Paper cut
Mary Rayner examines the recycled paper trail
In 2003, the UK consumed over 4.6 million tonnes of printing and writing
paper. But UK mills produced only 1.5 million tonnes, of which only 110,000
tonnes contained recycled fibre.(1) This means that a good proportion of
paper found in offices and homes across the UK has been imported. Whilst
there have been improvements in forestry management, and a reduction in
the use of old-growth forests both at home and overseas, we still have a
long way to go to make the paper industry sustainable.
Due to the large number of recycled or part recycled/part virgin paper brands
available on the market, we have decided to omit virgin paper from this
report. We have produced separate tables for copier and printer paper, notepads
and for paper and stationery retailers.
In the first part of this report we examine the environmental and social
impacts of forestry and the production of virgin paper, before making a
comparison with recycled paper. We start with an examination of the environmental
and social impacts of the paper industry.
Logging
To trace the origin of a piece of paper means going back right from the
shop or distributor to the paper merchant, then to the mill before reaching
the forest where it originated. Some companies, such as Metsaliitto, are
‘vertically integrated,’ with interests at each stage of the supply
chain. Others however, such as the large stationery wholesalers Staples
and Viking, deal solely as distributors.
The good news is that by purchasing 100% recycled or FSC-certified paper,
you can be certain that your money is not fuelling concerns over illegal
logging, especially of old-growth and ancient forests. Sadly though, there
are still a number of companies operating in the UK which continue to peddle
paper from these fast-declining reserves. Illegal logging can have devastating
impacts, ranging from species extinction to soil erosion and the forced
displacement of indigenous peoples.
In 2001, several campaign groups focussed their attention on Asia Pulp and
Paper (APP) over its destruction of rainforest in Indonesia. A number of
paper merchants and office wholesalers, including Spicers, Kingfield Heath
and Robert Horne (now a PaperlinX subsidiary) were accused of purchasing
paper from APP and repackaging it under their own brand names.(2) Public
outrage caused the majority of these companies to beat a hasty retreat.
However, still sourcing paper from APP are York & Ford (now owned by
Paper 4 Print), Communisis BBF, WL Coller and David John. We have not covered
these companies in this report as none of them are significant suppliers
of recycled or FSC-certified paper. These are, however, the brands (recycled
and non-recycled) to avoid:
Caxton (WL Coller)
Petersgate (WL Coller)
Recycled Cream (Communisis BBF)
However, the majority of APP paper is rebranded. To be sure of avoiding
it, anyone buying virgin paper should opt for 100% recycled FSC-certified
brands.
Forestry management problems are not exclusive to developing countries. See
the case study on Finnish forestry in this article for more information on
the social and environmental problems caused by logging in Europe.
As well as consumer and campaign group pressure, the attitude of government
can influence imports of illegally harvested timber. The European Commission,
backed by the UK government, has plans for a voluntary approach to timber
import licensing, consisting of “partnership agreements” between
timber-producing countries and the EU. Although campaigners agree that measures
to prevent illegal timber entering the UK are badly needed, many feel that
a mandatory ban, rather than a voluntary scheme, is the only way to make
any significant impact.(3)
Both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth campaign to stop the logging of
tropical hardwoods and boreal forest (where a great deal of paper is sourced
from) and to protect biodiversity in endangered rainforest areas. See contacts
at the end of this article for more details.
Pulping
Water
Once a tree has been felled it must make its way to a mill for processing
into paper. Paper making is an energy- and water-intensive process –
the industry uses nearly 2% of the power consumed in the UK and 13% of all
the water abstracted. It also produces more than 400,000 tonnes of waste
per year, largely paper sludge, which often goes to landfill or is spread
on farmland.(4)
The UK paper and board industry uses 180 million m3 of water and produces
163 million m3 of effluent every year.(5) Every tonne of paper recycled
saves 17 trees and 7,000 gallons of water.(6)
Chemicals
There are a number of chemicals involved at this stage of the paper making
process. Of them chlorine, used to bleach wood pulp white, is amongst the
most damaging. Most mills, especially those operating in Europe and North
America, now produce ‘Elemental Chlorine Free’ (ECF) papers by
employing chlorine dioxide instead of chlorine gas, a much less environmentally
damaging process. Even better, some mills use Totally Chlorine Free (TCF)
technologies. Processed Chlorine Free (PCF) is used for recycled paper.
Any brands carrying the Blue Angel mark are required to be TCF.
Polluting companies
A number of the companies involved at this stage of the supply chain have
been implicated in pollution incidents at their mills.
Earlier this year, South African based Sappi was forced to shut down a pulping
operation in its home country after the chlorine bleaching process was found
to be causing toxic chemical pollution. The company admitted that “higher
than advisable levels” of dioxins, furans and other organo-chlorinated
compounds had been released and that some of the measurements were “about
four to five times higher” than World Health Organisation guidelines.
According to the Law Society, some of these compounds had the potential
to cause cancer and endocrine system health problems in humans and animals.(7)
Subsidiaries of the Finnish Metsaliitto Co-operative have been the focus
of concern over sulphur emissions. A study by a Finnish university found
that sulphur levels around its Metsa-Botnia mill were 28% higher than those
in corresponding background samples.(8)
A number of M-real’s (40% owned by Metsaliitto) closed down mills are
in need of corrective action due to contamination of the soil in the form
of chlorinated phenols, residual dioxin, oil, heavy metals and PCBs.(9)
Certification schemes
Unfortunately, paper cannot be recycled indefinitely. After about six cycles,
the fibres break down to such an extent that sufficient quality cannot be
maintained. Whilst there are still huge amounts of recyclable paper going
to landfill, we would urge consumers to opt for 100% recycled paper, without
any virgin content, to encourage demand. However, a number of the brands
covered do contain a proportion of virgin fibre (see table on below for
breakdown).
There are a plethora of forest certification schemes designed to encourage
and ensure responsible forestry management. We take a critical look at a
few of them:
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Its mark is the most widely recognised and most widely supported by environmental
campaign groups. Although more widely recognised as a symbol on wood products
such as furniture, the FSC also works on paper. The FSC operates two different
schemes, one resulting in a Forest Management Certificate and another resulting
in a Chain of Custody Certificate. The former is designed for companies
which operate solely in forestry, whereas the latter is for ‘integrated’
forestry companies which own forests and produce paper products. The Chain
of Custody tracks fibre content right from the point of origin through to
the product, with independent certification at every step along the process.
According to Nick Cliffe from the FSC, most paper requires some virgin content
because of quality, but it is essential that this comes from an ethically
certified forest. He says that the inclusion of a proportion of virgin fibre
does have environmental benefits and that without responsible and economically
viable forestry management, large areas of forest would be cut down for
agriculture (particularly soya beans and cattle ranching).(10)
The FSC operates three different labels for paper. One is for paper which
contains 100% FSC-certified virgin fibres, another which contains 100% recycled
post consumer waste (as yet only available in the US) and another which
contains a mixture of FSC certified and “non-controversial” virgin
paper and post consumer waste.
The FSC has been congratulated by campaign groups for its transparency and
independence.
Finnish Forestry Certification Scheme (FFCS)
The idea for a Finnish scheme began with NGO support and with the intention
of being eventually adopted by the FSC. Environmental groups soon felt that
most members were failing to show significant commitment to ecologically
sound forestry and left. The forestry sector and forest owners then went
on to develop their own standard called the Finnish Forest Certification
System (FFCS). The FFCS was endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement
of Forest Certification (PEFC) in May 2000. Since then, the PEFC logo has
been used on FFCS-certified products. Both the FFCS and the PEFC have also
been criticised for their industry-dominated governance and non-transparent
processes.(11) The FFCS is one of a number of schemes operating under the
PEFC umbrella.
Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC)
Greenpeace have recently produced a report, ‘Missing Links’, saying
it had identified “serious gaps” in the certification standards
operated by the Malaysian Timber CC. Specific criticisms levelled at the
Council were that:
MTCC procedures do not ensure certified products are legal.
The MTCC chain of custody system does not require independent tracking of
wood from forest to first point of timber processing l A missing link that
means all MTCC chain of custody claims have no credibility.
There are no requirements to ensure independent verification of the chain
of custody of MTCC timber exported to the Europe or elsewhere.
There are no credible checks on the origin of uncertified material that
is allowed to be mixed with certified material timber. This means that illegal
timber can enter the chain of custody and be sold as MTCC-certified.
Contrary to international treaties and standards, the MTCC system does not
address indigenous peoples' land rights.(12)
Government intervention
Due to weaknesses in public disclosure and stakeholder consultation, the
Government has rejected the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
(PEFC) scheme for use in its policy on timber procurement. The North American
Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) and the MTCC were also rejected. Only
the FSC and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) schemes received full
approval, although Greenpeace has pointed out that the CSA scheme has met
with “heavy criticism” from Canadian environmental groups.(13)
Spotlight on
Finland
Finland is full of forests, which cover a whopping 76% of the country.
But things are changing fast. The country is also a huge paper exporter,
supported by its industrial forestry industry. Greenpeacehas been campaigning
on the impact of this industry on Finland’s old growth forests,
which cover 5% of the country. Finland is the single largest source
of paper imports into the UK,(1) so it’s likely that if you don’t
use recycled paper at home or in your office, you could well be consuming
Finnish trees.
Finland is busy converting old-growth forests to commercial forests
which are suitable for logging. Less than five per cent of the country
is now old growth, and this last bit is struggling to support a huge
range of plant and animal species.3 Already the flying squirrel, three-toed
woodpecker, Siberian jay and many other plants and animals have suffered
massive population loss in the new types of forest. This modern “forest
management” has put 564 forest species on the ‘classified
as threatened’ species list(2) and a further 416 are ‘classified
as near-threatened.’(2) In fact, Greenpeace believe that the number
of threatened species is probably much greater.(2)
The North of Finland is also home to Northern Europe’s only indigenous
people, the Sámi. Traditional reindeer herding forms a cultural
basis for tens of thousands of indigenous people in Lapland.(4) The
reindeer survive the harsh winters by eating lichen off the trees, and
they need to be able to move from one pasture to another to find food.(3)
According to the President of the Sámi Parliament, Pekka Aikio
“living forests form a central part of Sámi culture. Old
growth forests are of crucial importance for reindeer herding and should
not be logged for pulp mills under any circumstances. In the Saami culture
we have been taught to respect forests ever since our childhood.”(4)
However, state owned company Metsahallitus (covered on the table as
Metsaliitto Co-op) has been accused of logging in two reindeer herding
areas, and building a road through another in February 2005, whilst
community groups and NGOs called for a moratorium.3 The Finnish state
also owns a quarter of the voting shares in Finnish-Swedish paper giant
StoraEnso.(3) The company buys wood from reindeer grazing forests, and
then sells the paper to the European consumer. The country is responsible
for one quarter of the world’s printing and writing paper exports.(5)
Jorma Lansman, a reindeer herder from the Muotkatunturi co-operative,
said, “it doesn’t fit in anyone’s clear mind, when you
think of how long and slow the trees have grown and then they’re
cut and boiled for pulp, just like that.”’ (3)
Greenpeace and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC)
agreed with Jorma and, along with the majority of the reindeer herding
co-operatives in the Sámi area, mapped the important reindeer
grazing forests in 2003.(3) The groups demanded that the mapped areas
must not be industrially logged, but were largely ignored.(3) In May
2005, the NGOs and the Sámi finally managed to get Metsahallitus
to agree to a temporary logging moratorium in the 90,000 hectares that
were mapped and engage in formal negotiations with Sámi herders.(6)
However, in June Metsahallitus terminated negotiations and said that
the moratorium was over. FANC issued a statement on the surprise decision
claiming it was one-sided and that they did not accept it.(9) Unfortunately,
this stalemate could mean that logging could restart in August.
Greenpeace are asking all publishers which source from the disputed
land what steps they are taking to ensure they are not using old growth
fibre. According to Belinda Fletcher, Forest Campaigner at Greenpeace:
“the campaign had already been instrumental in convincing the
Xerox Corporation (USA) to agree to stop buying copy paper sourced
from the ancient forests in the Sàmi region.”(6) Publishers
written to in the UK include BBC Worldwide, EMAP, IPC Magazines, National
Magazine Company and Redwood Magazines. Patrick Venditti, Senior Forest
Campaigner at Greenpeace, commented that “we have yet to receive
confirmation from any of the above companies that they will not purchase
fibre from the disputed areas.”(6) Ethical Consumers should keep
an eye on the Greenpeace
forest crime website to see if their support is required in the
coming months.
References
1 ‘Stationery,
personal and office, Keynote 2004 2 ‘Certifying extinction:
An Assessment of the Revised Standards of the Finnish Certification
System,’ Greenpeace 09/04 3 ‘Lapland: State of Conflict,’
Greenpeace 03/05 4 ‘Finland Forests,’ Greenpeace
viewed on 13/7/05 5 ‘Paper exports drive forest destruction,’
Greenpeace 2/5/03 6 Email from Greenpeace forest campaigner,
13/7/05 and 14/7/05 7 ‘Greenpeace exposes Finland’s
hypocrisy on human rights,’ Greenpeace, 15/3/05 8 ‘FANC
position on the end of the dialogue process on Finnish old-growth
forests,’ FANC 14/6/05
|
GM trees
Large forestry corporations have hailed the introduction of genetically
modified trees, particularly eucalyptus, for their fast-growing capabilities.
Industrial-style, monoculture eucalyptus plantations have been criticised
by environmentalists for threatening biodiversity and consuming large amounts
of water. In the past six years, activists have destroyed 12 GM tree trials,
in Britain, Canada and the US.(14)
Even the UN has looked to GM trees as a possible means of combating climate
change. Trials have been carried out on trees which have been genetically
modified to absorb more carbon. While carbon absorption increased, scientists
also noted a dramatic increase in water consumption.(15)
Both Mondi (Anglo American) and Sappi have been involved in developing GM
trees.(16) The FSC label is a guarantee that paper has not been made from
GM trees.
Workers’ rights
Mill owner Sappi was subject to protest from members of the South African
Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers Union (CEPPWAWU)
against what it termed ‘anti-union practices’. According to the
union, the company was being condemned for aggressive attempts to weaken
workers’ rights in both South Africa and the USA. The International
Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions (ICEM)
also reported that union members in two of Sappi’s US paper mills had
been without a new labour agreement for over a year, and that Sappi managers
at those locations had proposed to drastically cut workers’ income,
health care and retiree health benefits.(17)
Borders stands accused of having a long history of anti-union activities
in shops seeking to organise collectively. It is alleged that company management
had used ‘bullying, emotional manipulation and retaliation’ against
employees wishing to unionise, including the ‘summary dismissal’
of one union organiser from a store in Ann Arbor, the company’s base.
This move was said to have resulted in the company being ordered by the
courts to pay back wages to the fired worker. At other stores, employees
were told that wishing to unionise was an act of bad faith towards their
colleagues, especially those in personnel roles, and that to vote for collective
bargaining would cause personal distress.(18)
In 2005 Office Depot paid out $3.3million to settle a lawsuit which claimed
that it had misclassified workers as assistant managers to avoid paying
them overtime on additional hours worked. The suit was said to have been
brought by hundreds of workers who had been subject to this practice.(19)
Recycled paper
In 2002/03, paper and card accounted for over a third of all household waste
collected for recycling, with 1.1 million tonnes being collected in England.
This means however that around 5 million tonnes of household paper and card
is not recycled and is largely going to landfill.(20)
Compared with virgin paper, the use of recycled paper reduces water consumption
by nearly 60% and energy use by 40%. Air and water pollution are decreased
by 74% and 35% respectively.(21) We take a closer look at the environmental
credentials of recycled paper.
Pre- and post-consumer waste
Not all recycled paper is the same. A brand made from post-consumer waste
will help reduce impacts more than one made from pre-consumer waste, which
in turn is preferable to ‘mill broke’. So what do these terms
mean?
Post-consumer waste: this is paper which must have travelled all the way
from a paper mill, been used by a consumer and then put in the recycling
bin, or more basically, “fibre that has been used for its final and
intended purpose.”(22) The NAPM recycled mark ensures that a product
must contain at least 75% post-consumer waste. The Blue Angel’s criteria
mean that it must contain a minimum of 51% printed and domestic/office waste.
Pre-consumer waste: this can have come from a variety of sources including
trimmings or overs from a paper-cutting operation or from a printer. Whilst
there are huge amounts of post-consumer waste thrown into landfill, recycled
paper made from pre-consumer waste does little to reduce the volume of paper
which simply gets thrown away.
Mill broke: comprised of trimmings and faulty paper produced during the
papermaking process. This has never been used as paper so is not, and should
not be, classified as recycled paper.(23)
Recycled marks
Blue Angel
The Blue Angel is recognised by the leading green stationery providers as
the most stringent labelling system for recycled paper. It not only requires
a minimum of 51% printed and domestic/office waste, but also requires companies
to report on the energy used in the manufacturing process. Brands carrying
the Blue Angel mark are indicated on the table below.
NAPM recycled mark
The National Association of Paper Manufacturers (NAPM) mark has been going
for around 15 years. According to its director, Tim Bowler, the 75% post
consumer waste requirement was initially quite challenging for most companies,
but is now being met more easily. Although his comments about the benefits
of genetically modified fast growing trees were rather alarming, the NAPM
mark does ensure companies cannot make spurious claims about the recycled
content of their brands. The NAPM states that: “Paper and board sought
to be accorded the NAPM Recycled paper mark must be manufactured from a
minimum of 75% genuine paper and board waste fibre, no part of which should
contain mill produced waste.” (www.napm.org.uk,
18/7/05) Only waste from a specific commercial order, trimmings from a printer
or domestic and office waste qualifies for the 75% content. Brands carrying
the NAPM mark are indicated on the table below.
|
|
| Brand (recycled mark*) |
% recycled |
% of which post consumer waste |
remaining % |
|
| 100 |
100 |
|
|
| 100 |
100 |
|
| Cyclus Office (BA, NAPM) |
100 |
100 |
|
| Evercopy (BA) |
100 |
100 |
|
| Evolve (BA**, NAPM) |
100 |
100 |
|
| Green Stationary pad |
100 |
100 |
|
| Heritage Laser (NAPM) |
100 |
100 |
|
| Pukka pads |
100 |
100 |
|
|
| 100 |
100 |
|
|
| 100 |
100 |
|
|
| 100 |
100 |
|
|
| 100 |
100 |
|
|
| 100 |
100 |
|
| Nautilus (BA, NAPM) |
100 |
50 |
No data |
| Cambridge |
100 |
85 |
15% pre-consumer |
| Revive (NAPM) |
100 |
80 |
20% pre-consumer |
| Cambridge |
100 |
75 |
25% pre-consumer |
| Paperpack pad |
100 |
75 |
25% pre-consumer |
| Existence (NAPM) |
100 |
75 |
No data |
| Croxley Heritage (NAPM) |
80 |
100 |
20% virgin (of which around 50% is FSC pulp) |
| Conservation Doc-It (NAPM) |
75 |
100 |
25% TCF virgin pulp |
|
NAPM = National Association of Paper Manufacturers recycled mark
**only Evolve Office BA (not Evolve Office) has the Blue Angel label
Alternatives
So, what are the alternatives to using paper made from trees?
Paper made from a mixture of post consumer waste and, yes, elephant dung
is available from The Green Stationery Company (www.greenstat.co.uk)
and Ecotopia (www.ecotopia.co.uk).
The dung is collected by the elephant handlers in Sri Lanka and provides
an extra source of income for the locals to care for the elephants.
Hemp paper and banana & coffee paper is also available from Green Stationery.
The Hemp paper is made from 75% UK-grown hemp and 25% straw. The banana
paper is 100% recycled with 5% minimum waste from coffee and banana fields
in Costa Rica, this paper gives an extra income to 3rd World commodity farmers
and reduces river pollution from dumped agricultural waste fibres. It is
made in the UK.
You might want to have a go at making your own paper. Visit www.pioneerthinking.com/makingpaper
for a basic ‘how to’ guide.
References
1 ENDS Report 364, May 2005, p 36
2 Paper Tigers, Hidden Dragons,
Friends of the Earth, 2001
3 ENDS Report 365, p45, 6/05
4
ENDS Report 359, p7, 12/04
5 www.envirowise.gov.uk/envirowisev3.nsf/key/DBRY4PHFKK,
18/7/05
6 Which?Extra, Recycling, 2002
7 KwaZulu-Natal Law
Society Library www.lawlibrary.co.za:
Earth, Air and Water/Chemical poisons found in KZN river, 16/02/05
8
Oulu University Library www.kirjasto.oulu.fi: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514268709/html/,
2000
9 M-real Corporate Responsibility Report, 2004
10 Conversation
with Nick Cliffe from the Forest Stewardship Council, 18/7/05
11
Greenpeace report “Certifying Extinction: an assessment of the FFCS,
10/04
12 ‘Missing Links’, 17/5/05, Greenpeace
13 ENDS
Report 358, p 32, 11/04
14 Resistance is fertile: protests against
GM trees, Lang,C, WRM Bulletin 88, 11/04
15 ‘GE Trees: No solution
to climate change’, Lang, C, published in Gen-ethischer Informationsdienst,
3/05
16 www.chrislang.blogspot.com,
20/7/05
17 International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and
General Workers Unions www.icem.org:
ICEM update 1/3/04
18 www.bordersunion.org/node/1039,
12/7/05
19 Odepotunion.tripod.com,
7/05
20 www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Paper.htm,
18/7/05
21 Keynote, 10/96
22 www.sustainable-development.gov.uk
Green guide for buyers – Paper (action sheet) 18/7/05
23 www.greenconsumerguide.com/domesticll.php?CLASSIFICATION=105&PARENT=92,
15/7/05