Are environmental campaigns misleading the public?

RISI, NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA, Dez. 20, 2010 (RISI) - Well-funded marketplace environmental campaigns from groups like ForestEthics in the US have been promoting increased use of recycled and FSC-certified fiber in paper and have led some major paper buyers to change their paper procurement practices. However, the real environmental benefits of these procurement decisions are rarely discussed or investigated. It is assumed that just switching paper to recycled or FSC automatically benefits the planet. This is part 1 of a two part blog series where I discuss why a focus on recycled and FSC may be failing to reduce the overall environmental footprint of paper products, and how environmental campaigns may be misleading the public on forest certification and recycling.

1. Fiber type alone does not reduce the environmental footprint of paper and print products.

Although recycled or FSC-certified fiber are key elements of sustainable paper procurement, it should not be assumed that paper with these fibers will always have a lower environmental footprint than a similar wood-based grade certified to other standards, i.e. SFI, CSA, PEFC. Paper with recycled and/or FSC fiber can have twice the carbon footprint of a wood-based or SFI/PEFC certified grade, just based on fossil fuel use at mill sites and purchased power. They can also be manufactured at mills that have below-average environmental performance compared to industry best practice levels. For example, a de-inked pulp mill producing pulp from recovered paper could be landfilling all of its residual de-inking solids if it isn't equipped with the proper boiler technology to burn solids for energy generation, or if it has no other alternative for disposal. Such mills can have significantly higher costs and environmental impacts related to landfilling than a modern wood-based mill that re-uses most of its solid waste. Such environmental performance issues can also apply to other parameters such as wastewater quality parameters and greenhouse gas emissions, to name a few. Best-available-technology use at mill sites can significantly reduce the impacts of paper regardless of fiber type used.

The environmental footprint of paper depends on many measured indicators across the product life cycle and it is also very site-specific, i.e. it depends on forestry practices, environmental impacts of raw material suppliers, mill emissions to air, water and soil, waste to landfill, water and energy use, carbon footprint, chemicals used, etc... Life-cycle-analysis (LCA) experts typically weigh the importance of environmental impacts in the following order of importance: 1) global warming 2) eco-toxicity 3) acidification 4) ozone depletion 5) carcinogens 6) particulates, and so on. By focusing on reducing these impacts more sustainable paper products can be developed. Switching fiber type may not be the most cost-effective way to reduce the overall environmental load of paper products.

If decisions are made based only on single elements of the life cycle, like specific types of fiber used, companies will be excluding wood-based paper grades that are certified to other systems (i.e. PEFC, SFI, CSA) and have a lower overall environmental footprint than the recycled or FSC grades.

2. Ensure that recycled fiber is used sustainably

Paper recovery has several environmental benefits, but the sustainable use of recycled fiber to make new products must consider economic and environmental factors that vary depending on location, technology and the type of product manufactured.

In 2007, most recovered paper (about 82%) was used as a raw material in packaging grades such as carton board and paper board. About 6% of the global supply of recovered paper was used in printing and writing grades, and this is expected to stay stable or decrease slightly by 2025, although the total volume of recovered paper used will increase significantly. One key reason for this fiber distribution is that the manufacture of carton and board grades does not usually involve de-inking and/or bleaching. Hence, the processing is less costly and may also have less environmental impacts than when de-inking and bleaching of pulp are required for graphic paper production. Other factors to consider are transportation distance of the recovered paper and paper quality needs. Mills that are located near large population densities can acquire recovered paper more cost-effectively than mills in remote areas that are closer to forest resource. In many cases, wood fiber may be a more sustainable choice for papermaking, i.e. a better balance between economic and environmental considerations.

In the papermaking process, wood fiber can be recycled an estimated 4 to 7 times, after which the fiber breaks down and becomes waste. In other words, recovered paper is not an infinite source of raw material. To make the global fiber cycle work, a continual input of 35 to 65% of fresh wood fiber is needed depending on the grade of paper manufactured. If wood fiber was not used then degradation through recycling would result in the World running out of paper within a period 6 to 18 months depending on the paper grade.

Summary

Look beyond fiber and adopt life-cycle thinking. Sustainable product design and responsible paper sourcing should include use of recycled fiber in appropriate grades and locations, promoting paper recovery and using a life-cycle based environmental scorecard to evaluate product footprint (see RISI article on Ten Ways to Green your Paper). Pressuring the marketplace to use certain fiber types when it doesn't make sense may not benefit the environment or the economy.

NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA, Jan. 18, 2011 (RISI) - This is the second part of a two part blog series where I discuss how a focus on recycled fiber and FSC certified paper may be failing to reduce the overall environmental footprint of paper products. In part one I looked at: 1) The importance of life-cycle thinking, and 2) The use of recycled fiber in appropriate grades and locations. My two last points below focus on forest certification specifically. Part I of this blog can be read here

3. The forest certification world is not black-and-white

Some groups claim that certain certification system (ex: FSC) are more protective of the environment at a global scale. However, people should realize that there is variability within the same forest certification standard (e.g. FSC in one region of the world vs FSC in another), between different standards (e.g. PEFC Europe vs SFI Canada vs FSC Brazil), and between companies (e.g. company X using SFI and good biodiversity management vs company Y using FSC and no biodiversity management).

In 2005, UPM-Kymmene conducted an International study to look at "on-the-ground" differences between certification systems in Canada, Finland and the UK. The study partners were the World Wildlife Fund and DNV (an auditing company). The key conclusions were the following:

• Five of the standards including PEFC Finland, FSC Draft Finland, FSC Sweden, SFI, and UK Woodland Assurance Standard (recognized by both PEFC and FSC) achieved a balanced approach to promoting the economic, social and environmental management of forests but with slight differences in emphasis.
• There are significant differences between the various standards in the number of criteria used for any one subject area, as well as in the scope and threshold requirements. The differences not only occur between standards in a country, but also between national standards within the same scheme. This reflects the local conditions and the values of the stakeholders who have been involved in standard setting processes.
• UKWAS met the requirements of both FSC and PEFC, proving that the harmonisation of standards at a national level is possible.

The study did not identify any systems as "destructive and inferior" nor did it identify certain systems as "much better", as some environmental campaigns suggested at the time and still today. Since then, more studies have been conducted and all standards have improved.

As a private forest owner, my land is surrounded by SFI-certified forests managed by forest products companies.

Over the years I have seen FSC, PEFC and SFI forest management at work in the US and Europe. All forests are managed differently and have different levels of biodiversity which I consider to be a key indicator. Biodiversity may have little to do with the certification system used and more to do with specific management practices used by landowners or required by government agencies as part of obligatory long-term management plans. For example, there is a big difference between a paper grade coming from an FSC-certified plantation in South America (perhaps where more biodiverse natural forests were once standing), and a SFI or PEFC or CSA certified grade from a Northern forest where landowners are managing to promote biodiversity. The level of conversion from a natural forest to a more "commercial" forest is a key topic to consider and it varies from one region of the world to the next, and from one company to the next. Choosing one certification system over another may or may not address this issue depending on the source of fiber.

My suggestion is this: spend time in the woods, talk to foresters, learn about biodiversity and forest certification, and don't assume the certification world is black and white. All the key certification systems can be effective tools to achieve sustainable forest management. Biodiversity management is a key element of responsible forestry.

4. Commitments to one certification scheme may not be good for business or communities

Globally, only about 10% of forests are certified. Of that amount about 65% is under the PEFC umbrella. In North America, about 75% of all certified forest land is certified to systems other than FSC. Committing to one system only could reduce purchasing and negotiating options for paper buyers. Grades that meet certain quality needs and specifications may not be available under a specific certification system. In addition, some market situations may lead to increased prices of FSC certified grades.

Commitments to one certification system only may not benefit local communities. For example, years ago I was involved with a visible campaign that pressured a large US-based corporation to buy recycled and/or FSC paper. The company eventually made a commitment to FSC and subsequently gave the business to a European mill that was receiving FSC certified wood from the UK. The end result had absolutely no economic, social or environmental benefits to local communities in Canada or the US. Commitments to one certification system only can lead to paper being imported instead of developing local North American communities where responsible forest management practices are employed and jobs are needed.

To get around these challenges many in the industry, as well as their customers, have adopted an all-inclusive approach to forest certification where they consider all the key certification schemes as credible tools for achieving sustainable forest management. Competition between the systems has been healthy and has improved all of them. Supporting inclusive policies may be an effective way to support responsible forest management and ensure price and supply stability of certified paper. It would also re-direct efforts to certifying more forests and benefiting local communities rather than double-certifying land in the Northern Hemisphere.

In conclusion

There are many elements to consider in the design and production of sustainable paper. FSC certification and the use of recycled fiber are key elements but they are not alone. It is important to apply life-cycle thinking and consider the complexities of recycled fiber use, forest certification and marketplace dynamics. These points are important to ensure long-term sustainability of business and measurable environmental improvements based on science.

Phil Riebel is a senior sustainability advisor to the forest, paper and print sector. He has over 20 years of international experience acquired in senior management positions in industry and consulting, including VP of Environmental Affairs at UPM-Kymmene. Phil also owns and manages 200 acres of sustainable forest in Canada. He can be reached at philriebel@bellaliant.net