers, to be involved in a system that rewards producers for the gains they make. Since many large corporations have made commitments that require reporting on Scope 3 emissions, insetting is a rational choice. They will have to understand the emissions in their supply chain, anyway, and developing positive relationships with suppliers makes good business sense.

Furthermore, this leads to positive change that can make the supply chain itself more resilient, rather than outsourcing a solution to external parties.

Thank you, 

Ruardaidh Petre
Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
Executive Director
19 April 2023

This week I'm in Brazil together with Textile Exchange and fashion brands that buy leather from Brazil. It is very interesting to talk with them about the image they had of Brazil, and mainly of its livestock and its link with biodiversity, and contrast it against what they see in reality.

Unfortunately, the stories told are the negative ones and most people have a wrong image of livestock in this beautiful country. Of course, there are many things to improve as in any producing country, but there is also a great effort from the sector to show that things are being done well.

Today, JBS presented its efforts in traceability, legal compliance and Public Commitments and Terms of Conduct Adjustment (TAC) to avoid deforestation in its supply chain. Like JBS, many other meatpackers have made commitments and continue to work towards greater transparency in the chain. They will only be able to get to the root of the problem if they seek joint solutions.

This is beginning to happen in Brazil and in other Latin American countries. They realize it is necessary for the productive sector and processors, with the support of governments, to seek joint solutions to achieve the transfer of information throughout the entire chain.

The technology is much more advanced now than when these discussions began, and I think we are getting closer to achieving needed results. The best example is traceability, where the greatest difficulty is in reaching indirect suppliers (breeding and re-breeding fields.) Because they are not monitored by slaughterhouses, traceability and information are lost in the supply chain.

There are various individual solutions, but a transformation of the industry needs a sectoral tool, and in some cases, one hand-in-hand with public policies.

I think for Brazil and other countries linked to deforestation, traceability represents an opportunity. It provides an opportunity to change the image of the country, identify the real problem and its dimension (the entire country is mistakenly identified as a country at risk) and recover markets that have been lost due to a lack of transparency.

If these barriers are overcome, the meat industry will be able to better communicate and demonstrate what it really does, with data based on science. It will be a great transformation for the sector and I hope the negative image can be changed.

Field visits like the one we did in Colombia and this one in Brazil demonstrate the importance of people going to the fields and seeing with their own eyes the technological innovation and the efforts that the producers make every day to be increasingly sustainable. Coming to the countryside totally changes the vision and concepts formed by only reading news from the city.

In the next issue of Connect, I will give more details of this journey since it is just beginning as I write this.

Thank you,

Josefina Eisele
Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef
Regional Director, South America 
19 April 2023


We are delighted to welcome you as a GRSB member. 
We look forward to working with you.

Click HERE

Click HERE

Copyright © 2023 Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. All rights reserved.

You are receiving this message as a benefit of membership to the
Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

GRSB Administrative Offices:
13570 Meadowgrass Dr. Suite 201 Colorado Springs, CO80920 USA

Phone: 1-719-355-2935
Fax: 1-719-538-8847 
Email: admin@grsbeef.org

This message was sent to you by {Organization_Name}
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe at any time