1 00:00:00,090 --> 00:00:07,860 Just to introduce myself, I'm Tara Garnett, the director at Table and a fellow here at the Oxford Martin School. 2 00:00:07,860 --> 00:00:13,620 And I'm joined by three fascinating panellists who are going to introduce in a minute. 3 00:00:13,620 --> 00:00:22,020 And I think each of these panellists is going to bring a different perspective to the livestock question, which is really the point of this evening. 4 00:00:22,020 --> 00:00:26,520 I think everyone here who's going to be listening in on this evening will be aware of 5 00:00:26,520 --> 00:00:32,070 the fact that livestock are implicated in a range of social and environmental problems, 6 00:00:32,070 --> 00:00:39,600 not not least, which of course, is the problem of climate change. But we all also know that the problem the livestock questions are very, 7 00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:44,580 very complex one an example of an issue where there's a ton of evidence out there, 8 00:00:44,580 --> 00:00:49,380 but a lot of contestation of that evidence because of it being different kinds of 9 00:00:49,380 --> 00:00:55,650 evidence from different disciplines based on different scales of observation, 10 00:00:55,650 --> 00:01:00,030 different contexts, different sets of assumptions using different qualities. 11 00:01:00,030 --> 00:01:03,330 And it's an area where scientific understanding is fraught, 12 00:01:03,330 --> 00:01:09,240 contested and and the upshot of this is that the evidence gets pulled and pushed in different directions and 13 00:01:09,240 --> 00:01:15,450 used in all sorts of way to give different answers to the question of what's the livestock problem and what? 14 00:01:15,450 --> 00:01:23,250 What we to do about it. And of course, it's a topic where science into leaves with or is mediated by ethics and values, 15 00:01:23,250 --> 00:01:30,060 different different ways of deciding what to prioritise and different visions of what we actually want. 16 00:01:30,060 --> 00:01:39,570 And. And this really is the purpose of the evening is to try and dig down and explore with through this panel discussion why we hold 17 00:01:39,570 --> 00:01:46,770 the views we do about livestock and why we have different views of what evidence and values we bring to this discussions. 18 00:01:46,770 --> 00:01:55,980 So amongst our panellists, I hope to look at where we disagree, but also what points of commonality we might be able to find. 19 00:01:55,980 --> 00:02:00,630 So before I go any further and introduce the panellists just to say some housekeeping notes, 20 00:02:00,630 --> 00:02:06,990 it's all going to be recorded and they'll be as much time for questions at the end as we can manage. 21 00:02:06,990 --> 00:02:10,920 Given that the shortening, we will still have to finish at 6:30. 22 00:02:10,920 --> 00:02:20,310 But you can can use the Ask a Question button, and you can also vote on the questions that you see in the the highest voting answers will will ask. 23 00:02:20,310 --> 00:02:28,530 So onto the panellists, I'm delighted to introduce a character who is the director of food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute, 24 00:02:28,530 --> 00:02:31,680 which is a California think tank which takes, let's say, 25 00:02:31,680 --> 00:02:43,080 a positive approach to ways of addressing our environmental problems and also adopt Pablo Manzano from the Basque Centre for Climate Change, 26 00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:52,350 who originally rangeland ecologist who works now to try and understand livestock and that role within a context of this complexity of social, 27 00:02:52,350 --> 00:02:57,930 economic and an ecological variables. And at different temporal and spatial scales. 28 00:02:57,930 --> 00:03:02,820 And finally, Dr Helena Wright, his policy director at Fair Fest, 29 00:03:02,820 --> 00:03:07,680 the world's fastest growing investor network, which is focussing on the environmental, 30 00:03:07,680 --> 00:03:15,030 social and governance risks in the global food sector, particularly those associated with intensive animal agriculture. 31 00:03:15,030 --> 00:03:22,320 So I'm going to ask each of you to to talk just for a couple of minutes where really 32 00:03:22,320 --> 00:03:27,600 I'd like you to just kind of set out your stall in terms of what what you feel, 33 00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:33,690 be the real causes of the livestock problems we face today are and what your visions 34 00:03:33,690 --> 00:03:39,240 of a bad livestock future and a desirable livestock future might look like. 35 00:03:39,240 --> 00:03:48,240 So if you just kind of confine your your remarks to just a couple of minutes and then we we can get going and then open out into a proper discussion? 36 00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:52,910 So Helena, please go ahead first. Right to be high. 37 00:03:52,910 --> 00:04:00,590 So, yeah, as I've mentioned, I'm the policy director of Fair and we are an investor network that supports investors who understand 38 00:04:00,590 --> 00:04:05,880 the risks in the global food system with a particular focus actually on animal agriculture. 39 00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:13,190 So our research really covers the most material issues, such as climate, biodiversity, antibiotics and so on. 40 00:04:13,190 --> 00:04:21,530 And I think in terms of that question of what you see is the the the vision of what the future would look like, say, coming up to 2050. 41 00:04:21,530 --> 00:04:28,790 That's actually a really big issue for investors as well, because a lot of investors have made commitments, say to net zero. 42 00:04:28,790 --> 00:04:33,470 A lot of them are trying to address deforestation as well in the supply chain. 43 00:04:33,470 --> 00:04:41,210 And when we see the sector, there isn't a clear enough roadmap for what we need to see us to get to 2050. 44 00:04:41,210 --> 00:04:45,680 We have seen in other sectors, for example, with the IEA's net zero roadmap, 45 00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:53,180 was very influential and really showing what we need to see by 2050 and kind of outlining for the energy sector. 46 00:04:53,180 --> 00:04:59,000 What would the milestones might need to be for different stakeholders, for different companies? 47 00:04:59,000 --> 00:05:05,900 And that really helped the energy sector to understand the transition that would be needed for 1.5 degrees. 48 00:05:05,900 --> 00:05:11,960 Unfortunately, we don't have any equivalent to that sort of IEA as a roadmap for agriculture and food systems. 49 00:05:11,960 --> 00:05:18,020 At the moment, we don't really have that globally agreed kind of clarity for a central roadmap. 50 00:05:18,020 --> 00:05:26,210 So there are different studies out there sort of showing how we, you know, meet various goals climate, nature, food security, 51 00:05:26,210 --> 00:05:32,570 but people are not sort of putting those goals together and looking across multiple sustainable development goals. 52 00:05:32,570 --> 00:05:39,560 And that's really what's needed, I think, because there's a lot of different trade-offs. We know that the demand for protein is growing. 53 00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:49,010 We know that the demand for land is growing and all of these different pressures will be increasing over the next decades. 54 00:05:49,010 --> 00:05:54,230 So I think what we need is greater clarity to how to reconcile these multiple issues, 55 00:05:54,230 --> 00:05:58,430 sustainability risks and the planetary boundaries that we face by planetary boundaries, 56 00:05:58,430 --> 00:06:01,880 on land, on pesticide use, 57 00:06:01,880 --> 00:06:11,420 etc. We're not sort of meeting the goals that moment that would lead us to a more sustainable world that would actually be sustainable for the future. 58 00:06:11,420 --> 00:06:16,460 So yes, when you investors have mentioned that we need a clearer roadmap, 59 00:06:16,460 --> 00:06:22,790 and that would probably be some combination of regenerative approaches for agriculture, 60 00:06:22,790 --> 00:06:28,940 some combination of diet shifts, including alternative and plant based protein sources, 61 00:06:28,940 --> 00:06:34,730 and then some combination of intensification in the mix as well different pathways. 62 00:06:34,730 --> 00:06:40,280 And we need more clarity on what that looks like. So, yeah, I'll stop there. 63 00:06:40,280 --> 00:06:46,170 Thank you, Helen. I'm Dan. Would you like to go next? 64 00:06:46,170 --> 00:06:55,260 Thank you. As you introduced and then readyto I'm the director of food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute, 65 00:06:55,260 --> 00:07:02,340 and I like to zoom out a little bit to talk about those other stages, actually that Helen mentions. 66 00:07:02,340 --> 00:07:08,460 Livestock is not just an environmental problem, it's also interwoven with a bunch of human development problems. 67 00:07:08,460 --> 00:07:15,660 There are hundreds of millions of people in the world who get much of their income and livelihoods from raising livestock, 68 00:07:15,660 --> 00:07:26,610 as well as certainly billions who rely on meat, milk and other products for protein, calories, micronutrients and other elements of nutrition. 69 00:07:26,610 --> 00:07:35,070 Although I think it's really easy to kind of have a very kind of western perspective and the focus on the US where I am in the UK, 70 00:07:35,070 --> 00:07:45,780 where I think if you are. Many people around the world, like an estimated Billing billion or so, do suffer from protein deficiencies, 71 00:07:45,780 --> 00:07:52,080 and so there's a real case to be made that we do need more access to livestock products. 72 00:07:52,080 --> 00:07:54,600 Much of the world, as well as as Helen mentioned, 73 00:07:54,600 --> 00:08:03,970 probably less and less meat consumption in places like the US or we consume far above the global average. 74 00:08:03,970 --> 00:08:13,560 But I think, you know, in addition to this human is human problems that we face on the environmental side, of course. 75 00:08:13,560 --> 00:08:19,920 Livestock contributes something on the order of 14 to 19 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. 76 00:08:19,920 --> 00:08:24,900 We can quibble over the numbers, but it's a substantial amount and of course, 77 00:08:24,900 --> 00:08:34,140 contribute to dramatic land use conversion from forests to pasture and crop land, as well as a number of other impacts. 78 00:08:34,140 --> 00:08:45,500 I think. We probably intuitively understand many of the drivers of the root causes of this sort of global population as large demand has been rising. 79 00:08:45,500 --> 00:08:51,900 Meet demand has doubled or so since 1960 per capita. 80 00:08:51,900 --> 00:08:58,050 But one element I think that's often lost is something that Helen that alluded to, 81 00:08:58,050 --> 00:09:06,450 which is the low productivity of livestock, agriculture and many parts of the world in many places, 82 00:09:06,450 --> 00:09:15,180 the yields per cow and the environmental impacts per cow or per kilogram of beef are much larger five times 83 00:09:15,180 --> 00:09:20,580 or ten times larger than they are and much of the western world and then the highest productivity countries. 84 00:09:20,580 --> 00:09:26,790 So what I would really emphasise is that need to intensify livestock agriculture more in the coming decades. 85 00:09:26,790 --> 00:09:37,530 So that's the lowest productivity places can raise yields, not just reducing environmental impacts, but also providing more access to protein, 86 00:09:37,530 --> 00:09:49,440 greater profits for livestock producers and otherwise helping enhance both human welfare as well as environmental welfare. 87 00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:56,460 Thank you, Don Pablo. Over to you, I suspect you might offer a slightly different take on the issues. 88 00:09:56,460 --> 00:10:04,740 Yes. Thank you. Well, I'm Carol Manzano. I'm an ecologist working at the Centre of Climate Change for Climate Change and BBC3. 89 00:10:04,740 --> 00:10:11,400 And I think my perspective is pretty much oriented by my college's background when we analyse the grazing 90 00:10:11,400 --> 00:10:18,120 systems in the world and I am specialised in crazy systems both by whales and by domestic livestock, 91 00:10:18,120 --> 00:10:22,080 we can see that in in Europe and in the states. 92 00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:30,480 I mean, many developed countries, particularly, we have a lack of herbivore that is causing a lot of environmental problems. 93 00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:35,790 And I think that's very descriptive of the evolution that the livestock sector has had in 94 00:10:35,790 --> 00:10:42,630 the last decades and where we detect both a decrease in the mobility of of livestock, 95 00:10:42,630 --> 00:10:47,670 which has contributed a lot to the decrease in the productivity of the systems. 96 00:10:47,670 --> 00:10:56,580 And they don't imitate anymore the wild how people are systems with a certain degree of mobility that basically follow the productivity of the plants, 97 00:10:56,580 --> 00:11:07,080 but just stay sedentary and and food has to be brought to them. And also, we detect an increasing industrialisation of the production. 98 00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:14,790 And I think that causes artefacts in the data that many people made sort of in a wrong way. 99 00:11:14,790 --> 00:11:25,590 And for example, much of the of the footprint that is attributed to to livestock like, you know, they're these number from fouled. 100 00:11:25,590 --> 00:11:33,990 That piece, quoted very often of their fourteen point five percent of the total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions triggered by livestock, 101 00:11:33,990 --> 00:11:41,010 should be nuanced because it is not being accounted that in many of the marginal lands that Dan 102 00:11:41,010 --> 00:11:48,450 was just talking about that are perceived to be really unproductive or of low productivity. 103 00:11:48,450 --> 00:11:53,330 These are lands that cannot be used for for any other use that can just be used by 104 00:11:53,330 --> 00:11:56,670 Glasto because they took a small band for it somewhere in the centre of the Sahara. 105 00:11:56,670 --> 00:12:01,210 You can use livestock to graze on the annual plants that grow there. 106 00:12:01,210 --> 00:12:05,820 When one of these rains that happens every seven years happen because you just 107 00:12:05,820 --> 00:12:09,870 think that livestock there and you cannot do that with plants and seeds, 108 00:12:09,870 --> 00:12:18,060 of course, because they're sessile organisms there, they are not mobile. So it means in all of this, it means that for me, 109 00:12:18,060 --> 00:12:26,100 the crises of all of the livestock sector right now is very much linked to an industrialisation that with us, 110 00:12:26,100 --> 00:12:34,590 with so many other aspects of our current life, is really a drug addict off of fossil fuels. 111 00:12:34,590 --> 00:12:42,570 And we are not going back to these livestock practises that depend less on fossil fuels and that 112 00:12:42,570 --> 00:12:50,580 our ecological ecological proxies or ecological analogies to what wild herbivores would do. 113 00:12:50,580 --> 00:12:59,220 And also we have to look at their palaeontology. We know that for the last 12 to 15 million years, 114 00:12:59,220 --> 00:13:08,250 everybody has been a force shaping ecosystems all over the world and only in the in the last tens of thousands of years. 115 00:13:08,250 --> 00:13:13,770 We have lost most of the herbivores worldwide, and there are processes triggered by humans like, for example, 116 00:13:13,770 --> 00:13:21,420 burning by hunter-gatherers or also the landscape management that pastoralists do that substitute these functions. 117 00:13:21,420 --> 00:13:25,170 So we have the absurd now the absurd situation know that, for example, 118 00:13:25,170 --> 00:13:31,980 in Europe and where you have a loss of biodiversity because you lose on the open ecosystems. 119 00:13:31,980 --> 00:13:38,310 Yet you are arguing about the high environmental footprint in terms of greenhouse gas 120 00:13:38,310 --> 00:13:43,560 emissions of those herbivores that we are losing and that we shouldn't lose anymore. 121 00:13:43,560 --> 00:13:52,620 And whose methane, for example, would be emitted either by deer or or also by wild fires that we are having both in California, 122 00:13:52,620 --> 00:14:00,960 in Australia and the Mediterranean. Thank you, I mean, Dan, would you like to to come back on that? 123 00:14:00,960 --> 00:14:05,280 I mean, I'm seeing a sort of slightly different set of visions, 124 00:14:05,280 --> 00:14:09,300 and I'm wondering whether this is because of different contexts or whether it's 125 00:14:09,300 --> 00:14:14,910 just fundamentally different ideas of what the priorities of the food system, 126 00:14:14,910 --> 00:14:24,540 different kinds of metrics. And I think also we haven't quite defined intensification and industrialisation. 127 00:14:24,540 --> 00:14:32,280 So perhaps you can start by offering your definition of that and and then and then come back up, Pablo. 128 00:14:32,280 --> 00:14:37,920 And also what you agree with him about, as well as what you disagree with him? 129 00:14:37,920 --> 00:14:45,420 Certainly. So I think it is really important to understand that livestock intensification is not the 130 00:14:45,420 --> 00:14:52,530 same necessarily as industrialisation and its livestock contents can be intensified. 131 00:14:52,530 --> 00:15:01,500 Livestock production can be intensified without necessarily mirroring the confined animal feeding operations or 132 00:15:01,500 --> 00:15:10,980 sometimes called factory farms or by activists that we have in the US and in much of the industrialised world. 133 00:15:10,980 --> 00:15:22,650 Intensification can include many different things that enhance the amount of production per hectare or per animal mean pasture management. 134 00:15:22,650 --> 00:15:30,000 I mean, as Pablo was saying, really trying to align the grazing patterns of animals with the productivity of the ecosystem, 135 00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:41,670 with the productivity of the forages and grasses so that it's really optimally used can also mean providing more crop based feeds to animals. 136 00:15:41,670 --> 00:15:43,860 I think that's an area we will probably disagree. 137 00:15:43,860 --> 00:15:55,230 But grain based or corn soy based feeds can provide much more energy to animals and help them basically gain weight quicker. 138 00:15:55,230 --> 00:15:59,280 And intensification can also mean things that we all want to see, 139 00:15:59,280 --> 00:16:05,850 such as better veterinary care and better reproductive health so that animals get sick less often. 140 00:16:05,850 --> 00:16:19,860 The fewer calves are lost during basically birthing, so that overall as much of the energy really going into the system ends up going out as meat, 141 00:16:19,860 --> 00:16:25,950 as milk and other products that people want to produce. 142 00:16:25,950 --> 00:16:32,370 These benefits that we see an intensification, I think, are also seen with kapos. 143 00:16:32,370 --> 00:16:41,540 And I think that's a very uncomfortable point that there are some environmental benefits, certainly with the small industrialised, 144 00:16:41,540 --> 00:16:49,200 energy intensive and fossil fuel dependent system certainly shifting over to grain based, 145 00:16:49,200 --> 00:16:56,760 more confined operations reduces overall land use, although it does involve smaller crop land use. 146 00:16:56,760 --> 00:17:06,930 Definitely, it reduces the pressure on pasture, the pressure to increase pasture land into other forests or other types of vegetation. 147 00:17:06,930 --> 00:17:16,710 And by almost every study I've seen, it reduces the amount of total greenhouse gas emissions per pound, the fee for per pound of milk. 148 00:17:16,710 --> 00:17:27,180 There are definite trade-offs, though. I. I personally go back and forth over whether I value the environmental benefits of 149 00:17:27,180 --> 00:17:32,480 those more than I value the animal welfare benefits of more grass fed systems. 150 00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:36,350 And certainly there are human labour trade-offs as well, 151 00:17:36,350 --> 00:17:42,500 where workers and meat processing plants and workers on feedlots are not necessarily treated very well. 152 00:17:42,500 --> 00:17:50,480 So I don't think there's any silver bullet necessarily or a one size fits all solution. 153 00:17:50,480 --> 00:17:57,050 I think these are trade offs that people will make depending on their values and depending on the local priorities, 154 00:17:57,050 --> 00:18:01,140 some places are intensifying to the level. 155 00:18:01,140 --> 00:18:07,040 OK, so it may make sense. Another very well may not. 156 00:18:07,040 --> 00:18:17,660 But that all said, I do want to just emphasise a couple of points Pablo made because I think they're really important and people often downplay them. 157 00:18:17,660 --> 00:18:22,220 So one is this issue of methane emissions from wildlife. 158 00:18:22,220 --> 00:18:30,680 I think it's definitely true that if we remove cattle or sheep or other livestock from 159 00:18:30,680 --> 00:18:39,140 an ecosystem and restore it to some past version of that ecosystem with wildlife, 160 00:18:39,140 --> 00:18:48,030 there will be some amount of methane emissions from those animals as well from deer, from bison. 161 00:18:48,030 --> 00:18:53,130 Every estimate I've seen suggests that it's substantially smaller. 162 00:18:53,130 --> 00:19:05,470 That level of emissions. But it does certainly offset a part of the greenhouse gas benefits that we might imagine. 163 00:19:05,470 --> 00:19:09,380 So and. I guess just one last point. 164 00:19:09,380 --> 00:19:18,250 Maybe we kind of all perhaps disagree to some amount is the role of grass fed. 165 00:19:18,250 --> 00:19:29,410 Production systems, I think that certainly, as Pablo mentioned, grazing cattle on on pasture and forage lands in rangelands can be really important. 166 00:19:29,410 --> 00:19:37,960 At the same time, the level with growing meat demand and extremely high level of commitment we have in some places, 167 00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:47,480 we just simply won't be able to meet existing demand exclusively with grass fed systems that would substantially increase meat prices. 168 00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:54,500 It's certainly true in the US, so know it's like in the UK, but that's a real trade off we have to grapple with. 169 00:19:54,500 --> 00:20:01,310 Thanks, Dan. I think that that's almost starting to be drawn into a discussion about a consumption side things, 170 00:20:01,310 --> 00:20:06,010 but let's bring in Helena first because I mean, I think you. 171 00:20:06,010 --> 00:20:14,090 Yeah, I mean, Pablo comes from a quite a sort of bottom up perspective involving people who may or may. 172 00:20:14,090 --> 00:20:19,040 It may not be so closely connected to the kind of global financial system, 173 00:20:19,040 --> 00:20:24,980 whereas you you look at this from a very, very macro scale, looking at working with your investors. 174 00:20:24,980 --> 00:20:29,000 And I'm going to think in a way you've kind of straddled both Pablo. 175 00:20:29,000 --> 00:20:36,860 And then insofar as Dan's vision of the kind of the cafe and the intensification as a way to go is something 176 00:20:36,860 --> 00:20:44,750 that you are highlighting as a kind of right with a whole load of risks on one hand and on the other. 177 00:20:44,750 --> 00:20:54,800 Pablo's vision of a sort of smaller scale agro ecological approach is perhaps not within the purview, if you will, of the people that you work with. 178 00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:59,600 But I'm putting words into your mouth, so perhaps you could comment on that. 179 00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:05,960 Yeah, I was really interesting debate, and I think just actually first off, I just want to say that, you know, 180 00:21:05,960 --> 00:21:13,370 we need to draw a huge distinction between the huge industrial phase that we see in and tests of livestock 181 00:21:13,370 --> 00:21:19,040 production primarily going to the rich sort of global north consumption level and the smallholders, 182 00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:24,530 which are, you know, primarily sort of tending to their livelihoods and in fact most vulnerable to 183 00:21:24,530 --> 00:21:29,480 the impacts of climate change rather than causing climate change themselves. 184 00:21:29,480 --> 00:21:37,040 So I think just to put that that The Lancet report, you know, provides a science based approach that says that in the global North, 185 00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:43,700 actually, the animal protein consumption is too high and we need to be reduced to meet planetary boundaries. 186 00:21:43,700 --> 00:21:49,250 Whereas in the global south, in many places, there may be room to increase that. 187 00:21:49,250 --> 00:21:51,050 So just to put that out at the beginning, 188 00:21:51,050 --> 00:21:57,950 I wanted to touch on some of the issues that Dan had raised actually most distinctly and kind of offer a perspective. 189 00:21:57,950 --> 00:22:03,230 One is the greenhouse gas efficiency per unit, which has been used as a variable. 190 00:22:03,230 --> 00:22:07,580 But I think from the investor perspective, you really cannot just look at greenhouse gases. 191 00:22:07,580 --> 00:22:16,310 That's extremely important because if you only look from a carbon perspective, you could lead to very perverse incentives, say, for biodiversity, 192 00:22:16,310 --> 00:22:24,410 for antibiotics and for a whole other host level of risks if you were to intensify production, only focussing on greenhouse gas per unit. 193 00:22:24,410 --> 00:22:32,780 Secondly, it hasn't worked very well for the fossil fuel sector, so there's a parallel efficiency of fossil fuel extraction, 194 00:22:32,780 --> 00:22:40,790 obviously, was something that the fossil fuel industrial sector promoted a lot, thinking that that would reduce emissions. 195 00:22:40,790 --> 00:22:48,440 But the efficiency of fossil fuel per unit obviously leads to greater use of fossil fuels and greater extraction. 196 00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:54,380 So I would say fundamentally, that is a parallel, but we need to draw and perhaps we need more research on that. 197 00:22:54,380 --> 00:23:02,990 I think we don't have enough information about how greenhouse gas efficiency per unit may not reduce global emissions. 198 00:23:02,990 --> 00:23:08,780 If you look at it from a livestock perspective, as well as other ESG risks involved, 199 00:23:08,780 --> 00:23:16,010 so that could be an interesting area for future research in how the perverse incentives could occur. 200 00:23:16,010 --> 00:23:21,830 And then another issue is that you mentioned using less land and some of the most intensive systems. 201 00:23:21,830 --> 00:23:27,740 But actually, I mean, I think there's an issue there of the animal feed production, 202 00:23:27,740 --> 00:23:35,210 which goes into that because you have per land unit, it may be if animals are more intensively produced, they would use less land. 203 00:23:35,210 --> 00:23:44,840 But as we know, biodiversity is a huge issue, and office sort of research shows that a huge number of the protein producers, 204 00:23:44,840 --> 00:23:50,720 over 70 percent are not tracking whether they are causing deforestation down the supply chain. 205 00:23:50,720 --> 00:23:53,060 So we don't have the data, unfortunately, 206 00:23:53,060 --> 00:23:59,540 and we literally don't have the data to know about the animal feed and how that could be causing deforestation. 207 00:23:59,540 --> 00:24:03,260 As we know that, you know, huge amounts of global soya production, 208 00:24:03,260 --> 00:24:09,770 around 70 percent goes to livestock and we don't know, you know, how that's causing deforestation. 209 00:24:09,770 --> 00:24:14,270 So we are lacking the data to understand these issues as well. 210 00:24:14,270 --> 00:24:18,080 And the final passage, just like to mention looking from an investor perspective, 211 00:24:18,080 --> 00:24:25,640 you can really reduce a whole host of risks by looking more into diversification into sustainable protein. 212 00:24:25,640 --> 00:24:29,930 And that is something that now a lot of companies are doing in a lot of investors are looking at. 213 00:24:29,930 --> 00:24:36,050 And that means plant based meat alternative products, which primarily feed that, you know, 214 00:24:36,050 --> 00:24:43,130 the growing demand levels and alternative protein consuming sort of very simple products ranging from, 215 00:24:43,130 --> 00:24:50,270 you know, bean baggers, lentil burgers, etc. to more kind of processed products. 216 00:24:50,270 --> 00:24:58,240 But whichever products they are, they. You have a range of environmental benefits, actually, because they reduce not just climate risk, 217 00:24:58,240 --> 00:25:03,040 but also biodiversity risk, antibiotic risk, land use, et cetera. 218 00:25:03,040 --> 00:25:10,270 So I think there is a role for that in a lot of companies without even the large sort of protein producers are looking at that issue, 219 00:25:10,270 --> 00:25:14,830 although we haven't seen a enough awareness of policymakers right now. 220 00:25:14,830 --> 00:25:23,650 So policy is the third sort of point that I would like to raise. Intensive systems that we have a hugely reliance on agricultural subsidies. 221 00:25:23,650 --> 00:25:31,780 So while they may look efficient, they actually are economically inefficient and sort of inefficient way to produce protein. 222 00:25:31,780 --> 00:25:39,970 So that is an area which I think may require understanding and greater information. 223 00:25:39,970 --> 00:25:45,550 Thank you, Pablo. Mean, I just was hoping you would kind respond to help us. 224 00:25:45,550 --> 00:25:51,700 On the one hand, we have this this concept of the alternative, more sustainable protein, 225 00:25:51,700 --> 00:26:00,370 which is often the focus of investment by these big large scale heifer linked animal protein 226 00:26:00,370 --> 00:26:04,930 producers who are the kind of the antithesis of of the systems that you're promoting. 227 00:26:04,930 --> 00:26:08,410 So I'm just wondering what your take is on this, 228 00:26:08,410 --> 00:26:16,030 and I think you'll first be quite useful to kind of zoom out into a larger discussion about what we mean by dietary change, 229 00:26:16,030 --> 00:26:29,080 its its potentials and the limitations. Yeah, well, I wanted to agree with Cheryl now that the policy's actually around how the private sector acts. 230 00:26:29,080 --> 00:26:34,470 And that's very important, and I think even if more could be done from the state of policy, 231 00:26:34,470 --> 00:26:41,690 the fact that these initiatives for four alternative protein sources and countries meet 232 00:26:41,690 --> 00:26:46,670 and all that stuff comes into place is also from from the demand of the consumers, 233 00:26:46,670 --> 00:26:49,670 all a firm, the demand of policy makers. 234 00:26:49,670 --> 00:26:58,310 And I also wanted to agreed with then that intensification in general a in in many aspects is something good and the fact that, 235 00:26:58,310 --> 00:27:05,540 for example, less carbs and less lands die now that 100 years ago, which is a way of intensification. 236 00:27:05,540 --> 00:27:13,070 Of course, that's that's good for for providing more food for for providing more protein for people that, for example. 237 00:27:13,070 --> 00:27:18,380 But I've worked 10 years in Africa and I I know that half of the African population 238 00:27:18,380 --> 00:27:23,010 is considered to be stunted because of insufficient access to animal source foods. 239 00:27:23,010 --> 00:27:24,500 So it's a big issue. 240 00:27:24,500 --> 00:27:35,910 But I think here what we have is a set of assumptions that even if they are in the mainstream, I consider them to be wrong, directly wrong. 241 00:27:35,910 --> 00:27:42,230 And, for example, a land use change. And this is an aspect that that you both have mentioned. 242 00:27:42,230 --> 00:27:51,560 It is considered that any land use by livestock is land use by humans, and therefore it's land that is negatively used. 243 00:27:51,560 --> 00:27:56,510 However, from the side of the ecology and from the side of the evidence from from biodiversity, 244 00:27:56,510 --> 00:28:04,910 we know that for grazed ecosystems we are basically all except for rainforests. 245 00:28:04,910 --> 00:28:19,490 At least since 15 million years ago, and a moderate herbivore mediated either by wild herbivores or by domestic herbivores is positive. 246 00:28:19,490 --> 00:28:27,260 It's not neutral. It's positive in terms of ecosystem function and in terms of and in terms of biodiversity. 247 00:28:27,260 --> 00:28:31,190 However, it is also very important to define how it is used. 248 00:28:31,190 --> 00:28:32,810 Of course, it's not the same. 249 00:28:32,810 --> 00:28:42,500 If you have a herd of cows grazing all year long being in grass lawn because it will be the same as if you are mowing your grass every day, 250 00:28:42,500 --> 00:28:44,480 of course you will kill the plants. 251 00:28:44,480 --> 00:28:52,590 You will need to graze them and then let them rest and then graze them again and let them breathe, just as you would do in your garden lawn. 252 00:28:52,590 --> 00:28:56,330 It's the same, and then you would produce a landscape, 253 00:28:56,330 --> 00:29:03,650 which is the natural landscape that we would have observe, see in the in the last interglacial in the union, 254 00:29:03,650 --> 00:29:11,720 which have a similar climate as us now, but with way more herbivores all over the place where we would have a mixture of trees, 255 00:29:11,720 --> 00:29:15,770 shrubs and a lot of grass, much more of them than we imagined. 256 00:29:15,770 --> 00:29:20,420 And I think that's the misconception that outside the small world of the vegetation 257 00:29:20,420 --> 00:29:24,620 ecology is that they belong to is a massively misunderstood in the world, 258 00:29:24,620 --> 00:29:28,940 for example, the Cerrado or the charcoal, which I happen to, 259 00:29:28,940 --> 00:29:35,840 to have been working with communities in the Takot region, in South America and for the last 10 years. 260 00:29:35,840 --> 00:29:39,320 It is interpreted that is the latter that is deforested to tackle, 261 00:29:39,320 --> 00:29:48,350 but actually it is a love storekeepers in the Tekle that are uniting themselves against the foresters, which guess what are the grain producers, 262 00:29:48,350 --> 00:29:55,220 the soybean producers and the main producers that they're actually not really triggering our deforestation, 263 00:29:55,220 --> 00:29:58,670 as we imagine of a closed for is that turns into a pasture, 264 00:29:58,670 --> 00:30:09,830 but rather as savanna and the charcoal on the Cerrado are described as savanna already by Enrico, all heading in 1984. 265 00:30:09,830 --> 00:30:20,690 It's turning that into a cropland, and it's a cropland to, well, to produce soybean oil, which is used mainly for human production, 266 00:30:20,690 --> 00:30:23,090 but with a very valuable product, 267 00:30:23,090 --> 00:30:31,910 which is the soy soybean cake which is fed to basically mono gas that is not to ruminants, but to chicken and to pork. 268 00:30:31,910 --> 00:30:38,270 So it's these grain friction that makes these intensification possible, 269 00:30:38,270 --> 00:30:45,050 that it's actually creating a lot of of this land use change, negative land use change. 270 00:30:45,050 --> 00:30:53,090 And also, you mention, well, you mentioned also the existing demand that we have to cope with the existing existing demand. 271 00:30:53,090 --> 00:30:57,920 A, in my opinion, that shouldn't be an issue because, you know, 272 00:30:57,920 --> 00:31:03,830 I think we should aim to produce as sustainable as possible and then we should 273 00:31:03,830 --> 00:31:09,140 just adjust the demand to the offer that we have on sustainable production, 274 00:31:09,140 --> 00:31:20,790 which I believe is much more than we think because of the reasons that I that I am highlighting in in this talk am, and I would say, very important. 275 00:31:20,790 --> 00:31:25,230 Issue that you mentioned is that all the estimates that you have for it, I'm sure you are. 276 00:31:25,230 --> 00:31:33,600 You are right that you have read all these estimates and say that there is much more livestock than than wild herbivores that should be. 277 00:31:33,600 --> 00:31:38,430 But these are very interesting. Interesting study. Interesting subject that they happen. 278 00:31:38,430 --> 00:31:42,720 Also to know personally because I know the persons implicated in that. 279 00:31:42,720 --> 00:31:53,790 This was formulated by Anthony Barnosky in a publication in PNAS in 2008, and a friend of Dr. Barnosky happens to be a collaborator of mine. 280 00:31:53,790 --> 00:32:02,370 The University of Helsinki would have preferred that postdoc during the last two years, and he told me that Barnosky thought about that. 281 00:32:02,370 --> 00:32:06,690 It was just a calculation on the back of an envelope to trigger the debate. 282 00:32:06,690 --> 00:32:13,830 But unfortunately, there has been no debate, so people have just taken the numbers that Barnosky published on PNAS. 283 00:32:13,830 --> 00:32:17,640 And and they haven't they haven't discussed it further. 284 00:32:17,640 --> 00:32:22,740 For example, the revelation that Byron Italian piano years and three years ago that they published, 285 00:32:22,740 --> 00:32:27,000 they just took directly the numbers from from Barnosky, 286 00:32:27,000 --> 00:32:30,930 and they have a paper submitted now that hopefully will be published soon when 287 00:32:30,930 --> 00:32:36,030 I contest these numbers with some newer numbers that have been published. 288 00:32:36,030 --> 00:32:43,680 But for example, you have a very recent publication in Journal of Applied Ecology, the first author and the good with Danish names. 289 00:32:43,680 --> 00:32:54,810 But it's like flop card or something like that. But it's from the lab of author Dr Spending, who is very known for for these things against sending, 290 00:32:54,810 --> 00:33:06,930 and they have actually seen what their natural or the seemingly natural densities of herbivores are in protected areas in all, in all the continents. 291 00:33:06,930 --> 00:33:13,500 And even if it's a not very fine word because they have done global work and they have taken just the data that they put, 292 00:33:13,500 --> 00:33:18,510 they show that in Africa and in Asia where you have complete yields of caregivers, 293 00:33:18,510 --> 00:33:22,530 you have elephants, you have lots of antelopes, you have browsers, 294 00:33:22,530 --> 00:33:28,680 you have razors and not only browsers because in Europe and in the states, we have lost most of the grazers. 295 00:33:28,680 --> 00:33:38,790 We only have browsers and you have really high densities of of herbivores, really high, I mean, much more than than what we are imagining now. 296 00:33:38,790 --> 00:33:43,590 And it's true that in other continents, these densities are lower, 297 00:33:43,590 --> 00:33:49,260 but it's also true that in other continents, the animals are not able to migrate as they used to. 298 00:33:49,260 --> 00:33:53,880 And I am personally doing our research right now in Spain on that and in Spain, 299 00:33:53,880 --> 00:34:00,840 we are having really troubles to find a natural and protected area where we can observed migration because, 300 00:34:00,840 --> 00:34:09,390 you know, as all developed countries, it is so fragmented by roads, by crop plants, et cetera, that it's impossible to have a Serengeti. 301 00:34:09,390 --> 00:34:15,090 So to say OK. But we have a national park in central Spain, 302 00:34:15,090 --> 00:34:21,630 where it's because of the alignment of the mountain ranges and also because it used to be a hunting area. 303 00:34:21,630 --> 00:34:29,640 So they reserve some very productive area, not for croplands, but to have animals there where we observe these kind of migrations. 304 00:34:29,640 --> 00:34:38,760 And even if we are talking just about Red Deer because we have lost all, all that grazers and the Red Deer are browsers, 305 00:34:38,760 --> 00:34:48,000 we are observing a density of fear that is about half what we would get in an extensive livestock system. 306 00:34:48,000 --> 00:34:53,490 OK. So thanks. Yeah. So not just just a last point. 307 00:34:53,490 --> 00:34:59,670 Sorry, Tara, sorry. I also wanted to say that and in my experience in Africa, also, 308 00:34:59,670 --> 00:35:08,370 development agencies are not very realistic in terms of implementing castles in in rural areas in Africa, 309 00:35:08,370 --> 00:35:17,340 for example, because it's also not understood that the communities there cannot enter capital intensive economic strategies. 310 00:35:17,340 --> 00:35:27,460 And this is also from the social point of view. It's also an advantage of the extensive livestock systems that they are not capital intensive. 311 00:35:27,460 --> 00:35:29,560 Certainly thank you, 312 00:35:29,560 --> 00:35:38,830 I'm I'm mindful of time and that we we we started a little bit late and I'd also like to move on to the discussion of the cop and the needs, 313 00:35:38,830 --> 00:35:42,970 the needs for the for the future cop. But before doing so, 314 00:35:42,970 --> 00:35:52,120 I'd just like to kind of go back to this question of consumption and trying to link it a little bit more with with with values as 315 00:35:52,120 --> 00:36:01,870 well and with what we as kind of individuals or as as researchers feel to be a good system and a good future and a feasible future. 316 00:36:01,870 --> 00:36:07,180 So just so one of the one of the points that was the obvious point is that, you know, 317 00:36:07,180 --> 00:36:16,000 our population globally is now largely urban and it's going to be more and more urban over over, over time. 318 00:36:16,000 --> 00:36:20,540 And and I think we have to several kind of some visions going on here. 319 00:36:20,540 --> 00:36:26,800 One is to be very, very crude about it, which is that people want to eat meat, give them cleaner meat. 320 00:36:26,800 --> 00:36:33,220 Another another vision is people want to eat meat, give them decent substitutes and a third vision, 321 00:36:33,220 --> 00:36:37,390 which was if people want meat, it's right and proper. 322 00:36:37,390 --> 00:36:44,470 But that appetite should adjust to the kind of ecological kind of carrying capacity. 323 00:36:44,470 --> 00:36:50,650 And I think those are kind of the very common sets of discussions that that we have never quite resolved. 324 00:36:50,650 --> 00:36:58,840 But have I understood you correctly and and in terms of how how that fits into policymaking 325 00:36:58,840 --> 00:37:06,580 and into ideas about what a way forward is and what's both desirable and what's feasible? 326 00:37:06,580 --> 00:37:14,260 I would be really, really interested if you could, if you could reflect upon this, not just from the perspective of the evidence you marshal, 327 00:37:14,260 --> 00:37:19,930 but also about your own personal visions of what you would like things to be like 328 00:37:19,930 --> 00:37:28,140 going forward and how how far removed that is from what you see to be likely. 329 00:37:28,140 --> 00:37:34,190 So who would like to go first? Dan, go ahead. 330 00:37:34,190 --> 00:37:39,530 I can jump in briefly, I think from my perspective, 331 00:37:39,530 --> 00:37:45,530 what matters most with regard to consumption is how policies are really designed 332 00:37:45,530 --> 00:37:50,330 or how efforts are designed to change other people's consumption behaviour. 333 00:37:50,330 --> 00:37:59,480 I think that the actual point of intervention, whether it's a subsidy or a tax or mandate or regulation or educational campaign, 334 00:37:59,480 --> 00:38:08,960 that that to me is really the crux of the issue. More so than what ultimate level of consumption are trying to achieve. 335 00:38:08,960 --> 00:38:16,190 And from my perspective, what there seems to be the most interesting and really strong evidence for 336 00:38:16,190 --> 00:38:20,600 from what we've learnt from trying to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve 337 00:38:20,600 --> 00:38:25,490 environmental impacts and other sectors really seems important is to really try to 338 00:38:25,490 --> 00:38:32,870 make low carbon or really clean meat cheap to make more sustainable meat cheap, 339 00:38:32,870 --> 00:38:38,330 whether that's animal based or plant based, whether that's grass fed or not. 340 00:38:38,330 --> 00:38:51,590 Ultimately, I think any effort that is focussed on making products more expensive, taxing it or mandating some maximum level of consumption. 341 00:38:51,590 --> 00:39:03,170 Banning meat on Fridays, for instance, or something along those lines is going to inevitably run into really insurmountable political obstacles. 342 00:39:03,170 --> 00:39:10,580 And in both countries, perhaps not at all. But I think in most in most European countries, as well as in the US. 343 00:39:10,580 --> 00:39:18,080 And I think that political element is something that we need to take really seriously because ultimately we don't want to pursue. 344 00:39:18,080 --> 00:39:26,000 I think pipe dreams for policies that may, on paper on a spreadsheet seem optimal, 345 00:39:26,000 --> 00:39:33,350 but ultimately in the public sphere are not going to get the time of day. 346 00:39:33,350 --> 00:39:41,630 Thank you, Helena. Would you like to come in? Yeah, I think, yeah, this is a really interesting discussion, but yeah, I agree. 347 00:39:41,630 --> 00:39:45,740 I think it's probably some kind of version of that. 348 00:39:45,740 --> 00:39:49,850 But I would say that in terms of that definition of clean, clean meat, 349 00:39:49,850 --> 00:39:55,550 that's not really sort of terminology that I'm familiar with in terms of a sort of definition. 350 00:39:55,550 --> 00:40:04,040 But I do think what we're seeing is a kind of diversification into the known animal protein as a way to reduce risk. 351 00:40:04,040 --> 00:40:10,610 And I do think there is a role also for the regenerative agricultural systems as well because we've 352 00:40:10,610 --> 00:40:16,800 seen obviously various studies and Pablo mentioned some of them in the more extensive systems. 353 00:40:16,800 --> 00:40:23,180 There is obviously benefits there, but there's a big difference between the extensive and the intensive systems. 354 00:40:23,180 --> 00:40:30,470 The only issue with some of the focus now on regenerative agriculture, which has been kind of, you know, 355 00:40:30,470 --> 00:40:36,260 held up, lost and pushed within the policy space is that that does actually use a lot more land as well. 356 00:40:36,260 --> 00:40:46,520 So be brownfield et also study and others kind of show that the land intensity of the regenerative agricultural systems is higher. 357 00:40:46,520 --> 00:40:54,410 So it's not sort of a silver bullet solution, which people can promote essentially for those reasons. 358 00:40:54,410 --> 00:40:58,070 So I think in that case, it is definitely a combination of the two. 359 00:40:58,070 --> 00:41:06,260 And what was quite interesting was, I thought the UK's National Food Strategy, which I see was a proposal which hasn't been accepted into policy, 360 00:41:06,260 --> 00:41:16,740 but that had sort of around sort of one third of some alternative proteins of around a third of regenerative agriculture and some intensification. 361 00:41:16,740 --> 00:41:25,040 And then so the combination of the three areas seems to have a lot of understanding of the different trade-offs between climate, 362 00:41:25,040 --> 00:41:26,840 biodiversity and so on. 363 00:41:26,840 --> 00:41:36,930 But I mean, within that system, there's a radical transformation needed to get to the system where we are now to a more sustainable system. 364 00:41:36,930 --> 00:41:42,800 But yeah. And so I'm going to come back to you on that because I think that will lead very well onto the cop. 365 00:41:42,800 --> 00:41:47,390 But I mean, I think I think Pablo, perhaps you could you could offer your response, 366 00:41:47,390 --> 00:41:56,540 but also sort of tie it into what you feel is needed in the next few months as we move towards COP 27. 367 00:41:56,540 --> 00:42:00,350 And also what you feel the role to be of the different kind of stakeholders, 368 00:42:00,350 --> 00:42:09,400 from sort of policymakers to civil society to industry and in thinking about how to move forward. 369 00:42:09,400 --> 00:42:16,270 Yeah, I wanted to reflect on the on demand point because I think the fact that prices go up, 370 00:42:16,270 --> 00:42:21,790 meat prices go up a wee bit for sustainable meat or sustainable animal products. 371 00:42:21,790 --> 00:42:30,070 Milliken and others is not necessarily bad because we have a crisis worldwide and 372 00:42:30,070 --> 00:42:35,290 not only in developed countries where we have a massive problem of the population, 373 00:42:35,290 --> 00:42:45,460 but also in developing countries. A for for the prices paid for, for to my criterion. 374 00:42:45,460 --> 00:42:51,490 Sustainable production of animal products, which involves plastics and many of them, by the way, 375 00:42:51,490 --> 00:42:59,830 doing regenerative grazing without knowing because that's that's more of a thing of of developed countries and the consideration. 376 00:42:59,830 --> 00:43:04,660 I mean, whereas the techniques are pretty common, it's adaptive grazing, et cetera. 377 00:43:04,660 --> 00:43:08,110 I don't think it's really a problem that the prices go up. 378 00:43:08,110 --> 00:43:14,920 As long as in the in the in the states, in the in the different countries, 379 00:43:14,920 --> 00:43:28,150 we have redistribution mechanisms that allow poor people to access to to an a healthy level of animal source products of of sustainable origin. 380 00:43:28,150 --> 00:43:37,450 But an increase in prices is something that would contribute to reduce poverty in very marginal areas that have no other options, 381 00:43:37,450 --> 00:43:40,990 both of human development and of livelihoods, 382 00:43:40,990 --> 00:43:52,650 and that are now experiencing a crisis because of the unfair competition by more industrial and waste off of production that actually achieve cheap, 383 00:43:52,650 --> 00:44:03,050 cheap products that are made available everywhere through globalisation and that push them out of some of their economic sustainability, 384 00:44:03,050 --> 00:44:05,320 I would say, on their social sustainability. 385 00:44:05,320 --> 00:44:15,250 And much of it expense a lot of the crises that we are seeing, you know, even even related to to maybe your think I am essential rating, 386 00:44:15,250 --> 00:44:22,120 but this is also an area that I am working on right now and the whole crisis on terrorism in the Sahel 387 00:44:22,120 --> 00:44:31,300 and all the problems of of insecurity are pretty much related with a lack of access to social services 388 00:44:31,300 --> 00:44:40,270 and lack of getting enough income in these communities and usually them then move towards violence 389 00:44:40,270 --> 00:44:46,000 and towards insecurities triggered by these insufficient income that may maybe not lead to hunger, 390 00:44:46,000 --> 00:44:53,140 but leads to social crises like inside their communities to access marriage and other things. 391 00:44:53,140 --> 00:45:00,530 So I do think that we have Win-Win solutions in this field. 392 00:45:00,530 --> 00:45:12,740 But in that sense, and concretely on the question that you ask Tara, what I would like the cop to do to host is a revision, 393 00:45:12,740 --> 00:45:22,220 a revision on how these impacts are evaluated so that sustainable livestock systems are better evaluated. 394 00:45:22,220 --> 00:45:28,040 Because I think right now it's not done in a multisectoral way, it's not done in a multidisciplinary way. 395 00:45:28,040 --> 00:45:35,510 And it's not, you know, nobody is considering the there the factors that I am discussing here. 396 00:45:35,510 --> 00:45:46,970 And that may cause policy actions and an evolution of the sector that may be counter producing for for tackling climate change. 397 00:45:46,970 --> 00:45:57,140 So that's that's something that the IPCC and not so far the parties of the COP should take really seriously, 398 00:45:57,140 --> 00:46:01,070 and they're not taking it seriously right now. And that worries me. 399 00:46:01,070 --> 00:46:04,720 That worries me a lot. Thank you. 400 00:46:04,720 --> 00:46:13,600 At that time, would you what would your be or your sort of wish list for the cop and how, how, how, how different or how similar is it? 401 00:46:13,600 --> 00:46:17,790 I mean, what do you agree with that, the public said. 402 00:46:17,790 --> 00:46:22,210 And what would you add or challenge? 403 00:46:22,210 --> 00:46:29,980 So on the note of the next cop, I said there are a number of successes from the previous one that can be built upon. 404 00:46:29,980 --> 00:46:35,230 So we've got twenty six or really right around it, a number of countries, 405 00:46:35,230 --> 00:46:46,900 I believe 30 or so signed on together to commit more funding to research and development and agriculture to help with climate smart innovation. 406 00:46:46,900 --> 00:46:54,910 And I think there are a number of areas and livestock production where we could substantially reduce environmental impacts, 407 00:46:54,910 --> 00:47:03,940 in particular methane emissions from industrialised systems in the U.S. and U.K. and Western Europe and elsewhere through new technologies, 408 00:47:03,940 --> 00:47:14,560 through things like feed additives or supplements that reduce the methane that come out of from cow burps. 409 00:47:14,560 --> 00:47:20,020 There are potentially vaccines that can be developed to reduce methane emissions and their breeding programmes. 410 00:47:20,020 --> 00:47:29,500 There's a huge need here for more research. And particularly, you know, that's true outside of industrialised countries as well. 411 00:47:29,500 --> 00:47:31,810 We talked about the importance of intensification. 412 00:47:31,810 --> 00:47:38,500 A lot of that comes from improved research, applied research, as well as education and extension programmes. 413 00:47:38,500 --> 00:47:46,250 So I would love to see a huge ramp up in funding commitments for something like that. 414 00:47:46,250 --> 00:47:52,580 That's probably the primary thing there. 415 00:47:52,580 --> 00:47:57,530 I think I to clarify something that perhaps problem I seem to disagree about, 416 00:47:57,530 --> 00:48:04,310 which is this role of prices certainly think that higher livestock prices that are 417 00:48:04,310 --> 00:48:09,230 really market driven are certainly really beneficial for livestock producers. 418 00:48:09,230 --> 00:48:14,420 That's true really throughout agriculture. It's true for crop industries as well. 419 00:48:14,420 --> 00:48:20,240 But I do think that artificially applied increases the price, 420 00:48:20,240 --> 00:48:30,350 whether it's a tax on the consumer and that retail or a tax at the supplier, for instance. 421 00:48:30,350 --> 00:48:33,290 People are throwing around the idea of like a carbon tax. 422 00:48:33,290 --> 00:48:40,080 Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture that unnecessarily places financial burden on producers. 423 00:48:40,080 --> 00:48:46,750 It doesn't necessarily increase the market price that they're getting. So that's a real differentiation I want to make clear. 424 00:48:46,750 --> 00:48:50,530 And similarly, really try and make these products cheaper. 425 00:48:50,530 --> 00:49:00,910 I think a lot of it can come from providing financial support for producers to adopt Evidence-Based environmentally beneficial practises, 426 00:49:00,910 --> 00:49:10,450 whether in some cases that's more regenerative grazing or adaptive management goes by many different names or whether it's it's food additives, 427 00:49:10,450 --> 00:49:19,010 imagine that sometimes called d-bergen pills that cut the methane emissions from cows. 428 00:49:19,010 --> 00:49:24,800 Thank you, thank you. And, Helena, I mean, I think you must be really sort of gearing up. 429 00:49:24,800 --> 00:49:35,300 So what what's on your your wish list and what do you feel the role of investors is in in trying to shift towards a more sort of sustainable fit? 430 00:49:35,300 --> 00:49:42,440 Yeah. So I think it was really interesting to see at the last cop 26, actually, fossil fuels really came to the fore. 431 00:49:42,440 --> 00:49:47,750 And also fossil fuel subsidies, as well as an important issue that a lot of governments have focussed on. 432 00:49:47,750 --> 00:49:53,720 And I think what could be interesting now is agricultural subsidies to receive similar way to actually, 433 00:49:53,720 --> 00:49:59,870 there's been a lot of discussion showing how many subsidies there are globally and how negative they are for biodiversity, 434 00:49:59,870 --> 00:50:02,810 etc. I think that would be quite a big topic, 435 00:50:02,810 --> 00:50:12,920 and some of our investors recently also signed a statement calling on the EU to better align its agricultural subsidies with both climate and nature, 436 00:50:12,920 --> 00:50:16,430 since the investors are trying to kind of meet their own goals. 437 00:50:16,430 --> 00:50:26,720 But they cannot do this without policy actions of actually putting the right measures in place to flow towards a more sustainable system. 438 00:50:26,720 --> 00:50:30,680 So that would be interesting to see that receiving a similar weight as it is, 439 00:50:30,680 --> 00:50:40,580 we have more than 400 billion agricultural subsidies and the UN set for these reports, saying how unsustainable most of these subsidies are. 440 00:50:40,580 --> 00:50:47,570 So I think that are primarily a lot of these subsidies artificially lowering the prices of the more unsustainable products. 441 00:50:47,570 --> 00:50:52,310 So they're almost going to the opposite of what we need to see actually right now. 442 00:50:52,310 --> 00:51:00,350 So perhaps that's something we could we could all agree. And the other question I would like to raise is, you know, this intensification as well. 443 00:51:00,350 --> 00:51:06,470 I think as Pablo mentioned, there's been a lot of use of sort of public funds, 444 00:51:06,470 --> 00:51:12,350 including development funds, with the assumption that intensification would create a better system. 445 00:51:12,350 --> 00:51:19,970 Sometimes it has also displaced livelihoods and jobs, as well as creating, you know, products. 446 00:51:19,970 --> 00:51:25,340 So I think there's a big difference between the producers and the consumers and in 447 00:51:25,340 --> 00:51:29,450 terms of the methane topping just slightly different perspective there as well. 448 00:51:29,450 --> 00:51:32,930 I think that, you know, obviously some of these solutions, 449 00:51:32,930 --> 00:51:40,790 which are kind of within the same system of sort of incremental solutions, can also lower methane emissions as well. 450 00:51:40,790 --> 00:51:51,590 But I would also say that another way to reduce methane emissions is a more kind of systemic solution, such as a shift to more plant rich, 451 00:51:51,590 --> 00:52:00,140 sustainable protein diversification within portfolios, because that is another way that will fundamentally reduce methane emissions as well. 452 00:52:00,140 --> 00:52:05,060 So it will be really interesting to see how the methane pledges are taken forwards. 453 00:52:05,060 --> 00:52:13,040 At the moment, only energy has received attention really within the methane debate hardly hardly a word in about agricultural methane. 454 00:52:13,040 --> 00:52:20,870 Even though, as the IEA released this week, agriculture is the largest source of methane emissions globally. 455 00:52:20,870 --> 00:52:28,130 So I think that's going to have to be more focussed on that if we're going to reach 1.5 goal. 456 00:52:28,130 --> 00:52:31,580 Yeah, I'll leave it there. Thank you. 457 00:52:31,580 --> 00:52:39,110 I'm very mindful of the fact that we've got we've got a pile of questions that from the audience and and I'd like to come on to this in a minute. 458 00:52:39,110 --> 00:52:49,220 But before I do that, I think it would be really helpful for each of you to kind of take stock and say, 459 00:52:49,220 --> 00:52:58,220 Is there anything that you've heard from the other speakers that has that either you agree with or that has modified your your opinion? 460 00:52:58,220 --> 00:53:03,920 And where do you feel kind of further entrenched in your in your in your viewpoints? 461 00:53:03,920 --> 00:53:10,820 Or where do you where do you continue to disagree? I would just like to try to get you to kind of reach across and say, what? 462 00:53:10,820 --> 00:53:14,600 What have you heard where you may have nuanced your your point of view? 463 00:53:14,600 --> 00:53:22,020 I mean, who would like to take off first? And if you haven't changed your mind at all, then that's that's very predictable. 464 00:53:22,020 --> 00:53:36,730 But you know. I'd probably have to thought, yeah, one, I did kind of agree with the point from Dan better animal welfare is the kind of win win. 465 00:53:36,730 --> 00:53:41,690 So I guess from that is like what we define as welfare because it seems to reduce emissions. 466 00:53:41,690 --> 00:53:45,790 So that would be sort of, well, what we define in that within that term. 467 00:53:45,790 --> 00:53:56,620 And then I is also very much agree with Pablo mentioning that the food security issue is a security issue as well broadly more than just a food issue. 468 00:53:56,620 --> 00:54:01,060 And I think that's really important to consider because a lot of investors are understanding the 469 00:54:01,060 --> 00:54:06,250 financial stability risks related to the unsustainable food system and how it affects them. 470 00:54:06,250 --> 00:54:08,800 Loads of different issues. But I think not enough. 471 00:54:08,800 --> 00:54:20,900 Policymakers are aware of how foods sustain unsustainable issues are a severe financial stability risk, as well as a security risk. 472 00:54:20,900 --> 00:54:25,740 You can't Pablo have you. How about you? 473 00:54:25,740 --> 00:54:33,660 Yeah. I mean, not not that I've changed my my mind, but I have changed my perception, maybe on the arguments of intensification, 474 00:54:33,660 --> 00:54:40,650 because I'm happy that when people talk about intensification, they they talk about improvement in production that involves, you know, 475 00:54:40,650 --> 00:54:49,950 real real improvements we've seen within our food system and not switching to to a more industrial or to a more confined 476 00:54:49,950 --> 00:55:01,290 system like what we were discussing about improving rains and soil management or or about improve veterinary care, 477 00:55:01,290 --> 00:55:09,030 et cetera. And I also I'm I'm happy to see that that we also agree on, you know, on the shortcomings of, for example, 478 00:55:09,030 --> 00:55:15,270 subsidies that are very often oriented to productivity and disease, even if there is a change in it. 479 00:55:15,270 --> 00:55:23,870 But it's a very slow change in the Common Agricultural Policy and from productivity that has actually stimulated more, 480 00:55:23,870 --> 00:55:30,360 more industrial ways of producing towards towards more environmental aspects. 481 00:55:30,360 --> 00:55:34,200 And I think that's that's that's good, you know. And ultimately, 482 00:55:34,200 --> 00:55:44,490 I think also that the hike in fossil fuel prices that we are going to see because of scarcity of fossil fuels is also going to put things in place, 483 00:55:44,490 --> 00:55:53,130 you know, and he's going to make fossil fuel intense animal production more expensive 484 00:55:53,130 --> 00:56:00,360 than the waste of animal production that are more that are less dependent on. 485 00:56:00,360 --> 00:56:08,880 However, I must continue to disagree on on the strategies for for reducing methane emissions in the country because it's not only 486 00:56:08,880 --> 00:56:16,950 that most of the methane is produced by the most extensive protections that there are more similar to wild herbivores. 487 00:56:16,950 --> 00:56:25,590 But it is also on, and we tend to forget completely that global warming is not only greenhouse gas, 488 00:56:25,590 --> 00:56:31,920 greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas effect from from the gases, but it's also an albino element. 489 00:56:31,920 --> 00:56:40,470 And there is also a comprehensive literature showing that the switch from savannahs to forests in subtropical 490 00:56:40,470 --> 00:56:47,140 areas not the interpretive areas but in subtropical areas and also in more temperate and boreal areas, 491 00:56:47,140 --> 00:56:54,390 is going to cause a change in the albedo on the negative things in the air in terms of absorbing more energy. 492 00:56:54,390 --> 00:57:07,320 And it is likely to worsen climate change. So, yeah, I keep on being pretty convinced that we shouldn't touch the castrati systems. 493 00:57:07,320 --> 00:57:17,010 OK, well then how about you? Give your last words and then and then we'll move on to questions how many we can squeeze in. 494 00:57:17,010 --> 00:57:27,900 Sure. I'm increasingly I'm increasingly convinced by the public's perspective and a perspective about the ecological benefits of grazing, 495 00:57:27,900 --> 00:57:37,290 I remain very content to hold very strong beliefs that there are many problems caused by poor grazing around the world, 496 00:57:37,290 --> 00:57:42,550 and I think that can often be lost when we talk about grazing has been beneficial. 497 00:57:42,550 --> 00:57:48,570 I think we need to be really nuanced and specific in this discussion, these discussions. 498 00:57:48,570 --> 00:57:55,530 And also, I absolutely agree both with Helena and Panopto about what they would like to see in the next call. 499 00:57:55,530 --> 00:58:02,880 I think we really do need to see a lot more of a lot more analysis about the role of agriculture and methane emissions, 500 00:58:02,880 --> 00:58:09,300 but also for that analysis to be to really take seriously these critiques that Panopto and 501 00:58:09,300 --> 00:58:18,270 others are making about the total system wide effects of removing livestock from the landscape. 502 00:58:18,270 --> 00:58:21,210 How much of those emissions might be replaced by wildlife emissions? 503 00:58:21,210 --> 00:58:28,290 What will be the effects on ecosystems on soil carbon on albedo, though those are all really important to consider, 504 00:58:28,290 --> 00:58:33,480 and I wouldn't want to see countries make decisions about how to meet their methane 505 00:58:33,480 --> 00:58:40,410 pledge through agriculture without really taking that more holistic approach. 506 00:58:40,410 --> 00:58:49,140 Well, thank you. Thank you for that. So just some questions. I think we've got I mean, there's a ton of questions here. 507 00:58:49,140 --> 00:58:58,800 One of them is, I think I think it's actually been more or less addressed, but so perhaps you could be very quick about it. 508 00:58:58,800 --> 00:59:03,180 But beef tends to grab most of the attention discussion of environmental impacts. 509 00:59:03,180 --> 00:59:11,910 But could speakers comment on what they see as other livestock? Sheep, goats, pigs, poultry in a sustainable future food system? 510 00:59:11,910 --> 00:59:15,840 Yeah, I mean, Pablo, could you say something about the poultry issue? 511 00:59:15,840 --> 00:59:26,460 Because I know, you know, you know, there is this kind of depending on who you talk to poultry good or poultry bad, depending on which metric you use. 512 00:59:26,460 --> 00:59:31,770 Do you see a positive role for poultry and pig production? 513 00:59:31,770 --> 00:59:38,040 Well, rescuing the last comment done, I think it is important to to new ones have a discourse, 514 00:59:38,040 --> 00:59:43,860 and I don't think on grazing livestock is good because it depends on how you manage that grazing livestock. 515 00:59:43,860 --> 00:59:49,650 Definitely. And that's I'm happy to see that this is part of the intensification to manage it better. 516 00:59:49,650 --> 00:59:52,740 And with poultry, it's the same with poultry or with pigs. 517 00:59:52,740 --> 01:00:01,770 Because in my mind, the big distinction is between mono gas thinks that these pigs and poultry and and ruminants, 518 01:00:01,770 --> 01:00:09,870 which is goats, sheep and cows, yaks and camels, etcetera. 519 01:00:09,870 --> 01:00:23,820 And I think both peaks and unfaltering have a tremendous potential and also some, some some fish cultures in recycling waste. 520 01:00:23,820 --> 01:00:31,290 And we shouldn't forget that. And I am also personally working on pastorally system based on pigs, 521 01:00:31,290 --> 01:00:38,580 which are the great forgotten side of barzagli systems you should link to, for example. 522 01:00:38,580 --> 01:00:45,150 Also a paper on that. But regarding the the chicken, I think they are. 523 01:00:45,150 --> 01:00:57,750 On the contrary, I think they are very useful at the at the backyard level to, you know, to use ways to increase circularity of of of the economy. 524 01:00:57,750 --> 01:01:02,160 And that should not be that that should not be forgotten. 525 01:01:02,160 --> 01:01:08,580 However, when you enter into a dynamic of more industrial facilities, this is where the problem started. 526 01:01:08,580 --> 01:01:16,410 Also, because of a matter of density of waste, of of I mean of of excreta of there of the chicken, you know, 527 01:01:16,410 --> 01:01:26,130 and when you have what what we talk about in our research group are livestock keeping that is linked to the territory, 528 01:01:26,130 --> 01:01:33,990 no matter if it's ruminants or if it's more restricts. Usually the environmental impacts are much less. 529 01:01:33,990 --> 01:01:42,660 And I think the link to the territory would also include ways of raising poultry and peaks that take advantage of the 530 01:01:42,660 --> 01:01:52,740 waste and that that do not produce humongous quantities of of animals that will cause a lot of problems with the excreta. 531 01:01:52,740 --> 01:02:00,260 As we are seeing right now in many countries, especially, I think for pigs, but also poultry is a problem for that. 532 01:02:00,260 --> 01:02:06,720 Thank you. And I have a question here that is probably well addressed to to Helena. 533 01:02:06,720 --> 01:02:10,020 Actually, it's about it goes like this. 534 01:02:10,020 --> 01:02:21,450 Some of the plant based foods are high and high in fat, sugar and salt and highly processed and not in line with the healthy, sustainable diet. 535 01:02:21,450 --> 01:02:29,730 So what how do you see this fitting into the way that the goal of shifting towards sustainable 536 01:02:29,730 --> 01:02:34,950 proteins where there may be a trade off between the sort of the carbon footprint, 537 01:02:34,950 --> 01:02:42,720 however, you might want to measure that and on the health agenda. 538 01:02:42,720 --> 01:02:48,600 Yeah, I think that's a really good point that needs further research, actually as well, because I mean, 539 01:02:48,600 --> 01:02:55,440 there is a wide range of different definitions of the non, you know, an animal protein products, a really, really wide range. 540 01:02:55,440 --> 01:03:00,180 So it could mean anything to protein could really mean anything from sort of lentil or 541 01:03:00,180 --> 01:03:05,710 bean bag is very simple right away to to a more processed or more salt intensive product. 542 01:03:05,710 --> 01:03:10,740 So I think there is a role for the investors to call for better nutrition as well in the products 543 01:03:10,740 --> 01:03:17,190 that are being produced and to make sure that the nutritional aspect is looked at as well. 544 01:03:17,190 --> 01:03:26,030 Because obviously, what a lot of companies are doing is just responding to consumer demands and everybody likes the taste of salt, you know? 545 01:03:26,030 --> 01:03:34,440 And so I think that's an interesting point. But we also know that a lot of processed meat products are also linked to health issues as well. 546 01:03:34,440 --> 01:03:40,530 So if it's sort of replacing one with another, I'm not sure, you know, actually, it could be beneficial as well. 547 01:03:40,530 --> 01:03:48,840 So it's very complex. And I would say that it requires a little more research in terms of improving the products that are being produced 548 01:03:48,840 --> 01:03:56,070 at the moment and making sure that nutritional wins games as well as the department wins the game as well. 549 01:03:56,070 --> 01:04:03,240 And do you think that within within the investment sector is health? 550 01:04:03,240 --> 01:04:10,580 Is nutritional health seen at all as an issue to be that that is associated with risk? 551 01:04:10,580 --> 01:04:17,210 Definitely rising up the agenda, definitely, because it's become a lot more on the agenda and the focus is there. 552 01:04:17,210 --> 01:04:23,210 So I think a lot of these new ESG frameworks now have been developed for the new products. 553 01:04:23,210 --> 01:04:33,530 What is happening is there's a lot of new products coming to market and sometimes you know, it's harder for the data to be made available as well. 554 01:04:33,530 --> 01:04:37,640 So I think we'll see an increased focus on that as the sector develops. 555 01:04:37,640 --> 01:04:42,340 Really? Thank you. I have a general question. 556 01:04:42,340 --> 01:04:48,590 I don't know who wants to pick this one up. Cop, 27, is built by Egypt as the Africa cop. 557 01:04:48,590 --> 01:04:53,090 Please could speakers comment on the different challenges in achieving sustainability, 558 01:04:53,090 --> 01:04:57,950 facing livestock farmers in developing countries and industrial economies. 559 01:04:57,950 --> 01:05:06,140 I mean, I think we touched upon this in our conversation just now, but but perhaps you could expand on it a bit. 560 01:05:06,140 --> 01:05:14,160 Would you like to go? I think. 561 01:05:14,160 --> 01:05:20,940 I'll say I'll make a comment. I'm really curious to hear a couple of us say about this, given his experience working in Africa. 562 01:05:20,940 --> 01:05:22,230 I have not worked in Africa. 563 01:05:22,230 --> 01:05:35,070 But based on my my work, one of the top challenges and really opportunities is really investing in agricultural productivity and much of Africa. 564 01:05:35,070 --> 01:05:43,320 There are some countries, certainly South Africa in particular, that have, ah, they have highly developed highly productive agricultural systems. 565 01:05:43,320 --> 01:05:53,310 But in many, many parts of the continent, there are a very large yield gaps between what farmers could be producing, 566 01:05:53,310 --> 01:06:00,060 what they currently are due to limited availability of fertilisers and irrigation and water. 567 01:06:00,060 --> 01:06:05,490 Likewise, in livestock, there's a lot of potential to substantially increase productivity. 568 01:06:05,490 --> 01:06:14,970 I think one aspect of this, too, that's really important to consider is how to really future proof these agricultural production systems, 569 01:06:14,970 --> 01:06:20,940 how to make sure that the changes that countries and companies and other people are 570 01:06:20,940 --> 01:06:27,540 investing in today help people become more resilient to the projected increases in warming, 571 01:06:27,540 --> 01:06:36,320 changes in water availability changes and pest pressures. 572 01:06:36,320 --> 01:06:43,040 Yeah, I agree with you that and I think Africa also has an immense challenge in terms of population 573 01:06:43,040 --> 01:06:48,680 pressure because it has to keep a lot of food to a lot of people that are coming because it has very, 574 01:06:48,680 --> 01:06:57,740 very high fertility rates and it also has a lot to a lot of weight to go in terms of 575 01:06:57,740 --> 01:07:05,000 improvements in terms of of the what I consider the good side of of intensification. 576 01:07:05,000 --> 01:07:15,650 Because since the independence of most of African countries in the 60s, you can trace the extension services, 577 01:07:15,650 --> 01:07:22,160 how they have been falling apart basically, and how there has not been enough investment in that. 578 01:07:22,160 --> 01:07:27,650 And there is a huge need of investment in in those extension services. 579 01:07:27,650 --> 01:07:32,600 I think it's not necessary to switch that the production systems, 580 01:07:32,600 --> 01:07:40,340 the local production systems from the agricultural systems that are dominating, knowing to more industrial ones. 581 01:07:40,340 --> 01:07:49,130 I don't think at all that this is necessary, but they do need a lot of of extension services much more than now. 582 01:07:49,130 --> 01:07:56,750 And it's also interesting to live in Africa to see how the new technologies are expanding very fast, for example, with mobile phones. 583 01:07:56,750 --> 01:08:03,350 And to see what the immense potential it would be, for example, for for pastoralists again, 584 01:08:03,350 --> 01:08:15,400 to provide them with extension services to measure some some parameters of the animals by remote means and that nobody is doing that so far. 585 01:08:15,400 --> 01:08:21,440 This is is a little bit sad. You know, so I think there is a lot of potential, 586 01:08:21,440 --> 01:08:29,000 but also probably African governments need to listen much more to what is happening within the communities themselves 587 01:08:29,000 --> 01:08:38,540 because there is a lot of innovation going on and that very often gets captured because nobody is listening to it. 588 01:08:38,540 --> 01:08:40,370 What kind of innovation? 589 01:08:40,370 --> 01:08:49,710 Well, for example, I don't know if you can do that in Great Britain, but in Spain you can already pay with the mobile phone, in shops and so on. 590 01:08:49,710 --> 01:08:53,570 Well, this is a Kenyan invention. This started with M-Pesa. 591 01:08:53,570 --> 01:09:04,490 Mobile perceptive sun means money in Swahili. And this was a Kenyan guy that came with the idea because they were sending airtime to to remote family 592 01:09:04,490 --> 01:09:11,150 members in the countryside and just to pay for things and an informal economy dependent on that. 593 01:09:11,150 --> 01:09:22,820 So they formalised that thing. I started paying with M-Pesa two years ago when I moved to Kenya, so and that's something that you know what, 594 01:09:22,820 --> 01:09:27,090 what the South has to export its solutions to the north, to the global north. 595 01:09:27,090 --> 01:09:33,030 But there are many more more things like that, you know, and for example, using. 596 01:09:33,030 --> 01:09:41,100 It's interesting because in many African countries you have not had at development of landline telephones, telephones, 597 01:09:41,100 --> 01:09:50,310 they have jumped directly from nobody having a telephone to everybody having a mobile telephone on a mobile. 598 01:09:50,310 --> 01:09:56,070 So I mean, it's difficult to give examples right now, but for example, 599 01:09:56,070 --> 01:10:01,650 in terms of extensions, in terms of of market management, I also worked on the down, 600 01:10:01,650 --> 01:10:13,070 got a region and you saw there very smart strategies to maximise the price of the animals and get the most of it by by just doing it. 601 01:10:13,070 --> 01:10:22,140 It's interesting because you have very old ways of thinking that in in economies that are not based on cash and capital, 602 01:10:22,140 --> 01:10:26,700 you know, because livestock there is capital. So they are very conservative in selling the animals, 603 01:10:26,700 --> 01:10:32,850 whereas you have younger people that are very cash based and they do crazy things in the in the eyes of the old people. 604 01:10:32,850 --> 01:10:38,640 You know, they sell all animals when the prices are good and they buy animals when the prices are very low. 605 01:10:38,640 --> 01:10:45,240 What are you doing? And these are the guys that are doing best and that are the elder of the village with thirty five 606 01:10:45,240 --> 01:10:50,800 years because they have more cattle that no one with with than anyone with this crazy strategy, 607 01:10:50,800 --> 01:10:59,370 you know, so, you know, maybe with financial training and with you would achieve much better production in the livestock system. 608 01:10:59,370 --> 01:11:03,120 And and just implementing these innovations, you know, 609 01:11:03,120 --> 01:11:14,650 but then you would be much more willing to listen to what is happening if you say it's not what I have seen in my work experience. 610 01:11:14,650 --> 01:11:18,280 Great. Well, I think we have time for one more question, and it's a hard one, 611 01:11:18,280 --> 01:11:24,640 and I'm going to give it to Halina and but feel free to chip in everyone and it's a question that came through us. 612 01:11:24,640 --> 01:11:33,970 How can trade regulation in the context of international be supply chains be used as a lever to promote sustainable beef consumption? 613 01:11:33,970 --> 01:11:40,330 And if you want to pass on that, someone else wants to take it up. It's it's it's a hard one. 614 01:11:40,330 --> 01:11:45,880 Yeah, I wanted to touch on it. I think one of the really interesting developments that's happening and people 615 01:11:45,880 --> 01:11:51,670 have been following is this deforestation risk in supply chains and the U.S. 616 01:11:51,670 --> 01:11:57,940 Obviously looking to bring in a regulation to prevent imported deforestation. 617 01:11:57,940 --> 01:12:00,370 Then the UK sort of discussing that as well. 618 01:12:00,370 --> 01:12:08,950 So that's kind of a way in which, you know, trade regulations can be used to address these kind of systemic issues. 619 01:12:08,950 --> 01:12:14,200 Obviously, they have implications for the finance sector as well when these new rules come in as well. 620 01:12:14,200 --> 01:12:20,020 So we're just tracking that to see what happens as well. But it's quite interesting to see this now. 621 01:12:20,020 --> 01:12:24,940 You know, it's been in in the debates and that will probably force change in terms of the 622 01:12:24,940 --> 01:12:30,610 companies needing to look at deforestation where they haven't looked at it before. 623 01:12:30,610 --> 01:12:40,720 Particularly obviously some of these products, which Pablo mentioned before, causing a lot of deforestation, such as imported soy feed, et cetera. 624 01:12:40,720 --> 01:12:44,920 Animal feed and other products, which cause a large amount of deforestation. 625 01:12:44,920 --> 01:12:52,600 So that's one area, and in other areas obviously linked to the area of trade would be agricultural subsidy reform, which we've already discussed. 626 01:12:52,600 --> 01:13:00,730 But how that could actually promote sustainability and long term sustainability of the sector and also other 627 01:13:00,730 --> 01:13:11,200 ways in which kind of trade rules can be used to prevent of importation of high risk products as well. 628 01:13:11,200 --> 01:13:16,330 Great. Well, we are we are out of time and there's many, many more questions. 629 01:13:16,330 --> 01:13:22,990 I would also say that we have and the table website table debates dot org has a community platform, 630 01:13:22,990 --> 01:13:27,110 so please do post your father questions and comments there. 631 01:13:27,110 --> 01:13:35,980 And I will also try and twist panellists to see if they might have a go at answering some of them if they felt so inclined. 632 01:13:35,980 --> 01:13:43,330 So I just want to thank thank our speakers, a great deal and for a really, 633 01:13:43,330 --> 01:13:49,540 really interesting conversation, especially in light of all those technical difficulties at the beginning. 634 01:13:49,540 --> 01:13:57,640 And I must also remember to remind everyone listening and thank you very much to the audience full 635 01:13:57,640 --> 01:14:05,770 for listening and for submitting your questions that there is another event this time next week. 636 01:14:05,770 --> 01:14:15,290 That's third, which is Tim Palmer and Charles Godfrey in conversation on the topic of modelling climate change, predicting the future. 637 01:14:15,290 --> 01:14:19,540 So please, please listen in on that. 638 01:14:19,540 --> 01:14:22,720 So that's I think it's now we're out of time. 639 01:14:22,720 --> 01:14:32,032 Thank you very much to all our speakers, to the audience and and and a recording will be available in due course, said goodnight.