Cattle industry lags behind in addressing impact on deforestation

first_imgSupply chain transparency is especially difficult in the cattle industry because cattle frequently change hands, unlike soy or oil palm crops that remain stationary for years.While some major cattle companies have taken strides toward sustainability, they still lack sufficient support from the industry as a whole.While consumers are increasingly pushing for deforestation-free palm oil and other products, consumer pressure for change in the cattle industry hasn’t been as significant. In almost every aisle of the grocery store, you can find products from the palm oil, soy, wood, and cattle industries. Together, these industries are responsible for more than a third of tropical deforestation annually, according to the non-profit organization Forest Trends. While strides have been made by all four industries toward establishing deforestation-free commodity supply chains, the cattle industry has lagged behind the others.In a 2016 survey of more than 550 major companies with ties to these commodities, Forest Trends found that 61 percent of companies active in palm oil made commitments to cleaning up their chains, compared to only 15 percent of those active in the cattle industry. Yet cattle products are responsible for at least ten percent more deforestation than palm.Beef cattle are the largest commodity driver of deforestation globally, according to the think tank Global Canopy Programme (GCP) in its report “Sleeping Giants of Deforestation,” released in December 2016. GCP also highlighted the cattle industry’s inertia compared with other forest-linked industries. According to the report, the cattle industry remains the largest commodity driver of deforestation, but only about a quarter of companies that operate within the cattle product supply chain have policies in place regarding environmental impacts.The Union of Concerned Scientists has also pointed to the massive deforestation caused by cattle beef – more than twice as much as the other major industries of soybeans, palm oil, and wood products.According to some NGOs and industry players, this inertia may be connected to the complexity of cattle supply chains, low consumer demand for deforestation-free cattle products, and a lack of industry unity.Supply chain complexityJBS runs the world’s largest slaughterhouse and meat processing operation and is one of Brazil’s biggest beef producers. The company employs more than 230,000 people globally, according to their website. It buys cattle daily so that they’re fresh for the slaughter, choosing from a pool of about 70,000 suppliers, according to the company. Of those, 40,000 are in the Amazon. There’s a difficulty, however, in that parts of the region are connected to cattle industry-linked deforestation.Marcio Nappo, sustainability director of Brazilian beef processor JBS, explains that this is partially tied to the complexities of the cattle supply chain. In the daily shuffle of searching for cattle suppliers, slaughterhouses can lose control.Two cows graze in South America. Photo by Marcelo César Augusto Romeo via Flickr“I cannot control my raw materials; it is a pure commodity market, driven by price,” Nappo said. “I don’t have any idea who will be my supplier tomorrow.”JBS is part of the Cattle Agreement, which several major producers signed on to about seven years ago as a part of a pledge to be deforestation-free. But according to Nappo, constant uncertainty in supply chain factors make effective monitoring difficult. An assessment in 2015 of actors in the agreement found that JBS had made “substantial changes” to its procurement criteria.Simon Hall, tropical forest and agriculture program manager for the nonprofit National Wildlife Federation (NWF), agrees that this daily shuffle is a particular obstacle to the cattle industry. According to Hall, soy, paper, and palm oil companies have greater control and stability in terms of suppliers.For example, whereas soy processers often have long-term contractual relationships with farmers, the cattle industry operates largely through one-off transactions. It can be more difficult to get buy-in from producers and change practices on the ground when there aren’t strong supply chain relationships, he said.Soy, palm, or timber crops also take several months or years to grow in a stationary lot, making them a little simpler to track, but cattle frequently changes hands. That makes it harder to track its source and ensure that it is deforestation-free.“The field of soy isn’t going to up and move to the municipality next door, but cattle move around and can be transferred to different areas,” Hall said. He added that an animal is often sold for slaughter when it’s about 40 months old, yet it may have only spent the last three or four months of its life at the ranch from which the slaughterhouse bought it.According to Carlos Saviani, WWF’s vice president of sustainable food, such transfers can be numerous.“One animal… before it reaches a slaughterhouse can pass through 10 different properties,” Saviani said. “It could be born in one farm, weaned in another farm, it could be raised until a year and half in another farm, and then it could go to auction and be sold to a feedlot. You have people that buy cattle and aggregate cattle from smaller producers into a larger farm.”Supply monitoringEfforts by companies like JBS to monitor their suppliers for deforestation often only extend to direct suppliers. JBS uses satellite imagery and other geospatial tracking technologies to check up on its direct suppliers daily to make sure no new land has been cleared, according to the company. But it cannot ensure that the several different properties the cattle passed through – via indirect suppliers – have not contributed to deforestation.Though Saviani praises the work of JBS and other companies that have invested in monitoring their direct suppliers, he said that indirect suppliers may still be responsible for much deforestation. He also said that more comprehensive tracking has been accomplished in other regions, like Uruguay and North America. But it is not yet industry-wide.For example, in Uruguay, each animal is tagged with an individual chip that records every move it has made from birth to slaughterhouse. This chip links into a government-run database.NWF’s Hall notes that he is working with other NGOs and cattle industry players in Brazil to improve tracking. That includes a data tracking system currently in place nationwide to track vaccinations for hoof and mouth disease. It doesn’t track individual animals, but rather batches of animals, so it isn’t as comprehensive as the system in Uruguay.The goal is to integrate deforestation information into this vaccination tracking system. It will still take some work to figure out the technical details, but Hall is hopeful that this will soon allow companies to track the movement of cattle from birth to slaughter and to make sure each ranch the cattle passes through is deforestation-free.Lack of consumer pressurePerception also plays a role in an aspect critical for accountability: public pressure. Forest Trends found in its survey of major companies with ties to forest-linked commodities that cattle companies had less fear of losing customers due to deforestation than the companies in other commodity industries. It reported that 54 percent of timber and pulp companies fear backlash from customers if they support deforestation practices; 52 percent of palm companies expressed the same worry; 41 percent of soy companies; and 36 percent of cattle companies.Retailers have put some pressure on slaughterhouses and ranchers to prevent deforestation. For example, Walmart and other major grocers in Brazil have committed in recent years to sourcing zero-deforestation beef.Beef for sale in the grocery story. Photo by Karamo via PixabayBut compared to other forest commodities, Saviani said, various links in the cattle industry still lag behind. The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has about 3,000 members, while the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) has about 70 members. The RSPO was formed in 2003, while the GRSB is only four years old.Hall, from NWF, said that NGOs have also been working longer on raising awareness about deforestation in the paper industry than in the cattle industry. Cattle products are now receiving more attention in this regard, but it will take time for consumer awareness to catch up.Industry unityNeither the GRSB nor the various national roundtables on sustainable beef have started certifying products, though they have set some indicators and criteria to measure progress. The Forest Trends report noted that certification in other commodities, such as that provided by the RSPO, can help companies measure their progress and communicate it to consumers.“Certification schemes provide a turnkey option toward sustainability that many companies are pursuing,” the report states.The stand against deforestation is not an industry norm when it comes to cattle products, which makes it harder for individual cattle companies to compete when they commit to it, according to JBS’s Nappo. He said they have lost a lot of suppliers.He added that in contrast, the entire soy industry in Brazil has collectively made a zero-deforestation commitment. The trade association does the monitoring, taking the burden off individual companies. Without similar industry support, JBS is left to provide not only its own monitoring but also its own support infrastructure to help its suppliers improve.The Forest Trends report notes just that, stating that, “In spite of … criticisms [that certification criteria are sometimes inadequate], development of certification schemes may offer an opportunity for more companies with … cattle exposure to establish initial deforestation-related commitments and increase ambition over time.”Banner image: Cattle at one of the 70,000 suppliers used by JBS, one of Brazil’s largest beef producers. Photo courtesy of JBSTara MacIsaac is a freelance journalist and editor for Epoch Times. She is based in Canada and you can find her on Twitter at @TaraMacIsaacBackground Information:Forest Trends, “Tracking Corporate Commitments to Deforestation Free Supply Chains,” 2016.Gibbs, H.K., Munger, J., L’Roe, J., Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Christie, M., Amaral, T. and Walker, N.F. (2015). “Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon?” Conservation Letters.RSPA Beef RoundtableFEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page. Cattle, Commodity Roundtables, Deforestation, Forests, Rainforests Popular in the CommunitySponsoredSponsoredOrangutan found tortured and decapitated prompts Indonesia probeEMGIES17 Jan, 2018We will never know the full extent of what this poor Orangutan went through before he died, the same must be done to this evil perpetrator(s) they don’t deserve the air that they breathe this has truly upset me and I wonder for the future for these wonderful creatures. So called ‘Mankind’ has a lot to answer for we are the only ones ruining this world I prefer animals to humans any day of the week.What makes community ecotourism succeed? In Madagascar, location, location, locationScissors1dOther countries should also learn and try to incorporateWhy you should care about the current wave of mass extinctions (commentary)Processor1 DecAfter all, there is no infinite anything in the whole galaxy!Infinite stupidity, right here on earth.The wildlife trade threatens people and animals alike (commentary)Anchor3dUnfortunately I feel The Chinese have no compassion for any living animal. They are a cruel country that as we knowneatbeverything that moves and do not humanily kill these poor animals and insects. They have no health and safety on their markets and they then contract these diseases. Maybe its karma maybe they should look at the way they live and stop using animals for all there so called remedies. DisgustingConservationists welcome China’s wildlife trade banThobolo27 JanChina has consistently been the worlds worst, “ Face of Evil “ in regards our planets flora and fauna survival. In some ways, this is nature trying to fight back. This ban is great, but the rest of the world just cannot allow it to be temporary, because history has demonstrated that once this coronavirus passes, they will in all likelihood, simply revert to been the planets worst Ecco Terrorists. Let’s simply not allow this to happen! How and why they have been able to degrade this planets iconic species, rape the planets rivers, oceans and forests, with apparent impunity, is just mind boggling! Please no more.Probing rural poachers in Africa: Why do they poach?Carrot3dOne day I feel like animals will be more scarce, and I agree with one of my friends, they said that poaching will take over the world, but I also hope notUpset about Amazon fires last year? Focus on deforestation this year (commentary)Bullhorn4dLies and more leisSponsoredSponsoredCoke is again the biggest culprit behind plastic waste in the PhilippinesGrapes7 NovOnce again the article blames companies for the actions of individuals. It is individuals that buy these products, it is individuals that dispose of them improperly. If we want to change it, we have to change, not just create bad guys to blame.Brazilian response to Bolsonaro policies and Amazon fires growsCar4 SepThank you for this excellent report. I feel overwhelmed by the ecocidal intent of the Bolsonaro government in the name of ‘developing’ their ‘God-given’ resources.U.S. allocates first of $30M in grants for forest conservation in SumatraPlanet4dcarrot hella thick ;)Melting Arctic sea ice may be altering winds, weather at equator: studyleftylarry30 JanThe Arctic sea ice seems to be recovering this winter as per the last 10-12 years, good news.Malaysia has the world’s highest deforestation rate, reveals Google forest mapBone27 Sep, 2018Who you’re trying to fool with selective data revelation?You can’t hide the truth if you show historical deforestation for all countries, especially in Europe from 1800s to this day. WorldBank has a good wholesome data on this.Mass tree planting along India’s Cauvery River has scientists worriedSurendra Nekkanti23 JanHi Mongabay. Good effort trying to be objective in this article. I would like to give a constructive feedback which could help in clearing things up.1. It is mentioned that planting trees in village common lands will have negative affects socially and ecologically. There is no need to even have to agree or disagree with it, because, you also mentioned the fact that Cauvery Calling aims to plant trees only in the private lands of the farmers. So, plantation in the common lands doesn’t come into the picture.2.I don’t see that the ecologists are totally against this project, but just they they have some concerns, mainly in terms of what species of trees will be planted. And because there was no direct communication between the ecologists and Isha Foundation, it was not possible for them to address the concerns. As you seem to have spoken with an Isha spokesperson, if you could connect the concerned parties, it would be great, because I see that the ecologists are genuinely interested in making sure things are done the right way.May we all come together and make things happen.Rare Amazon bush dogs caught on camera in BoliviaCarrot1 Feba very good iniciative to be fallowed by the ranchers all overSponsoredcenter_img Article published by Genevieve Belmakerlast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *