Despite the number of different schemes on offer, the industry is still rather slow to take up the eco-label challenge

by Leslie Webb

Sticking to the requirements of eco-labels

Not surprisingly, the Blue Angel scheme remains the largest with nearly 4,000 eco-labeled products across its 100 eco-label product types. Of these, about 6% are paper products with the greatest number (about 180) being in the general recycled paper or board categories, followed by about 40 products for recycled sanitary products and 15 for newsprint.

The Nordic Swan scheme has also achieved considerable success in its shorter lifetime with some 750 licenses awarded to over 3,000 individual products across about 50 groups. The scheme now has eco-label criteria for just three main paper product types - printing papers, tissue/towel grades as well as packaging paper and board. So far, no eco-labelled products exist in the last sector as it is still quite new. There are approaching 40 manufacturers of various printing paper grades, but only eight for tissue grades. The Dutch Milieukeur scheme has achieved rather limited success with just 16 manufacturers of eco-labeled products across its six paper grades.

Success is an odd word to associate with the European Union (EU) eco-label, which has managed to set criteria for a total of just 14 product groups since it was established in 1993. But this does include two paper grades - tissue/towels and copier paper. However, few paper companies have been willing to break the well-known stance of the European paper industry against eco-labels. As a result, only four tissue/towel manufacturers have gained EU eco-labels for some of their products - Dalle Hygiene in France, Fort James in the UK, Cartiere Lucchese of Italy and Tissue MFG in Ireland. On top of that, two copier paper manufacturers, Papeterie Moulin Vieux in France and Spain's Papelera de Confianza have taken up the scheme. After much debate in the last two years, a revised regulation on eco-labeling was agreed earlier in 2000, but its effectiveness in turning around the scheme is far from assured.

There has been little development in tissue grades recently or at least nothing that has resulted in new labels. The latest version of the EU eco-label for tissue and towel products has been extended by an extra year to the end of 2001. Areas under discussion (but not yet agreed) for inclusion in the next version are new criteria for:

· emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) to air with a suggested coefficient in the points scoring formula of 2.2 kg nitrogen dioxide (NO²)/tonne and a maximum hurdle of 5.5 kg NO²/tonne

· energy consumption with criteria for both heat and electricity

· differentiation of the numerical values in relation to the type of pulp used - virgin mechanical, virgin chemical or recycled.

The Nordic Swan eco-label for tissue products has not changed since the second version which started in 1996, but its run has also been extended by one year to October 2000, when a third version will kick off. The Dutch Milieukeur has introduced a fourth version of its toilet paper eco-label, but with no change in the criteria for recycled content (100% of fiber), fresh water use, energy use and chemical oxygen demand (COD) load discharged to water. It also retains the characteristic of the values being related to the paper's area rather than its weight, whereas the criteria in the eco-label for the paper towel grade are weight-based, but do not include the fresh water parameter.

In the Canadian Environmental Choice scheme, the five grades within this general product area all have the same set of criteria, which is based on a points scoring system across five parameters - wood consumption, energy consumption, solid waste generation, COD discharge to water and wastewater toxicity. These have remained unchanged since 1994, but have certainly not cleaned up the market as there are only two manufacturers of eco-labeled tissue/towel products.

Fine papers get more complex

The first Nordic Swan eco-label for printing paper came out in 1996 and consolidated previous eco-labels for newsprint and fine paper into this single category. As the new grade covers both the woodfree and wood-containing papers plus recycled papers, the scheme had to develop a fair system for assessing the emissions from this diverse range of virgin and recycled pulps. A second version of this eco-label came out in late 1999 and runs through to early 2004. It maintains the points scoring system for the same range of emission parameters, but has slightly decreased the reference COD value for bleached chemical pulps. The main changes center on the standards for the forestry aspect of virgin pulps, chemical use, a new points scoring system for energy use and maximum emission limits for fossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide. On top of that, the pressure on chemical use continues to rise with a lengthy list of constraints.

In relation to energy use, the manufacturer must calculate the reference consumption of fuels and imported electricity for on-site processes (from data provided) and then calculate its own electricity and fuel consumption. The energy points are calculated from the ratio of actual fuel used and imported electricity compared to the reference values, where the calculated points must be less than the limit values for total energy and electricity alone. The requirements with regard to maximum carbon dioxide emissions are simpler with maximum levels of 500 kg CO²/tonne for virgin pulps (both chemical and mechanical), 700 kg CO²/tonne for deinked pulp and 1,000 kg CO²/tonne for papermaking. But this calculation only has to include emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels on-site, not from imported electricity. On top of that, the energy content of process waste must not exceed 2 GJ/tonne of paper product.

The first version of the EU eco-label for copying paper expired in mid-1999 and a new set of criteria were then adopted to run through to 2002. The number of parameters has been increased to include extra measurements for discharges to water, emissions to air, energy consumption and other issues.

Within the Canadian Environmental Choice program, the scope of the latest eco-labels for printing/writing papers and for uncoated mechanical papers have broadened away from just recycled content. They cover a wider range of parameters than the eco-labels for sanitary papers (see above) through the inclusion of criteria for carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and sulfur dioxide emissions to air.

Packaging gains a label

It is perhaps surprising that there have been very few eco-labels for packaging grades, although it is not uncommon to set standards for the packaging around other eco-labeled paper products. The German Blue Angel scheme has had an eco-label for recycled cardboard products for about 10 years, but this concentrates just on recycled content (100% of the fiber input) and on some chemical restrictions.

In 1998, the Nordic Swan scheme set its first criteria for packaging papers, which are applicable until toward the end of 2001. The restrictions on chemical use are similar, but not identical, to those in the printing paper eco-label and there is a 100 mg/kg limit on the total lead, cadmium and chromium metals in the final product (the same as in the 1994 EU directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste). The main criteria relate to the emissions of conventional substances to water and air, but the final points calculation is complicated even more than usual by the incorporation of a product function index. As this generic sector includes a number of packaging grades, different function indices are used for each one - a mixture of burst strength, compressive strength and tensile rigidity for liners; compressive strength for fluting; break and tear strengths for bags; and tensile strength for kraft papers. For each grade, the index is calculated by dividing an acceptable value for the parameter by the product's strength value, with strong products scoring below one point and weaker products greater than one point.

The function points are doubled and then added to the points calculated from the emissions of COD, phosphorous and AOX to water and sulfur and NOx emissions to air. The only difference from the emission points scoring system for printing papers is the inclusion of data for neutral sulfite semichemical pulp (NSSC) and unbleached kraft pulps, the latter being sub-divided into pulps with kappa numbers > 100 or < 40. The total loads for each emission parameter must be less than twice the reference values and the total points (including the function points contribution) must be less than six points. Unlike the printing paper eco-label, there is no points system for energy use, but carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels must be below 700 kg CO²/tonne from pulp and papermaking, but in this case, including emissions from the production of imported electricity.

One topic that caused much discussion during the lead-up to the latest Nordic Swan eco-label for printing paper were the requirements for pulp wood, an area that had not been even mentioned in the previous version, except as something to be discussed for the future. The current eco-label now gives manufacturers two options regarding wood sourcing:

· either a minimum of at least 15% of total pulps must be derived from forests that have been certified by an approved system such as the Swedish FSC standard. The key objective here is that forest management must be aiming in a sustainable direction and that wood must not come from forests requiring protection.

· or a minimum of at least 50% of total pulps must be recycled fiber or derived from sawmill waste/chips.

The Nordic Swan packaging eco-label requires that a higher proportion of the virgin wood pulp (20% of any roundwood) is from certified forests unless the pulp is recycled or made from 100% sawmill chips. The two Milieukeur paper grades that permit use of virgin fiber (copier and offset papers) also impose forestry criteria either in the form of compliance with the FSC principles or with their own criteria in terms of final cutting method, weed control, fertilization, wood from natural forests and regeneration. The EU eco-label for copier paper also requires that the forest operators must manage the forest in a sustainable manner, eg in Europe, in accordance with the guidelines endorsed at the 1998 Lisbon conference.

The FSC scheme has doubled its coverage of certified forests from about 10 million to nearly 20 million ha over the last two years with about half the total now being Swedish forests operated mainly by pulp and paper companies - AssiDomän, Körsnas, SCA and Stora Enso. In order to facilitate the use of FSC pulp in more products, the organization has changed the rules regarding the minimum proportion of FSC-certified pulp or wood. Previously, a paper could use the FSC logo if the virgin pulp component contained at least 70% FSC-certified pulp even if the paper contained up to 75% recycled fiber. This meant that a paper with the maximum recycled content could be FSC-labeled if it contained only 17.5% FSC-certified pulp. The revised rules require that the proportion of FSC-certified pulp is at least 17.5% of the total pulp (including any recycled pulp), but that also the FSC pulp must be at least 30% (50% from 2005) of the total virgin pulp. The new rules ensure that the minimum content of FSC-certified pulp in any paper product is not reduced below the previous low level, but sanctions a substantially lower level in other products. For example, previously a paper made with 30% recycled fiber content would have had to use 49% FSC-certified pulp, but this is now reduced to just 21%. The FSC logo can be used on products and to support marketing, but it must state the minimum content of FSC-certified pulp. In products containing both recycled fiber and FSC-certified pulp, the Mobius loop can also be shown to indicate recycled content in accordance with ISO 14021.

Examples of FSC-certified paper products are still very small as there are only five pulp mills that have the full forest and chain of custody (COC) certification that is required to enable use of the FSC logo. Pulp mills producing FSC-certified pulp are two AssiDomän mills in Sweden, the Stora Enso Norrsundet mill and SCA's Östrand plant in Sweden and the Lyons Fall plant in the USA.

FSC-certified papers on the market include various printing grades made by Inveresk Graphic Papers in the UK and the small Lyons Fall mill in New York State, various tissue grades for supermarket chains produced by Celtech and SCA Hygiene Products from Swedish pulp. In addition, there is some lightweight coated paper from the SCA Ortviken mill.

There has always been some ambivalence by certain parts of the paper industry toward the FSC, partly due to its close association with the "environmentalist" side in the form of WWF and probably also due to its spirited independence from the industry itself. It was no great surprise when a group of European forestry owners got together in 1998 to devise an alternative, voluntary system (the PEFC). Launched in mid-1999, the forestry criteria are based on the guidelines for sustainable forest management adopted at the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe held in Helsinki in 1993 and Lisbon in 1998. There are not yet known to be any PEFC-certified pulps or papers using the PEFC logo, but this is bound to change soon as the area of PEFC-certified forest in the Nordic countries (estimated at 18 million ha) is already close to the FSC total.

The first of the national forest certification schemes was established in Canada, where there are now about 18 million ha of certified forest land. This corresponds to an annual allowable harvest of nearly 30 million m³ of wood, some 16-17% of the Canadian total. Most of the certified Canadian forests appear to have been certified using the ISO 14001 management system, interpreted for forestry application through the ISO technical report 14061, rather than the Canadians' own sustainable forestry standard.

The revised EU eco-labeling regulation is designed to speed up the development of criteria for new product groups by the establishment of the EU Eco-labeling Board. This group will include representatives of the competent bodies in each EU country plus a consultation forum of trade bodies as well as consumer and environmental groups.

It is interesting to note that the revised EU eco-label regulation does not require a full life cycle assessment (LCA) of new product groups to be undertaken, but simply to make use of life cycle "considerations", whatever they may be (PPI, August 1999, pp 50-53). Most other eco-label schemes claim to use some form of LCA, but there are significant differences between schemes in what is included in certain parameters.

There has also been an ongoing debate within the industry about the pros and cons of product eco-labels versus environmental management systems (EMS) at the producer site. It is certainly good to see the industry embracing the EMS concept with recent CEPI data indicating about 200 mill sites (about 15% of mills by number, but 50% in terms of paper production) certified to either ISO 14001 or EMAS. Like the EU eco-label, both these schemes are being revised with the new EMAS due for final publication soon, but the new ISO 14001 will not be unveiled for at least a couple of years. The major changes to EMAS are convergence with the EMS requirements of ISO 14001 and extension to non-manufacturing sectors.

The eco-label that removes some of the controversial aspects of the normal third party labels is the type three environmental report card pioneered by Environmental Choice in Canada with its Environmental Performance Data Sheet (EPDS). This is being used by three paper companies in Canada (Canfor, Stora Enso and Tembec) to define some of the environmental parameters for their mills. Although this card falls far short of the information level in an EMAS statement or a stand-alone environmental report, the data does provide a useful snapshot of key issues. Given the feedback from some recent analyses of EMAS statements and environmental reports and from the poor performance of some eco-label schemes, the big question is - who cares anyway? Despite this apathy among at least some of the shareholder community, it looks possible that ISO may soon be starting work to develop a document on environmental communications.

Leslie Webb directs the activities of Envirocell and can be contacted on telephone/fax +44 1372 276599 or mail to:leswebb@envirocell.co.uk or www.envirocell.co.uk

Stories

Columns