By Phil Riebel, Environmental Consultant to the Pulp & Paper Industry
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
Comments made in this blog are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect that of RISI, Inc., its parent company or sponsors.
