The State of the Paper Industry

Monitoring the Indicators

of Environmental Performance

A collaborative report by the Steering Committee 

of the Environmental Paper Network
— ii —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

EDITOR: Jennifer Roberts 

AUTHORS: Susan Kinsella, Gerard Gleason, Victoria Mills, Nicole Rycroft, Jim Ford, Kelly Sheehan, Joshua Martin

LEAD RESEARCHER: Sarah Ives

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH: Mary Lee Haughwout, Aimee Baxendell, Aaron Firestone

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The Environmental Paper Network would like to express our appreciation to the following experts 

who provided comments on a draft of this report: Janet Abramowitz, Peter Lee, Derek Smith, Judy Rodrigues, Delores Broten, Tyson Miller,

Frank Locantore, Scot Quaranda, Peggy Bernard, Danna Smith, Jim Strittholt, Debbie Hammel, Eric Palola and Laura Hickey.

The authors would also like to acknowledge and thank for their help: Tracy Godfrey, Valerie Langer, Tracy London,

Andrew Goldberg, Aaron Sanger, Sean Cadman, Orin Langelle, and Anne Petermann.

L AYOUT AND DESIGN: Serena Fox Design (www.serenafoxdesign.com)

The Environmental Paper Network links environmental organizations that collaborate to support the conversion of the pulp and paper industry 

to socially and environmentally sustainable processes. For more information visit: www.environmentalpaper.org

Steering Committee of the Environmental Paper Network:

As You Sow, Borealis Centre for Environmental and Trade Research, Conservatree, Co-op America, Green Press Initiative,

Dogwood Alliance, ForestEthics, Environmental Defense, Markets Initiative, National Wildlife Federation.

Copyright Environmental Paper Network, 2007

Executive Summary printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper, processed chlorine free. In an effort to conserve resources,

the full report is only available online at: www.environmentalpaper.org/stateofthepaperindustry. If printing the report or portions of it,

please print double-sided whenever possible and consider your choice of paper carefully.

To request additional printed copies of the Executive Summary contact: report@environmentalpaper.org, or call 828-251-8558 (USA).

Financialsupport for the Environmental Paper Network and this report was provided by: Town Creek Foundation, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund,

Overbrook Foundation, The Weeden Foundation, The Merck Family Fund and the Educational Foundation of America.
— iii —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

u

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........iv-vii

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter 2: Minimizing Paper Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Environmental Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-9

Chapter 3: Maximizing Recycled Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Environmental Benefits of Recycled Paper . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Environmental Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

North American Recycled Pulp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

North American Paper and Paper Products . . . . . . . . . . .17

Recovered Fiber Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Global Influences: Demand for U.S. Recovered Paper . . .23

The Future for Recycled Paper Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

What Buyers Can Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Chapter 4: Responsible Fiber Sourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Environmental Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Wood Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Use of Synthetic Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Genetically Engineered Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Non-wood Plant Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Chapter 5: Cleaner Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Environmental Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Resource Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Releases to Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Releases to Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Local Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Other Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

How to Use the Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

APPENDICES

A: List of Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

B: Examples of Natural Forest Conversion (Regional) . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

C: Summary of Common Chemicals Used in Forestry Operations

and Their Toxicity and Environmental Fate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 

D: Currently Operating Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants . . . . . . . . .58

E: Sample Form for Evaluating Paper Mill Performance . . . . . . . . . . .59

F: Field Tests of Genetically Engineered Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

G: Social Impacts of the Paper Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
— iv —

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DE SPI T E PR E DIC T ION S T H AT T H E DIG I TA L R EVOLU T ION WO U L D M A K E PA PE R AS OB S OL E T E

AS THE TYPEWRITER, PA PE R R E M A I N S C E N T R A L TO O U R L I V E S.

YET MOST OF US, MOST OF THE TIME, GIVE LITTLE THOUGHT TO HOW MUCH WE DEPEND

ON PA PE R PROD U C T S. TH I N K OF T H E H U N DR E D S OF T I M E S A DAY W E TO U C H PA P E R—

N EWSPA PE R S, CEREAL BOXES, TOI L E T PA PE R, WAT E R B OT T L E L A B E L S, PA R K I N G T IC K E T S,

ST R E A M S OF C ATA LO G S A N D J U N K M A I L, MONEY, TISSUES, BOOKS, SHOPPING BAGS, RECEIPTS,

NAPKINS, PR I N T E R A N D C OPI E R PA PE R AT HOM E A N D WOR K, MAGAZINES, TO-G O F O OD PAC K AG I N G.

TH E L I S T C O U L D F I L L A PA PE R BAC K.

What’s more, few people pay much heed to the ways in which our use of paper affects the environment. Yet the paper

industry’s activities—and our individual use and disposal of paper in our daily lives—have enormous impacts. These

include loss and degradation of forests that moderate climate change, destruction of habitat for countless plant and animal species, pollution of air and water with toxic chemicals such as mercury and dioxin, and production of methane—a potent

greenhouse gas—as paper decomposes in landfills, to name just a few.

How can a product that is so interwoven in our lives have such devastating effects? And more to the point, what can we do to avoid,

slow, or reverse the harmful consequences of wood harvesting, pulp and paper manufacturing, and paper use and disposal? This

report tackles these questions within the framework of A Common Vision for Transforming the Pulp and Paper Industry, a call to

action first issued in 2002 by the Environmental Paper Network (EPN).

The EPN’s members represent a diverse group of non-profit organizations united by their shared interest in supporting

socially and environmentally sustainable transformations within the pulp and paper industry. To achieve this transformation, the Common Vision defines four key goals: minimize paper consumption, maximize recycled content, source

fiber responsibly and employ cleaner production practices.

This report represents the Environmental Paper Network’s (EPN) effort to identify the most important indicators 

to use when evaluating the environmental performance of the pulp and paper industry. 

The State of the Paper Industry

Monitoring the Indicators

of Environmental Performance
— v —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

In each of these four categories, this report identifies key

indicators to use in evaluating the environmental performance of the pulp and paper industry. Over time, tracking

these environmental performance indicators will allow the

paper industry, paper users, the EPN and other stakeholders

to measure the industry’s progress toward sustainability.

This report contains a wealth of data about the paper

industry’s environmental impacts gathered from business,

government and non-governmental sources. While there

have been some bright spots in recent years—such as the

phasing out in the United States of elemental chlorine to

bleach pulp, which reduces the generation of dioxins—in

aggregate the environmental performance indicators paint

a troubling picture. These indicators help clarify what

needs attention, and what role stakeholders might play in

moving the industry toward cleaner, healthier, more environmentally responsible production.

PAPER: IT’S CHANGING THE CLIMATE

One of the most significant, and perhaps least understood,

impacts of the paper industry is climate change. Every phase of

paper’s lifecycle contributes to global warming, from harvesting trees to production of pulp and paper to eventual disposal.

It is estimated that 42% of the industrial wood harvest is

used to make paper—a sobering fact given that forests store

roughly 50 percent of all terrestrial carbon, making them

one of our most important safeguards against climate

change. Old-growth and mature, second-growth natural

forests store much larger amounts of carbon than newly

planted stands and once logged, require decades to recover

the original amount of carbon they contained.

Whether the tree grew in a mature forest or industrial tree

plantation, climate change impacts multiply after it is harvested. The pulp and paper industry is the fourth largest emitter of

greenhouse gases among manufacturing industries, and contributes 9 percent of total manufacturing carbon dioxide emissions. The biggest greenhouse gas releases in pulp and paper

manufacturing come from the energy production needed to

power the pulp and paper mill.

The climate change effects of paper carry all the way

through to disposal. If paper is landfilled rather than recycled, it decomposes and produces methane, a greenhouse

gas with 23 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide. More than one-third of municipal solid waste is paper,

and municipal landfills account for 34 percent of humanrelated methane emissions to the atmosphere, making landfills the single largest source of such emissions. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency has identified the decomposition of paper as among the most significant sources of

landfill methane.

The climate benefits of reducing paper consumption are

significant. If, for example, the United States cut its office paper

use by roughly 10 percent, or 540,000 tons, greenhouse gas

emissions would fall by 1.6 million tons. This is the equivalent

of taking 280,000 cars off the road for a year.

By embracing the four pillars of the Common Vision—

minimizing paper consumption, maximizing recycled content, sourcing fiber responsibly and employing cleaner production practices—paper manufacturers, suppliers and purchasers can dramatically reduce the climate change impacts

of the paper industry.

RECYCLED CONTENT: 

STEPPING UP TO MEET DEMAND

Reducing paper consumption is an important first step in

reducing the environmental impacts of the paper industry. The

next step is to ensure that all paper is environmentally sustainable—and that starts with recycled content. Replacing virgin

tree fibers with recovered fibers reduces demand for wood,

which eases pressure to harvest forests and convert natural

forests into tree plantations. Making paper from used paper

requires less energy and is generally a cleaner manufacturing

process than making paper from trees. And because it diverts

usable paper from the waste stream, recycling cuts both solid

waste and greenhouse gas emissions created when paper

decomposes in landfills.

With curbside recycling programs common across the

United States, many people assume that the paper recycling

industry is thriving. The truth is much more complex.

Currently, 37 percent of U.S. pulp and nearly 25 percent of

Canadian pulp is produced from recovered paper. However,

the use of recycled content varies widely among grades of

paper, from an average of 45 percent recycled content in tissue

products and 32 percent in newsprint to a low of 6 percent in

printing and writing papers.

Estimates by environmental groups and paper industry

Benefits of Recycled Paper

Compared to copy paper made from 100% virgin 

forest fiber, a copy paper made from 100% recycled

content reduces:

• total energy consumption by 44%

• net greenhouse gas emissions by 38%

• particulate emissions by 41%

• wastewater by 50%

• solid waste by 49%

• wood use by 100%

Source: Environmental Defense Paper Calculator.
— vi —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

pulp producers suggest that as much as 1.5

million additional tons of recycled pulp per

year is needed to meet projected new

demand for recycled paper in the United

States within the next five to ten years. But as

demand increases, will there be enough

supply? One encouraging trend is that

paper recovery has increased every year

over the past five years and in 2006 exceeded 53 percent. However, the United States is

nowhere close to tapping out the domestic

supply of used paper suitable for recycled

pulp: in 2003, only 48.3 percent of office

paper was recovered for recycling. The key

constraints to the availability of recycled

paper in the United States are: 1) deinking

or recycling capacity, 2) demand for recovered paper from

abroad, 3) degradation of recovered paper quality that makes it

unsuitable for use in particular grades of recycled papers, and

4) our ability to recover more paper from the waste stream.

Current trends, including an increased reliance on singlestream recycling programs that mix bottles, cans and other

material with paper, may ultimately undermine the North

American paper recycling system. Unless there is a functional

recycling infrastructure, all papers will wind up landfilled or

incinerated, wasting their reuse potential. The best way to

ensure that the whole recycling system will function optimally

is for North American paper purchasers to require recycled

content in paper; that demand pulls used paper through the

system to be used again.

AS GLOBAL CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION BOOM,

MUST THE ENVIRONMENT PAY THE PRICE?

Paper is now a global industry, with multinational suppliers managing a complex web of fiber sourcing, pulping, paper production and converting operations all over

the world. The United States and Western Europe remain

by far the biggest paper consumers per capita, but paper

consumption has been growing most rapidly in China

and India, in parallel with their expanding economies.

To meet growing demand for paper products, the pulp and

paper industry is expanding its production capacity, primarily

in developing countries with lower raw material and labor costs

and looser environmental regulations. Increasingly, the largest

consumers of paper products are exporting the environmental

consequences of production, such as damage to forests and discharges of pollutants from paper mills. And while new paper

mills making newsprint and packaging in developing countries

are incorporating high amounts of recycled fiber, there are virtually no recycled printing and writing mills being built.

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY: 

ACTING BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE

Roughly half the world’s forests have been burned or cleared and

converted to non-forest uses. Human activity has degraded

almost 80 percent of what remains of the planet’s once vast forests.

These forests have lost, to varying degrees, many of their species

and much of their ability to function as healthy ecosystems. Yet

many of the remaining forests—including old-growth and other

ecologically important forests—are still being logged for the

paper industry using unsustainable forest management practices.

To prevent further destruction, the paper industry must

adopt more environmentally and socially responsible alternatives for sourcing fiber consistent with the Common Vision’s

goals.A necessary first step is to end the use of wood fiber that

threatens endangered forests and other high conservation

value ecosystems. As this report points out, considerable work

needs to be done to map and monitor these regions and to

develop long-lasting conservation agreements.

Independent, third-party certification of forestry

management operations plays an indispensable role in

helping protect endangered and high conservation value

forests. Although a number of certification schemes exist

worldwide, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification

is the most widely recognized as having the most credible

standards for responsible forestry management. FSC certification is growing rapidly, and in 2006, FSC’s market

share of paper products increased globally by 50 percent.

Currently, more than 226 million acres of forests are FSC

certified globally. As this report explains, strengthening

demand for FSC certified content in paper products promises to accrue numerous benefits to the environment,

including a decline in conversion of natural forests to

plantations and a reduction in use of polluting herbicides

and fertilizers on tree plantations.

World paper and paper board consumption, per capita, 2004

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

United States Western Europe Australia Latin America Eastern Europe China and Asia

Source: RISI 2005.

lbs/person/yr
— vii —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

WHAT’S NEXT? 

This report creates a common vocabulary and set of priorities for EPN’s discussions with the paper industry,

other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), corporate purchasers, government agencies and the public.

Because the environmental impacts of paper production

vary significantly by grade and region, we have not

attempted to establish specific performance goals for

paper suppliers. Instead, our hope is that people will use

the arguments and data put forth here to inform their

own campaigns, purchasing decisions and manufacturing practices and to focus on solutions that advance

social and environmental sustainability. In doing so, and

by monitoring the environmental performance indicators established by this report, genuine progress towards

the Common Vision can be achieved.

Indicators Monitored in this Report

Minimizing Paper Consumption

—

• Global paper and paperboard consumption, 

by country and region 

• Global paper and paperboard consumption, by grade

• Per capita paper and paperboard consumption

• United States paper consumption by grade

• U.S. printing & writing paper consumption, by end use

Maximizing Recycled Content

—

• Percentage of pulp made from recovered fiber

• North American high grade deinking capacity

• Recycled content in papers and paper products, 

by sector and grades within sector

• Percentage of recycled content in printing 

& writing paper

• Consistent minimum content recycled fiber 

specifications and standards 

• Range of recycled paper choices available 

in each grade

• Volume of paper in the U.S. municipal 

solid waste stream

• Recovery rates by grade of paper

• Recovery rate for office papers

• Percentage of recovered high grade papers directed

to “highest and best use” such as printing 

& writing paper

• Percentage of mixed paper in recovered paper 

collections vs. sorted papers

• U.S. exports of recovered paper 

• Recycling capacity in developing nations

Sourcing Fiber Responsibly

—

• Monitoring Endangered and High Conservation

Value Forests

• Stakeholder engagement and agreements

• Protection of Endangered Forests and High

Conservation Value Forests

• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification

• FSC certified paper products reaching consumers

• Rate of conversion of forests to plantations

• Percentage of plantation area certified by FSC

• Number of corporate commitments to avoid 

conversion of forests 

• Use of herbicides on tree plantations

• Use of synthetic fertilizers on tree plantations

• Outdoor field trials of genetically 

engineered trees

• North American availability of non-wood 

plant fiber for pulp and paper 

• Global availability of non-wood plant fiber for pulp

and paper

• Leading non-wood fibers in papermaking

• North American pulping capacity for non-wood 

plant fibers

• World pulping capacities for non-wood fiber

Employing Cleaner Production Practices

—

• Wood use

• Water use

• Energy use

• Calcium carbonate use 

• Greenhouse gases

• Sulfur dioxide

• Nitrogen oxides 

• Particulate matter

• Hazardous air pollutants

• Volatile organic compounds

• Total reduced sulfur

• Mercury

• Biochemical oxygen demand

• Chemical oxygen demand

• Total suspended solids

• Adsorbable organic halogens

• Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds

• Total nitrogen and total phosphorus

• Solid waste

• Effluent flow

• Bleaching processes used for all bleached pulp
T his report represents the Environmental Paper Network’s (EPN) effort to identify the most important indicators to use when evaluating the environmental performance of the pulp and paper industry. Consistently tracking

these indicators will allow us to measure ongoing progress

toward the four goals of the Common Vision, which are minimizing consumption, maximizing recycled content, sourcing

fiber responsibly and employing cleaner production methods.

The indicators in this report focus exclusively on the

environmental performance of the paper industry. Indicators

that have been more traditionally used to monitor the state of

the paper industry, such as economic performance, are not

addressed here. Similarly, the social impacts of the paper

industry are beyond the scope of this report. For a discussion

of the major social issues related to paper production, visit

www.environmentalpaper.org/socialimpactsfactsheet, or see

Appendix G.

This report also creates a common vocabulary and set of

priorities for EPN’s discussions with the paper industry,

other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), corporate

purchasers, government agencies and the public. We have not

attempted to establish specific performance goals for these

and other stakeholders who may benefit from this report.

Instead, our hope is that people will use the arguments and

data put forth here to inform their own campaigns, purchasing decisions and manufacturing practices.

The most difficult issue the authors wrestled with in writing this report was its geographic scope. On the one hand,

paper is now a global industry, with multinational suppliers

managing a complex web of fiber sourcing, pulping, paper

production and converting operations all over the world. On

the other hand, the United States has historically been the

world’s largest producer and consumer of paper, and much of

the available data related to the environmental indicators is

from the United States.And because the United States remains

such an important market for paper, this report focuses primarily on the United States. However, because decisions made

by paper purchasers in the United States have repercussions

all over the world, we have also included global information

and data whenever available and relevant. We encourage

international readers of this report who wish to use the same

indicators to find local data sources whenever appropriate.

WHAT IS PAPER?

It’s hard to imagine going a day without seeing or touching

something made from paper. Paper products are ubiquitous in

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope of this Report

IN THE SPRING OF 2002, A GROUP OF LEADING U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

WORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP A COMMON VISION FOR TRANSFORMING THE PAPER INDUSTRY,

A UNIFIED STATEMENT OF GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

OF PAPER PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL.

SOON AFTERWARD, THESE GROUPS FORMED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PAPER NETWORK

(WWW.ENVIRONMENTALPAPER.ORG) TO SHARE INFORMATION AND COORDINATE THEIR CAMPAIGNS TO ACHIEVE

A MORE SUSTAINABLE PAPER INDUSTRY. AS THESE GROUPS CONTINUED TO WORK TOGETHER, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT

A FOLLOW-UP TO WRITING THE COMMON VISION INCLUDED BEING ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS,

“HOW WILL WE KNOW IF WE’RE GETTING THERE?” AND “WHAT SIGNS SHOULD WE TRACK ALONG THE WAY?”

—1—
— 2 —

our society, and include newspapers, magazines, catalogs,

office paper, packaging and tissue products. Paper is, as one

industry association puts it,“a piece of our lives” (TAPPI).

Until about 1800, most paper was made by hand one sheet

at a time from recycled cotton and linen. Industrial-scale

papermaking began in the mid-1800s after the invention of

the Fourdrinier paper machine, and the development of the

chemical pulping process that enabled the conversion of trees

into paper pulp.

Modern paper production typically involves the following steps:

• Producing and acquiring fiber (for example, from trees,

used paper or agricultural residues)

• Chemically or mechanically processing the fiber into pulp

• Running the pulp through a paper machine to create large

rolls of paper

• Converting the paper into products such as boxes, office

paper or paper towels

Figure 1 illustrates the pulping and papermaking process,

which can include both timber and recovered paper as a

fiber source.

Figure 1.

The Papermaking

Process

Source: CEPI 2005.

THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY has significant

impacts on people and communities all around the

world. It is responsible for violations of land rights

in many places where the fiber for paper is

sourced, both in natural forests and by the establishment of plantations on land without the consent of local people. The industry has had devastating impacts on local livelihoods by competing for

forests and water and harming markets for natural

resources. It also has a bad record for healththreatening pollution. Solving these problems

requires industry to adopt principles of corporate

social responsibility and paper buyers to share this

responsibility by using less paper, choosing recycled whenever possible, encouraging a shift to

non-wood fibers and not buying from or investing

in companies with poor social records. For a closer

look at these issues, see Appendix G.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CHALLENGES
— 3 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

HOW PAPER STACKS UP: ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS THROUGH ITS LIFECYCLE

The pulp and paper industry’s impacts on the environment are

notable not only for their magnitude but also for their breadth,

ranging from damage to forests, pollution of air and water, creation of solid waste and emissions of greenhouse gases. These

impacts occur at all phases of the paper lifecycle, from fiber

acquisition to manufacturing to disposal.

IMPACTS ON FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

Even with advances in recycling over the past two decades, the

primary fiber input into papermaking is still trees. Worldwide,

over 40 percent of the industrial wood harvest goes into paper

products, and by 2050 it is expected that pulp and paper production will account for over half of the world’s industrial

wood demand (Abramovitz).

How can an industry that relies on a renewable

resource—trees—be so damaging? The answer lies in

understanding the full range of values that forests provide.

Aside from being a source of timber, forests provide habitat

for countless plant and animal species and are essential to

the culture and livelihoods of indigenous peoples. They also

help maintain water quality, protect against erosion and stabilize the climate by absorbing carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere. What’s more, people cherish forests for their

beauty, spiritual value and recreational opportunities. All of

these values can be diminished when forests are unsustainably managed for timber production.

IMPACTS FROM PULP AND PAPER

MANUFACTURING

Not surprisingly, pulp and paper production ranks among

the most resource-intensive and highly polluting of all manufacturing industries. Besides fiber, the primary inputs into

the papermaking process are water, energy and chemicals. In

the United States, the paper industry is the largest user per

ton of product of industrial process water (U.S. EPA 2002)

and the third largest industrial consumer of energy (U.S.

DOE). Also, papermaking is a very chemically intensive

process. As Figures 2 and 3 show, the pulp and paper industry ranks fourth among industrial sectors in emissions of

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals to water, and third

in such releases to air. The impacts of pulp and paper manufacturing are more fully discussed in the Cleaner Production

section of this report.

Source: U.S. EPA 2007

Figure 2. Top Toxics Release Inventory emitters

to air by industry, 2005

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Paper Chemicals Plastics Transportation Electric Utilities Other

Equip.

12% 13%

4% 4%

47%

20%

Top Toxics Release Inventory emitters 

to air by industry, 2005
IMPACTS FROM DISPOSAL

Paper’s impact on the environment continues even after it has

been thrown away. In the United States, paper and paperboard

currently account for the largest portion (34 percent) of the

municipal waste stream, and 25 percent of discards after recovery of materials for recycling and composting (Figure 4).

The problem with all this paper being thrown away is not

just about landfill space. Once in a landfill, paper decomposes

and produces methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times the

heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide (UNEP). According to

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), municipal

landfills account for 34 percent of human-related methane

emissions to the atmosphere, making landfills the single

largest source of such emissions. Furthermore, the EPA has

identified the decomposition of paper as among the most significant sources of landfill methane (EPA, 2003).

Finally, transportation throughout the system also has significant environmental impacts. Harvested trees or recovered

paper are transported to pulp mills, rolls of paper are transported to converters, and finished paper products are transported to wholesale distributors and then on to their retail

point of sale. Transportation at each of these stages consumes

energy and results in greenhouse gas emissions.1

A COMMON VISION FOR TRANSFORMING 

THE PAPER INDUSTRY 

Developed in 2002 and today supported by an Environmental

Paper Network of more than 100 environmental organizations

worldwide, A Common Vision for Transforming the Paper

Industry lays out four key goals to achieve an environmentally

and socially sustainable paper production and consumption

system (Environmental Paper Network).2 Each of these goals is

described briefly here, and explored more thoroughly in subsequent sections of this report.

MINIMIZING PAPER CONSUMPTION

The most effective action one can take to reduce the environmental impacts of paper production is to use less, so that fewer

trees are cut down, less energy, water and chemicals are consumed, fewer pollutants are released during manufacturing and

less paper is sent to landfills or incinerators. In 2003, the United

States consumed almost 5.4 million tons of office paper (uncoated freesheet grade).Reducing that consumption by 10 percent,or

540,000 tons, would have the benefits shown in Table 1.

— 4 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: U.S. EPA 2007

Figure 3. Top Toxics Release Inventory emitters

to surface water by industry, 2005

Paper Food Chemicals Petroleum Primary Metals Other

8%

39%

18%

7%

18%

9%

Top Toxics Release Inventory emitters 

to surface water by industry, 2005

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
— 5 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Total energy 21 trillion British thermal Enough to provide

units (Btus) power to 228,000 

homes

Greenhouse 1.6 million tons CO2 emissions from 

gas emissions 279,000 cars

Solid waste 600,000 tons 44,000 fully loaded 

garbage trucks

Wastewater 11 billion gallons Enough to fill 

16,000 Olympic-sized

swimming pools

Wood use 1.9 million tons 13 million typical 

trees

MAXIMIZING RECYCLED CONTENT 

Increasing recycled content in paper has benefits throughout

paper’s lifecycle. It reduces demand for wood, thus reducing

environmental impacts of commercial forestry and the pressure to convert natural forests and ecologically sensitive

areas into tree plantations. Making paper from used paper is

generally a cleaner and more efficient manufacturing

process than making paper from trees, since much of the

work of extracting and bleaching the fibers has already been

done. And because it recovers usable paper from the waste

stream, recycling cuts both solid waste and landfill-related

greenhouse gas emissions.

SOURCING FIBER RESPONSIBLY

Some virgin fiber will likely always be necessary to produce

paper, whether to replace recovered fibers lost in the deinking

process, to maintain performance characteristics such as

strength and brightness in specific paper grades, or because

the distance of many mills from urban areas makes using

recovered fiber cost-prohibitive. Therefore, it is important to

understand where the virgin fiber originates, to eliminate the

4 Table 1. Environmental benefits of reducing U.S.

office paper use by 540,000 tons

Environmental Benefit Annual Equivalent

Paper and Paperboard

Miscellaneous Inorganic Waste

Yard Trimmings

Food Scraps

Other

Wood

Textilies

Rubber and Leather

Plastics

Metals

Glass

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

25%

2%

2%

7%

17%

8%

6%

3%

16%

7%

6%

Discards in the U.S. municipal solid wastestream

by material, after recovery for recycling, 2005

Source: Environmental Defense Paper Calculator,

www.papercalculator.org

Source: U.S. EPA 2006.

Figure 4. Discards in the U.S. municipal solid wastestream

by material, after recovery for recycling, 2005 
use of any fiber that threatens endangered and other high conservation value forests and to ensure that forests harvested by

the paper industry are managed in a way that protects both

their timber and non-timber values.

Environmental groups have had success in recent years

working with large paper purchasers to develop procurement

policies that address responsible fiber sourcing, and companies such as Bank of America, Dell, Norm Thompson

Outfitters, Office Depot, Random House, Staples and others

have made public commitments related to forest protection.

EMPLOYING CLEANER PRODUCTION PRACTICES

Paper mills vary widely in their environmental performance,

depending on their age, efficiency and how they are run.

Minimum-impact mills are those that minimize resource

inputs (wood, water, energy and chemicals) and minimize the

quantity and maximize the quality of releases to air, water and

land (Paper Task Force). Paper mills can optimize their environmental performance by implementing the most advanced

manufacturing technologies, the most efficient mill operations,

and the most effective environmental management systems.

— 6 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

REFERENCES

Abramovitz, J.N. and A.T. Mattoon. 1999. Worldwatch Paper #149:

Paper cuts: recovering the paper landscape. Washington, D.C.:

Worldwatch Institute.

Environmental Paper Network. 2002. A common vision for transforming the paper industry: Striving for environmental and social sustainability.

http://www.environmentalpaper.org/documents/CommonVision.p

df.

International Institute for Environment and Development. 1996.

Towards a sustainable paper cycle. Geneva, Switzerland: World

Business Council on Sustainable Development.

Paper Task Force. 1995. Paper task force report. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=1689 (accessed November

17, 2006).

TAPPI. 2001. Common & uncommon paper products. Paper

University. http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/products.htm (accessed November 17, 2006).

United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2005. Forest products: Industry of the future. Annual report fiscal year 2004.

Industrial Technologies Program.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/about/pdfs/forest_fy2004.pdf

(accessed May 24, 2005).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002.

Chemical releases and transfers: Pulp and paper industry. Sector

Notebook. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/pulppasnp2.pdf (accessed

September 5, 2006).

———. 2003. U.S. emissions inventory 2003: Inventory of greenhouse

gas emissions and sinks 1990–2001.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceC

enterPublicationsGHGEmissionsUSEmissionsInventory2003.html

(accessed May 24, 2005).

———. 2006. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts

and Figures. Office of Solid Waste. EPA530-R-06-011.

———. 2007. TRI on-site and off-site reported disposed of or otherwise released, U.S., 2005. http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer (accessed

April 17, 2007).

1 For a discussion of how transportation in the pulp and paper industry impacts the environment, see International Institute for

Environment and Development, ch. 9.

2 The North American Common Vision was followed by a European

Common Vision, available at www.environmentalpaper.org.
— 7 —

OVERVIEW

Consistent with the environmental hierarchy of Reduce, Reuse,

Recycle, the fastest route to environmental improvement is to

use less paper from the start. Minimizing paper consumption

has multiple benefits: it reduces demand for wood and the

environmental impacts of commercial forestry; cuts energy,

water and chemical use at the mill; and lowers emissions to the

air and water. And it means that less paper needs to be disposed of in landfills, where it breaks down and releases

methane, a potent greenhouse gas, or burned in incinerators,

where it releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants.

Years ago, it became fashionable to talk about the paperless

office and to predict that paper as a means for transmitting and

storing information would soon become obsolete. This has not

happened. Instead, global paper consumption has increased

dramatically over the last decade, and will continue to rise,

especially in developing countries. Historically, paper consumption has been largely a function of economic activity, so

as a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) rises, so does its

paper use. But even in developed countries where GDP has

risen more slowly, paper use has continued growing.

The United States and Western Europe remain by far the

biggest paper consumers per capita, and have a proportionately large responsibility to eliminate wasteful paper consumption. But paper consumption has been growing most rapidly in

China and India, in parallel with their expanding economies.

To meet growing demand for paper products, the pulp

and paper industry is expanding its production capacity, primarily in developing countries with lower raw material and

labor costs and looser environmental regulations. According

to RISI (2004), “fast-growing plantations in the Southern

Hemisphere and native forests in Eastern Europe and Russia

will be the major sources of fiber to underpin the growth in

world wood pulp demand that we are forecasting over the

next 15 years. Latin America, in particular, is expected to see

large investments in wood pulp capacity, which is projected to

allow production to expand from 14 million tons now to 36

million tons in 2019.”

Increasingly, the largest consumers of paper products are

exporting the environmental consequences of production,

such as damage to forests (see Responsible Fiber Sourcing section) and discharges of pollutants from paper mills (see

Cleaner Production section).

Allowing paper consumption to continue growing at current levels will have disastrous consequences for the environment. In order to meet the world’s paper needs equitably and

sustainably, we will need to greatly increase the efficiency of

our paper use—that is, do more with less—particularly in

countries that consume the most paper. The environmental

performance indicators and statistics below are intended to

demonstrate consumption trends and help monitor progress

in reaching this goal.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

PAPER CONSUMPTION

Indicator: Global paper and paperboard 

consumption, by country or region

Between 2005 and 2021, global demand for paper and paperboard is expected to increase nearly 60 percent, from 368 million

tons in 2005 to 579 million tons in 2021(RISI 2007).

Figure 5 shows paper and paperboard consumption by region,

from 2005 projected to 2021. The biggest growth in paper consumption over the next decade is predicted to take place in Asia

(excluding Japan). This growth, driven largely by India and

China’s rising populations and expanding markets, is expected to

increase dramatically over the next ten years.For example,China’s

overall paper demand is projected to grow from approximately 60

million tons in 2005 to 143 million in 2021 (RISI 2007).

CHAPTER TWO

u

M INIMIZING P APER CONSUMPTION

Common Vision Goal:

• Eliminate excessive and unnecessary paper consumption
— 8 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: RISI 2007.

Figure 6. Global paper and paperboard

consumption by grade 

Source: RISI 2007.

Figure 5. World paper and paperboard consumption by

region, 2005–2015 

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

United States

Western Europe

China

Japan

Latin America

World paper and paperboard consumption

by region, 2005-2015

1000 tons 1000 tons

Global paper and paperboard

consumption by grade

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

Printing & Containerboard Other Paper & Newsprint Tissue

Writing Paperboard 
Indicator: Global paper and paperboard consumption, by grade

In 2005, containerboard and printing & writing papers were

the biggest segments of the global paper market 1

(See Figure 6).

Containerboard and printing & writing papers are expected

to remain the largest segments over time (see Figure 7).

Rising demand for containerboard makes sense given the

dramatic increase in commodity exports, particularly from

Asia. For example, Chinese production of containerboard

grew from about 4.8 million tons in 1995 to nearly 20 million

in 2005 (RISI 2007). And global demand for printing & writing papers will continue to increase, fueled by paper-based

marketing and advertising which the Internet appears to be

helping rather than hindering. In the United States, for

example, the number of direct mail pieces sent in 2005,

including catalogs, credit card solicitations and similar offerings, topped 114 billion pieces—up 15 percent from five

years ago (Story 2006).

Indicator: Per capita paper and paperboard 

consumption

Not surprisingly, the United States has the world’s highest per

capita paper consumption (see Figure 8).

Indicator: United States paper consumption 

by grade 

Looking more closely at the world’s largest paper-consuming

nation, the largest categories will remain containerboard and

printing & writing paper, but the fastest growth will be in the tissue segment, followed by containerboard. Newsprint consumption will actually decrease between 2005 and 2021(see Figure 9).

Indicator: U.S. printing & writing paper 

consumption, by end use

Figure 10 shows the major end uses of printing & writing

papers in the United States, which is the largest global consumer of this category of paper. This chart shows which sectors of the economy are consuming the most paper. What it

doesn’t show is the breakdown of consumption within each

sector; however, this typically correlates to the number and

size of companies in the sector, with the largest companies

consuming the most paper.

WHAT THESE 

INDICATORS MEAN 

These environmental performance indicators underscore the

tremendous challenge facing the global community in managing rising demand for paper and addressing its attendant

environmental impacts. In order to determine the best strategies for reducing those impacts, it is helpful to track paper

consumption on a number of different levels:

By region or country

The data demonstrate that the United States and Western

Europe remain the largest consumers of paper, but that

steep consumption growth in Asia, particularly in China

and India, threatens to vastly increase overall demand for

paper. To achieve overall sustainability, targeted efforts will

— 9 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

MANY ORGANIZATIONS have taken steps to reduce

their paper consumption, saving money while

shrinking their environmental footprint. Both private consultants and environmental organizations

can offer solutions tailored to the particular purchaser’s needs. For self-starters, an excellent reference is the “Business Guide to Paper Reduction: A

Step-by-Step Plan to Save Money by Saving Paper”

produced by ForestEthics (www.environmentalpaper.org/documents/REDUCE-BUSINESS-GUIDE.pdf). 

General best practices for office paper reduction

include:

• Filing and transmitting documents electronically

rather than on paper

• Changing the default settings on printers and

copiers to double-sided

• Switching to electronic billing and financial

reporting

• Switching to lighter-weight papers for printing

and publishing

• Optimizing the trim size of printed documents

to reduce waste

Best Practices 

for Reducing Paper Consumption
— 10 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: RISI 2007

Figure 7. World paper and paperboard consumption by

grade, 2005–2021

Source: RISI 2005.

Figure 8. Per capita paper consumption, 2004 

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

1000 tons

Containerboard

Printing &

Writing

Other Paper and

Paperboard

Newsprint

Tissue

World paper & paperboard consumption 

by grade, 2005-2021

World paper and paper board consumption, 

per capita, 2004

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

United States Western Europe Australia Latin America Eastern Europe China and Asia

lbs/person/yr
— 11 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: RISI 2007.

Figure 9. U.S. paper and paperboard consumption 

by grade, 2005-2021

Source: RISI 2007.

Figure 10. U.S. printing & writing paper by end use, 2005

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

1000 tons 1000 tons

U.S. paper and paperboard consumption

by grade, 2005-2021

U.S. printing & writing paper by end use, 2005

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Inserts and Copy Paper Other Books Catalogs Directories Magazines Envelope Other

Mailers Commercial Converting

Printing

Containerboard

Printing &

Writing

Other Paper and

Paperboard

Newsprint

Tissue
be necessary to achieve efficiencies in each of these regions.

By paper grade

The data show that both the largest and the fastest growing

segments of the paper market will continue to be containerboard and printing & writing papers. These grades will therefore remain a priority in efforts to curb overall paper 

consumption.

By end use

Understanding how much paper goes into specific applications can guide advocacy efforts to the uses (and therefore

users) with the greatest environmental impact. This report

includes data primarily for the United States, so analogous

data would need to be obtained for efforts focused on other

countries.

— 12 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

REFERENCES

RISI. 2004. North American graphic paper forecast, 4(3). Bedford, MA:

Paperloop, Inc.

———. 2005. 2005 Pulp & paper global fact & price book. San Francisco:

Paperloop, Inc.

———. 2007. World pulp & recovered paper 15-year forecast. Bedford,

MA: Paperloop, Inc.

Story, L. 2006. Junk mail is alive and growing. The New York Times,

November 2.

1 The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) defines containerboard as “solid fiber or corrugated and combined board used in the

manufacture of shipping containers and related products.” Printing &

writing paper encompasses a wide diversity of papers, including those

for office uses, business forms, books, magazines, catalogs and advertising. For a glossary of paper products terms, visit AF&PA’s website,

www.afandpa.org.)
OVERVIEW

Recycled paper is made from fibers recovered from previous

paper use or from certain textile or agricultural processes.

Almost all recycled fibers in the United States and Canada are

recovered from previously manufactured paper, with nonwood fibers playing only a miniscule role. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the state of the paper recycling industry.

The Common Vision goal to eliminate paper manufactured solely of virgin fiber recognizes that recycled fiber is the

foundation for environmentally sustainable paper and paper

products. No matter what the source of the virgin fiber, environmental benefits are maximized when it can be reused

repeatedly rather than requiring new raw resources for every

production cycle. Not only does recycling reduce demand for

wood fibers, it also generates many other significant environmental benefits as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF RECYCLED PAPER

Increasing recycled content has environmental benefits

throughout paper’s lifecycle:

4 It reduces the demand for wood, thus also reducing the

pressure to harvest forests and to convert natural forests and

ecologically sensitive areas into tree plantations.

In fact, recycling is a far more efficient source of fiber for

paper than forests. Kraft pulping (see Glossary sidebar below),

for example, requires 4.4 tons of fresh trees to make one ton of

virgin pulp but only 1.4 tons of recovered paper to make one ton

of recycled pulp, a three-fold increase in efficiency (see Table 2).

Sources: EDF 2002b; Conservatree and Environmental Defense 2001.

When the virgin fiber comes from questionable or

endangered forest fiber sources, even partial recycled content at least replaces some of that fiber in what otherwise

would be a 100 percent virgin forest fiber paper. Strong support for recycling also sustains an infrastructure that

reduces demand for forest fibers. This infrastructure is

undermined by paper companies that substitute their

paper’s recycled content with other environmental attributes, including sustainably harvested virgin fibers. To maximize the environmental benefits of their products, paper

companies should instead be adding environmentally sustainable attributes such as sustainably harvested fibers to the

recycled content, not replacing it. This is especially true

because recycled pulp is so much more resource efficient

than wood pulp, no matter what its source.

— 13 —

CHAPTER THREE

u

M AXIMIZE RECYCLED CONTENT

Common Vision Goals:

• Eliminate paper manufactured solely of virgin fiber and fundamentally reduce reliance 

on virgin tree fibers.

• Maximize post-consumer recycled fiber content in all paper and paper products.

• Increase the use of other recovered materials (e.g., agricultural residues and 

pre-consumer recycled) as a fiber source in paper.

4 Table 2. Tons of fiber input required to make 

one ton of pulp

Virgin kraft (Chemical) 4.4 tons of fresh trees 23%

Virgin mechanical 2.2 tons of fresh trees 45% (groundwood)

Recycled kraft 1.4 tons of recovered paper 71%

Type of Pulp Volume of Required Efficiency Material
4Recycling is generally a cleaner and more efficient manufacturing process than making paper from trees, since much

of the work of extracting and bleaching the fibers has already

been done.

4Recycled paper requires less total energy to manufacture

than virgin paper, even when factoring in energy required to

collect and transport recovered paper compared to energy

used to harvest and transport timber.

4Because it diverts usable paper from the waste stream,

recycling cuts both solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions

created by disposing of paper in landfills. Recycling not only

reuses materials that otherwise would have been wasted, it

also can provide controlled disposition in industrial landfills

for potentially toxic materials such as heavy metals in the inks

on discarded papers that would otherwise be landfilled or

incinerated.

4By reusing paper that would otherwise have been disposed

of in landfills, recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

The decomposition of paper in landfills produces methane, a

greenhouse gas with 23 times the heat trapping power of carbon dioxide (UNEP).

To consider a specific example, making copy paper from 100

percent recycled content results in very significant environmental benefits when compared to copy paper made from 100

percent virgin forest fibers (Figure 11). The recycled paper

reduces:

• total energy consumption by 44 percent

• net greenhouse gas emissions by 38 percent

• particulate emissions by 41 percent

• wastewater by 50 percent

• solid waste by 49 percent

• wood use by 100 percent.

— 14 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

KRAFT PULP, also known as chemical pulp, freesheet or

woodfree, is produced by a chemical process that separates wood fibers into cellulose, which can be used to

make paper, and lignin, which is the structural part of

wood that deteriorates the paper if not removed. The

chemicals include caustic sodas, sodium hydroxide, sodium sulfide and usually chlorine compounds. The resulting

pulp is very strong and is most commonly used to make

office and printing papers, high-end coated papers, tissue, grocery bags and linerboard (the outer layers of corrugated boxes). Some people mistakenly believe that

woodfree indicates that the paper was not produced

from wood, timber or trees. In reality, woodfree and

freesheet refer to pulp made from fibers from which the

lignin portion of the timber structure was removed. 

MECHANICAL PULP, also called groundwood, is produced by

mechanical grinding, pressure and other physical processes

to separate the wood fibers. The separation process may also

be enhanced with heat and chemicals. Most of the structure

of the timber, including lignin, remains in the fiber, resulting

in fiber that is shorter and weaker than kraft pulp, and that

deteriorates more rapidly. Mechanical pulp is commonly

used to make newsprint, inexpensive printing papers, and

less expensive coated papers such as those used for many

magazines and catalogs. 

OCC is old corrugated cartons recovered for sale to recycling mills. 

ONP is old newspapers and news inserts recovered for

sale to recycling mills. 

POST-CONSUMER FIBER has served its intended end use

as a consumer item and is then diverted or recovered

from the waste stream. Waste paper from people’s

homes and offices, as well as some finished products

used in businesses, are post-consumer, while scraps produced in the process of making those end products are

pre-consumer. 

PRE-CONSUMER FIBER includes scraps created after the

initial papermaking process in a paper mill, as well as

those from printers and companies that convert paper

into products such as boxes and envelopes. Most of the

pre-consumer fiber categories have always been recycled

at paper mills; in fact, many are called pulp substitutes. 

VIRGIN FIBER is fiber that has never been used before to

make paper or other products. Virtually all virgin fiber in

U.S. and Canadian papers comes from trees, although

there is a very small amount that comes from agricultural crops such as kenaf, hemp and flax. 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Recycling in the United States and Canada is a collaborative system involving thousands of independent businesses and local

community programs. State, provincial and federal governments

provide some guidance, regulation and assistance, but there is no

common coordinating entity. Originally, demand-side market

factors regulated recovered fiber quantity and quality. But the

advent of wide-scale mandatory municipal government collection programs shifted recycling to a supply-side market, where

materials are collected to keep them out of landfills, with little reference to market conditions

or the formerly effective

price signals.

This lack of system

coordination means that

recycled paper indicators

must be evaluated collectively, not individually. An

improvement in one may

require related improvements in others, as well,

before it truly represents

success.

For example, increased

recycled content in paper

products may indicate only

that the available supply

was concentrated in a collection of temporary “boutique” products. Far better

and more sustainable success is achieved when an

increase in the indicator

for recycled content in

paper products is linked to

an increase in the indicator

for recycled pulping capacity, which must in turn be

linked to an increase in the

indicator for clean and

uncontaminated recovered

fiber. While this section

presents individual indicators, they can be better

understood as facets of a

prism all offering different

views that, taken together,

illuminate the same point: Is the percentage of recycled pulp

increasing in the production of paper and paper products? 

NORTH AMERICAN RECYCLED PULP 

Indicator: Percent of pulp 

made from recovered fiber

When considered over all paper production, 34 percent of U.S.

pulp and nearly 25 percent of Canadian pulp is produced from

recovered fiber.

— 15 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Figure 11. Paper lifecycle impacts comparison: virgin vs. 100% recycled

Paper lifecycle impacts comparison:

virgin vs. 100% recycled

Chemical oxygen demand

Adsorbable organic halogens

Mean effluent flow

Volatile organic compounds

Hazardous pollutants

Total reduced sulfur

Sulfur dioxide

Nitrogen oxides

Particulates

Net greenhouse gas emissions

Total energy consumption

Wood use

Total waste generation

Biochemical oxygen demand

Total suspended solids

Percent of highest (worst) score

0 20 40 60 80 100

www.papercalculator.org

Source: Environmental Defense’s Paper Calculator

Post-consumer

Recycled

Virgin

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

30

0

50

7

33

0

96

77

59

62

56

0

51

96

68
Of the 114 million tons of paper and paper products produced

in the United States and Canada in 2005 (RISI 2006), approximately one-third of the fiber content is produced from recovered paper. However, the use of recycled pulp is not distributed

evenly and varies widely between grades.

Indicator: Volume of North American high grade 

deinking capacity

The U.S. paper industry reported deinked pulp demand as one

of their few bright economic spots in 2005, with deinking mills’

operating rates currently averaging better than 90 percent. But

with deinked fiber contributing less than 6 percent of the whole

printing & writing pulp market in the United States and

Canada, deinking still requires far greater investments.

The capacity to produce recycled pulp is a critical determinant

of the industry’s ability to produce recycled paper. In 2001,

Conservatree and Environmental Defense assessed available

deinking capacity in the United States and Canada for use in

printing & writing papers. The study found a potential capacity of 1,348,000 annual tons at deinking pulp mills,1 with a significantly large unused capacity of 360,000 annual tons

(Gleason, Kinsella and Mills). This 73 percent capacity utilization rate was dangerously low in an industry where most mills

need to operate over 90 percent capacity to be profitable. The

study found 988,000 annual tons of deinked high grade pulp

actually available for making printing & writing papers,

although a significant portion of that pulp was currently used

to make tissue products and paperboard.

Since 2001 several deinking mills that together provided

230,000 annual tons of pulp to recycled printing & writing

mills have closed while only 70,000 annual tons have been

added.2 The consolidation of deinking mills, plus environmental groups’ markets campaigns that have convinced major

purchasers and suppliers to buy recycled papers, have helped

to push the remaining deinking mills’ operating rates to a

much economically healthier average of better than 90 percent.

Currently, production of the nearly 33 million tons of

printing & writing paper in the United States and Canada

annually require 23 million tons of pulp.3Yet the total deinked

recycled pulping capacity available is 1.6 million tons (see

Table 3), of which 900,000 tons are market pulp that is also

shared with tissue and paperboard producers.4 Clearly, more

deinking capacity is needed to support increased market

development.

Of equal importance is the type of deinking available. All

but two of the existing high grade deinking mills that provide

recycled pulp for printing & writing paper are kraft pulp mills.

This pulp is particularly appropriate for use in uncoated

freesheet papers such as copy, offset and archival book papers

and in coated freesheet papers. However, for coated mechanical

papers, it is a costlier type of recycled fiber than is necessary.

While more infrastructure is needed for all deinking, increasing

the capacity for producing recycled mechanical pulp suitable

for use in coated publication papers would be singularly effec-

— 16 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

4 Table 3. North American operating high grade deinking mills, 2007

American Eagle Paper Tyrone, PA I K 70

Appleton West Carrolton, OH I K 63

Boise Paper Solutions Jackson, AL I K 85

Cascades Auburn Fiber Auburn, ME N K 75

Desencrage Cascades Breakeyville, QUE N K 60

Flambeau River Paper Park Falls, WI I K 25

Fox River Fiber DePere, WI N K 120

International Paper Franklin, VA I K 115

International Paper Selma, AL I K 120

Madison Paper Co./Myllykoski Alsip, IL I M 70

Manistique Papers Manistique, MI I M 180

Mississippi River Corp Natchez, MS N K 160

Ohio Pulp Mills Cininnati, OH N K 18

SFK Pulp Mills Fairmont, WV N K 220

SFK Pulp Fund Menominee, MI N K 165

Stora Enso NA Duluth, MN N K/M 110

Wausau Paper Brokaw, WI I K 14

TOTAL DEINKED PULP CAPACITY: 1,670

Mill Location

Source: Conservatree compilation from industry data, including Paperloop (RISI) Lockwood-Post Directory, and interviews with deinking mill operators.

Facility

Integrated(I)

Non-Integrated (N)

Deinking Pulp

Kraft (K)

Mechanical (M)

Rated Capacity

Annual Short Tons

(000)
tive in creating a more competitive pricing structure for recycled coated groundwood papers such as those used for most

magazines and catalogs. At present, one deinking kraft pulp

mill has some dual capacity for producing some recycled

mechanical pulp and a new deinked mechanical pulp mill has

been announced for intended future production (TAPPI 2007).

NORTH AMERICAN PAPER 

AND PAPER PRODUCTS

Indicator: Percentage of recycled content 

in papers and paper products, by sector 

and grades within sector

The use of recycled pulp varies widely between paper grades,

from an average of 45 percent recycled content in tissue products to a low of 6 percent across all printing & writing papers.

Percentages also vary widely within grades, with some brands

regularly including up to 100 percent recycled content and others never using any at all. The type of pulp and the paper

grade’s share of industry production can also magnify the environmental benefits of using recycled pulp.

The utilization of recovered fiber varies greatly among types of

paper (Figure 12). For example, tissue, which makes up 8 percent of U.S. paper production, averages 45 percent recycled

fiber. Newsprint, which accounts for 9 percent of North

American paper production (Canada supplies more than half

of the U.S. newsprint market), averages 32.5 percent recycled

fiber (RISI 2006). But printing & writing paper, which accounts

for 27 percent of U.S. paper production, averages only 6 percent

recycled fiber across the sector.

Within each papermaking sector, there is wide variation in

the use of recycled fiber. For example, within the packaging

sector, folding boxboard averages 37 percent recycled content

and corrugated containers average 24 percent recycled content, while SBS (solid bleached sulfate), used for food service

applications and boxes for pharmaceuticals and many other

products, has almost none. Tissue products made for away

from home uses (such as hotels and offices) generally include

high recycled content levels, while many popular brands of

consumer tissue products have none at all.

While there are a number of excellent papers and paper

products in all grades with 100 percent recycled content (sometimes 100 percent post-consumer, other times with some preconsumer), recycled paper in general must continually incorporate some virgin fiber to maintain its strength and continual

recyclability. Some products also incorporate varying percentages of virgin fiber to produce specific characteristics. Products

with partial recycled content are positive market choices, particularly because they fortify the recycling system, if the virgin fiber meets

additional sustainability criteria

described in this report, such as FSC

certification or non-wood sources.

Indicator: Percentage of

recycled content in printing

& writing paper

The printing & writing sector

accounts for 27 percent of paper

production in the United States yet

less than 6 percent of its fiber comes

from recycled sources. More than 90

percent of the total quantity of

printing & writing papers is still

made from 100 percent virgin 

forest fibers.

— 17 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Figure 12. Utilization of recycled

fiber in U.S. paper products 

by sector, 2005.

Sources: RISI 2006 and AF&PA 2005.

o% 5% 10 % 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Tissue

Boxboard

Newsprint

Containerboard

P&W

Utilization of recycled fiber in U.S. paper 

products by sector, 2005
The printing & writing sector uses less than 6 percent recycled

fiber overall,5 yet this sector accounts for 27 percent of U.S.

paper production. The Canadian printing & writing sector is

much smaller and exhibits similar characteristics. There is no

data point that represents the actual recycled printing & writing paper market, but all expert estimates place it below 10

percent of market share, and that is only for copy paper. This

leaves more than 90 percent still made entirely from virgin forest fibers. Further, this sector is also a major producer of kraft

pulp, which is the most resource-intensive and environmentally taxing method of pulp production.

Indicator: Consistent minimum content recycled

fiber specifications and standards 

The U.S. EPA comprehensive procurement guidelines have

become the de facto consensus minimum recycled content 

standards for paper purchasers in the United States and

Canada. However, in 2006, at least two major North American

producers of printing & writing paper reduced the recycled

content in their products below national legislative and consensus guidelines.

U.S. federal agencies and contractors are required to purchase

recycled paper and paper products, with the most recent directive embodied in Executive Order 13423 (January 2007). The

U.S. EPA publishes Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines

representing extensive research that provides minimum recycled content specifications for federal purchases. Throughout

the 1990s, these guidelines became the de facto consensus

minimum recycled content standards in the United States and

also often in Canada.

Prior to this unanimity by virtually all public and private

major purchasers in North America who specify recycled

papers, several U.S. legislatures passed state procurement laws

requiring recycled paper purchases, each with different specifications. The paper industry indicated that such diverse

requirements undermined recycled paper market development and would result in high cost “boutique” recycled papers.

They recommended consistent national standards as the most

effective path to increasing recycled paper markets and lowering costs. Once the first federal Executive Order was issued in

1993 that required post-consumer content in federal purchases of printing & writing papers (most other paper grades were

already covered under prior federal legislation and implementation guidelines), state and local governments and private

sector purchasers rallied to adopt the same criteria, creating de

facto national standards that have held for more than a decade.

In 2006, however, both Weyerhaeuser6 and International

Paper, which together account for over 40 percent of uncoated

freesheet capacity, reduced recycled content in their standard

production offset and opaque paper grades from 30 percent

post-consumer fiber to 10 percent. The reduction is connected

to the significant brightening of office and commercial printing papers, a recent trend driven in part by the demand for

contrast in new digital printing methods. The increase in

brightness levels was achieved by adding brighteners such as

calcium carbonate in all papers and, in the offset and opaque

recycled papers, reducing recycled content below consensus

minimum recycled content standards. However, apparently

recycled fiber is not actually a barrier to higher brightness levels because these same mills increased the brightness for their

office paper brands such as copy paper while retaining their

previous 30 percent post-consumer content.

Indicator: Range of recycled paper 

choices available in each grade 

New recycled papers continue to be introduced in some grades,

while the choices in other grades remain slim and sometimes

even shrink.

The number of recycled content options available in each

grade gives a fair idea of how well the market for a specific type

of recycled paper is developing, although the exact number is

not a reliable indicator in itself. For example, Conservatree

maintains lists of environmental printing & writing papers

available in North America, categorized by grade at http://

www.conservatree.org/paper/PaperMasterList.shtml. While

the specific brands and characteristics are constantly changing, between 2000 and 2006, the number of papers on the lists

remained essentially constant at approximately 500 brands.

Some grades, such as high-end text and cover papers, copy

and office papers, and book papers, have seen a great deal of

development, producing many different options from which

purchasers can choose. In fact, of the current individual

brands, 280 are either high-end text and cover papers or office

papers. But most other paper grades leave purchasers with

only a few choices each and many of those are actually out of

reach for many because they require ordering truckload quantities or overcoming other obstacles.

Despite what appears to be a relatively constant number of

environmental paper options, there actually has been a significant decline in the number of mills producing recycled content

commercial printing papers used for books, magazines, catalogs and direct advertising. Through a series of paper company

mergers, mill capacity reductions and bankruptcies, the paper

industry as a whole has been consolidating, with some positive

— 18 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
aspects, including more efficiency, less market volatility and the

closing of older, polluting facilities. However, while both virgin

and recycled paper mills have closed, it is recycled paper that

has been most negatively affected. Production tonnage for virgin paper brands easily moved to new, more efficient mills. But

with no new investments in recycled paper infrastructure, the

tonnage from closed recycled mills has simply been lost.

However, pressure from environmental paper campaigns has

led some major producers to introduce new environmental

papers and innovations. Many of these include recycled content,

some have replaced their papers’ former recycled content with

FSC-certified virgin fiber, and some include only certified forest

fibers. The challenge will be to ensure that expansions in environmental paper options represent permanent structural commitments to environmental sustainability and not simply boutique

papers or fads that splinter purchasers’ environmental interests.

RECOVERED FIBER SOURCES

Indicator: Volume of paper in the U.S. 

municipal solid waste stream 

In the United States, 84 million tons of paper were discarded

in 2005, resulting in 42 million tons still remaining after

materials were recovered for recycling. Paper and paperboard

currently account for the largest portion (34 percent) of the

municipal waste stream, and 25 percent of materials discarded even after recyclables have been taken out of the waste

stream (U.S. EPA 2005).

In 2003 the United States reached a 50 percent recycling rate for

all paper; by 2005 it had climbed to a record 51.5 percent, with

51.3 million tons of paper fiber recovered from 99.6 million tons

of the total paper and paperboard supply (AF&PA, 2007). In

March 2007, AF&PA announced that 53.5 million tons of paper

fiber were recovered in 2006, 53.4 percent of the paper consumed

in the United States. Canada’s recovery rate in 2005 was 46 percent, its highest ever, representing 3.7 million metric tonnes.

While a positive step, increases in the paper recovery rate

can be misleading because the variables are not constant. For

example, the 2005 U.S. high occurred because paper and

paperboard consumption dropped while recovery of recyclable paper increased. Most significantly, the increasing recycling rate has not appreciably reduced the overall amount of

paper landfilled, a figure which correlates with consumption

patterns (Figure 13).

— 19 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Figure 13. U.S. paper waste:

recovered vs. landfilled 

Source: U.S. EPA 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005.

U.S. paper waste: recovered vs. landfilled

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1960 1980 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

1,000,000 tons

Generated

Landfilled

Recovery
Indicator: Recovery rates 

by grade of paper

In 2006, the recovery rates for some

grades of paper were high. But the rate

for printing & writing papers was 49

percent. More than 16 million annual

tons of high grade paper suitable for

making recycled printing & writing

paper could still be recovered from

offices, printers and other sources.

In 2006, the U.S. recovery rate for old

corrugated containers (OCC) was

76.4 percent (see Figure 14); for old

newsprint (ONP) it was 72.3 percent

(AF&PA 2006). Together, these categories make up 75 percent

of the total recovered paper currently used by U.S. paper

mills. However, the recovery of fiber suitable for making

recycled printing & writing paper, such as office paper, was

considerably lower, at 49 percent (AF&PA 2006).

The recovery rate by grade is a more important indicator than the composite recovery rate because paper mills

use different types of recovered paper, depending on the

types of products they manufacture. In addition, paper

recovery is handled by different collectors depending on the

grade, and individual grade rates can point to successes and

needs within the system. For example, most old newspapers

(ONP) are collected by local community recycling programs in curbside or drop-off programs, while most corrugated cartons (OCC) are collected from retail and grocery

stores by paperstock dealers or collection divisions of paper

manufacturers. These paper industry collectors also pick up

recovered paper from printers, but business offices are generally left to arrange their own paper recycling. This discrepancy most likely accounts for the fact that over half of

office paper is still not collected.

When considering the tonnage of fiber available for

increased recovery, OCC accounts for just over 7.8 million

annual tons and ONP nearly 3.7 million annual tons. High

grade fiber such as from offices and printers accounts for the

greatest share, over 16 million annual tons that could still be

recovered (AF&PA 2006).

Indicator: Recovery rate for office papers

Domestic recovery of high quality used paper will need to

expand to meet growing demand for recycled printing & writing paper in the United States and Canada. Recovery of office

paper, a subset of recovered printing & writing paper, will be

especially important.

Offices generated up to 2.6 million tons of post-consumer high

grade deinking in 2003, an estimated 90 percent of the total.

Offices also provided approximately 1.8 million tons of comparatively clean, high quality paper to the mixed paper

stream,7 for an office paper recovery rate of 48.3 percent. In

2004,AF&PA reported a recovery rate increase to 49.1 percent.

The good news is that we are nowhere close to tapping out the

domestic supply of this material.

In 2002, AF&PA announced a goal to increase paper

recovery for all grades to 55 percent by 2012, a rather modest advance. Given industry estimates that corrugated cardboard and newspaper recycling are near their maximum

practical recovery rates (about 75 percent) in the United

States, much of the progress toward this goal will have to

come from recovering more paper from offices, the primary—and still significantly untapped—source of clean,

high quality recovered fiber.

To illustrate the impact of a relatively small increase in

— 20 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: AF&PA 2006.

Figure 14. Recovery vs. supply (000

tons) of grades of paper in the

United States, 2006 Recovery vs. supply of grades

of paper in the U.S., 2006

Recovery

Supply

Old Corrugated Old Newspapers Printing & Writing

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

1000 tons
office paper recovery on recycled paper supply, Environmental

Defense examined what would happen if office paper achieved

the AF&PA’s target recovery rate of 55 percent. At 2003 consumption levels, this would increase the supply of recovered

office paper by 616,000 tons.8 Assuming a 70 percent fiber

yield, this would make an additional 431,000 tons of recycled

pulp available for paper production. If all this fiber were used

to make copy paper, it would enable the production of an

additional 1.4 million tons of 30 percent post-consumer

recycled paper that year. Even if only half that amount of

newly recovered paper were available for use in printing &

writing paper, it could produce enough 30 percent post-consumer recycled copy paper, at an average of 27 pounds of

copy paper used annually per person (E.O. Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory), to meet the annual demand

of 53.3 million people.

Indicator: Percentage of recovered high grade

papers directed to “highest and best use” such as

printing & writing paper 

In the United States, only 7.6 percent (1.2 million tons) of

recovered printing & writing paper goes back into the remanufacturing of printing & writing paper.

Nearly 16 million tons of

printing & writing paper

were recovered in the

United States in 2006,

almost half of which was

then exported (AF&PA

2006). Domestic paper

sectors utilizing recovered

printing & writing paper

include tissue production

(17.1 percent) and recycled paperboard (19.9

percent). Only 7.6 percent

of recovered printing &

writing paper went back

into the remanufacturing

of new printing and office

paper, totaling 1.2 million

tons (Figure 15). Probably

no more than half of this was post-consumer.

Printing & writing papers can be recycled many times

before the fibers become too short for use; industry estimates

range from seven to twelve times for printing & writing papers

versus three to four times for newsprint. Every recycling multiplies the environmental benefits, which is particularly important for replacing kraft pulp, the most environmentally

resource-intensive pulping process. This multiplicity of environmental benefits cannot be matched when high grade fibers

are “down-cycled,” or mixed into grades such as newsprint,

paperboard and corrugated boxes. Once mixed into these

other grades, the fibers can never be sorted out again for use in

printing & writing papers, thereby losing those substantial

environmental benefits.

Indicator: Percentage of mixed paper in recovered

paper collections vs. sorted papers

The declining quality of recovered paper may threaten the continuation or expansion of recycling in North America.

Since 1993, collection of recovered paper and paperboard

overall has increased by 45 percent (Figure 16). But recovery of

pulp substitutes declined by 30 percent and recovery of deink-

— 21 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: AF&PA 2006.

Figure 15. Use of 

recovered printing 

& writing paper,

United States, 2006 Use of recovered printing & writing

paper, United States, 2006

Other

Export

Paperboard

Tissue

Printing & Writing

Newsprint

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

1000 tons
ing grades by 8 percent. Both of these categories supply printing & writing mills. (It is likely that this decline is due to

increased production efficiencies rather than missed collection opportunities.) At the same time, recovery of mixed paper

has more than doubled. Since mixed paper is not usable at high

grade deinking mills, the trend towards unsorted recovered

paper collections currently undermines the potential for

expanding recycled content in printing & writing paper

grades.

Since 2000, several factors have driven down recovered

paper quality to levels potentially precarious for continued, let

alone expanded, recycling in North America:

4 Garbage collection companies have increasingly introduced single-stream recycling collection programs. Singlestream programs collect all materials in one container, with

bottles, cans and other materials often mixed with the paper.

Benefits include increased volumes of recyclable materials and

the ability to automate collection, which reduces municipal

programs’ costs. But recycled paper mills’ costs are increased

by the contamination of recovered paper with glass, plastics,

metals and inappropriate mixes of fiber. Materials Recovery

Facilities (MRFs), where recovered materials are processed

into manufacturing feedstocks, have not yet caught up with

collection innovations to properly sort commingled materials

to manufacturing requirements (Kinsella and Gertman).

4 China has been rapidly building

up its paper industry by importing

increasing volumes of North American recovered fiber to feed its new

recycled newsprint and packaging

mills. These new paper mills can

handle low grades of recovered

fiber, many of the mills reprocess the

recovered materials before use for

manufacturing, and their labor costs

are low enough that they can inexpensively hand-sort the mixed bales

of fiber. These pressures result in

higher prices for recovered paper at

North American mills combined

with significantly poorer quality

that drives up processing costs, yet

ever more stringent quality specifications from customers.

4 The increased tendency to collect

recovered paper without sorting has

led to more processors selling bales

of mixed paper rather than sorting

them into fiber categories. Even the

sorted papers tend to be much

poorer quality than in the past. Mills making products such as

paperboard, corrugated medium, notepad backings and shingles can make good use of mixed papers. But mills making

corrugated linerboard, newsprint, tissue products and printing

& writing papers must have sorted bales. The less sorted fiber

is available, the less feasible it is for these types of mills to

establish or expand recycled content production.

If, however, the mixed paper can be subsequently sorted

economically, the increased collection could be a boon for

high grade deinking mills. Equipment does exist that can sort

mixed paper by use of optical scanners, but the input must be

fiber-only and the additional sort is expensive.

WHAT THESE RECOVERED FIBER 

INDICATORS MEAN

The United States, an intensely consumer-oriented society, is

by far the source of the greatest amount of recoverable paper in

the world. Given the large amount of paper, particularly in

office buildings, that is still available for recovery, there is plenty of capacity for meeting the demand for recovered fiber,

especially to increase recycled content across printing & writing papers.

— 22 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: AF&PA 2006.

Figure 16. U.S. paper recovery by grade

U.S. paper recovery by grade

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

million tons

OCC

ONP

Mixed Paper

High Grade 

Deinking

Pulp Substitutes
But in meeting demand, community recycling program managers and companies that collect and process recovered fiber

must set contract and performance requirements that ensure

that the fiber will be processed and distributed in ways that

enhance, not undermine, the North American recycling system. Recovered fiber must be processed to meet the needs of

domestic manufacturers as well as foreign mills, and fibers

must be sorted to support potential recycled content expansions for printing & writing paper mills as well as the other

industry sectors that need specific fiber feedstocks.

GLOBAL INFLUENCES: 

DEMAND FOR U.S. RECOVERED PAPER

Indicator: U.S. exports of recovered paper as a percentage of total recovered volume

Of the 51,310,000 tons of fiber recovered in 2005 in the United

States, 15,906,000 tons, or 31 percent, were exported. U.S.

exports of recovered paper increased nearly 87 percent between

1999 and 2005(AF&PA 2005).

The rapid build-up in China’s paper industry has led the

demand for increasing amounts of U.S. recovered paper.

Demand from India and other developing nations is also

expected to pick up soon. These new paper mills that are

making newsprint, containerboard and paperboard grades

incorporate high percentages of recycled fiber, resulting in

high demand for OCC and ONP. Demand for mixed paper

has soared since 1999, with

China purchasing 69 percent of exported U.S. mixed

paper in 2005, or 3.9 million tons (RISI 2006), for

use in making paperboard

and corrugated medium.

Exports have been much

lower for sorted recovered

high grade papers, but a considerable amount of recovered office papers are included in the mixed paper grade.

In 2005, 6.36 million tons of

recovered printing & writing

papers were exported, or 45.5

percent of the total collected (AF&PA 2005). Very little high

grade deinking grade paper such as that used to make recycled

printing & writing paper or tissue products is currently

exported to China, which to date has not included capacity for

recycled fibers in its new mills that make printing & writing

papers.

Indicator: Recycling capacity in developing nations

While packaging and newsprint often include recycled content

in developing nations, printing & writing paper almost always

does not.

Packaging paper products in South America and China tend to

include high percentages of recycled fiber. Newsprint, too, often

includes recycled content. But the new mega-size market pulp

mills being developed in South America, China, Indonesia and

Tasmania, for example, are all virgin forest fiber pulp mills. New

printing & writing papermaking mills are not including deinking pulp mills nor buying recycled pulp, even though they use a

significant percentage of kraft pulp, made in the most environmentally resource-intensive process. Two deinking pulp mills,

the first in China, are expected to open within the next year for

limited recycled printing & writing grades.9 

Yet North American paper products are increasingly being

imported from other nations. Most of the paper exported to

the United States and Canada from major supplying countries,

including Finland, Germany and Brazil, is virgin paper

— 23 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: RISI 2006.

U.S. recovered paper exports, 2005

1000 tons

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Total Export Mixed Paper OCC ONP Pulp High Grade

Substitutes Deinking

Figure 17. 

U.S. recovered paper

exports, 2005
(Conservatree). Although some high recycled content papers

come from Europe, most printing & writing paper imported

by the United States and Canada contains little or no recycled

fiber. In emerging economies, major investments have been

made in virgin paper production infrastructure, with virgin

pulp mills larger than any before in existence being developed

in both Asia and South America. In many cases, it is not finished paper that is exported to North America but pulp from

fast-growing tree plantations in South America and Indonesia.

Because of lower costs, high quality and increasing globalization of companies, U.S. and Canadian businesses are

increasingly turning to South America for printing and to

China for books, calendars and converted paper goods such as

office and school paper products. Imports of paper from

China have soared from $21.5 million in 2004 to $224 million

in 2006 (Armstrong).

WHAT THESE GLOBAL INDICATORS MEAN

A virtual flood of virgin paper products could be arriving in

North America shortly, replacing books, magazines, catalogs,

calendars, office paper products, greeting cards and printed

materials that might have used recycled paper when produced by North American mills. New paper mills making

newsprint and packaging in developing countries are incorporating high amounts of recycled fiber. But the new high

grade pulp and paper mills making printing & writing paper

grades have ignored essential environmental advances such

as recycled fiber, nontoxic production and sustainable

forestry. Instead, new mills should be expected to establish

the environmental gold standard necessary for producing

enough paper to meet the escalating demand from emerging

economies that is rapidly being added to the already huge

demand from developed nations.

There are virtually no recycled printing & writing mills in

Asia other than in Japan. (Taiwan and South Korea have

extremely small, limited production.) With none in China or

among the other new pulp and paper mills being built, and the

decline of recycling infrastructure in North America, only purchasers who insist on papers, whether domestically sourced or

imported, that meet high environmental criteria can make sure

that all future paper industry investments meet environmental

sustainability goals, no matter where they are in the world.

In the United States and Canada, new deinking investments will only be possible if market demand for recycled

printing & writing papers expands.At the same time, as long as

paper purchasers do not specify papers with recycled content,

the growth of low cost virgin pulp and papermaking capacity

overseas decreases incentives to build or maintain recycled

paper capacity in North America and elsewhere.

Purchaser requirements can make environmental criteria

and recycled fiber the nonnegotiable bottom line for all new

pulp and paper mills, no matter where they are in the world.

This approach changed the North American paper industry in

the late 1980s, when newspaper publishers began requiring

recycled content in the newsprint they bought—some pushed

— 24 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: RISI 2006, 119.

Figure 18. New recovered paper mill capacity 

added in China, 1997 to 2007 

New recovered paper mill capacity

added in China, 1997 to 2007

1000 tons

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

Total New Capacity Containerboard Paperboard Newsprint Printing & Writing
by legislation, others creating voluntary agreements. Newsprint mills in the United States and Canada made a major technological shift by adding several new deinking mills and

advancing the existing technology. Now some of those publisher agreements are no longer intact, but the newsprint

deinking infrastructure is still incorporating recovered fiber

and enhanced technology.

The Future for Recycled Paper Markets

Estimates by both environmental group paper campaigns and

paper industry pulp producers suggest that as much as one

and a half to two million new tons of recycled pulp per year,

split between recycled kraft and mechanical pulp, is needed to

meet projected new demand (Figure 19).

We can expect demand for recycled paper products to grow,

for a number of reasons. First, high volume and high profile purchasers such as Staples, Kinko’s, Norm Thompson, Office Depot,

Bank of America,Starbucks,Random House,Dell Computers and

many others now have recycled content goals in their purchasing

policies. Second, environmental groups will keep pressure on

companies that do not yet have recycled content purchasing goals.

ForestEthics’ and Dogwood Alliance’s pressure on Staples, Office

Depot and OfficeMax has both strengthened markets for deinked

pulp and opened up recycled paper sources for businesses and

individuals. Markets Initiative’s persuasiveness landed Canada’s

Harry Potter books on 100 percent recycled paper, and the Green

Press Initiative has worked with Random House and hundreds of

other publishers to establish goals for increasing the use of recycled

fiber—resulting in millions of books on recycled paper.

Environmental Defense’s partnerships with UPS, Citigroup

and Norm Thompson Outfitters proved the business case for

recycled paper use in a variety of applications. Other campaigns focus on magazines, catalogs, tissue products, direct

mail and organizing government purchasers. And finally, for a

number of grades of paper, such as corrugated boxes, using

recycled content is already economically compelling.

As demand increases, will there be enough supply? The first

potential constraint on supply is generation of used paper to be

recovered. Given that paper consumption in the United States is

expected to continue growing (see the Minimizing Paper

Consumption chapter) and increasing amounts of paper and

finished paper products are being imported from overseas,

supply is not a concern. So the question is whether the used

paper that goes into the waste stream can make it back into

recycled paper. The key constraints to availability of recycled

pulp are deinking or recycling capacity (depending on the type

of paper product), demand for recovered paper from abroad,

degradation of recovered paper quality that makes it unsuitable

for use in particular grades of recycled papers, and our ability

to recover more suitable paper from the waste stream.

— 25 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: Environmental Paper Network Deinking Roundtable,

March 27, 2007, New York City

Figure 19. Forecast of new

North American recycled

paper demand, 

by product 

category

Forecast of new North American recycled

paper demand, by product category

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Catalog Magazine Book Newsprint Office Supply Financial Tissue

(Canada) Services

tons/yr.
What Paper Buyers Can Do

Recycled content is the foundation for environmentally sustainable papers. Reusing fibers, especially repeatedly and for

disposable and high environmental impact products like printing & writing papers, maximizes the use of natural resources.

Even if all papers were made from forest fibers from certified

sustainable sources, they would require far more trees and

other resources than if they incorporated substantial amounts

of recycled content instead. To expand the quantity of environmental papers available, other attributes should build on a base

of recycled content rather than replace or compete with it.

But the fact is, unless there is a functional recycling infrastructure, all papers are on a one-way trip to the landfill or incinerator,

wasting their potential for reuse and all the environmental gains

provided by multiple uses. Recycling is a just-in-time system: suitable recovered materials must be regularly delivered to recycling

mills. If the system is unreliable, a mill cannot afford to invest in

recycling. The best way to ensure that the whole recycling system

will function optimally is to require recycled content in paper; that

demand pulls used paper through the system to be used again.

North American paper purchasers can make all the difference.

If they require the papers they buy and use to have recycled content as well as other environmental attributes (such as environmentally sustainable virgin fibers and cleaner production processes), the paper industry in North America and around the world

will respond. If paper buyers also influence the companies they

patronize—such as providers of packaging and tissue products,

printers and direct mailers, and services and subscription businesses—the increase in recycled paper demand will be dramatic.

If, instead, each paper purchaser chooses different environmental attributes to favor, the environmental paper market will be split into so many types of boutique papers that

there will be little financial incentive for companies to make

long-term environmental investments. The paper industry is

highly capital-intensive and purchasing specifications need

to add up to large-scale, long-term requirements to effect

change. Following a comprehensive procurement plan such

as the Common Vision that is built on a foundation that

ensures continuing strength for the recycling system will significantly reduce the production footprint of paper while

ensuring environmental sustainability and availability

throughout the world.

— 26 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
— 27 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

REFERENCES

American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 2004.

Recovered paper statistical highlights. (Publication).

———. 2005. Recovered paper annual statistics. http://stats.paperrecycles.org/.

———. 2006. Recovered paper annual statistics. http://stats.paperrecycles.org/.

Armstrong, David. 2007. U.S. to hit China with new trade fee. San

Francisco Chronicle, March 31.

Conservatree and Environmental Defense. 2001. Deinking mill capacity

study. (Unpublished data).

Conservatree. 2007. Environmental paper listings.

www.conservatree.org.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) et al. 2002a. Paper task force

report. December 1995, updated February 2002.

———. 2002b. Paper task force report. White paper no. 3: Lifecycle

environmental comparison: Virgin paper and recycled paper-based

systems. December 1995, updated February 2002.

Environmental Defense (ED). 2004. Evaluation of recovered paper supply. (Unpublished study).

Franklin Associates, Ltd. 2002. Recovered paper: Future challenges and

opportunities. www.fal.com.

Gleason, G., S. Kinsella and V. Mills. 2002. Recycled paper: Plenty available—Now let’s all use it! Resource Recycling, February, 13–17

Kinsella, S. and R. Gertman. 2007. Single stream recycling best practices

manual. www.conservatree.org.

Lang, K. 2003. NASA’s Cosmos website, Global warming chapter. Tufts

University.

http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_chapter.asp?id=21&page=3.

Paperloop (RISI). 2005. Lockwood-Post Directory of Pulp & Paper Mills,

Global Edition. www.risiinfo.com.

RISI. 2005. Pulp & Paper International Annual Review.

www.risiinfo.com.

———. 2006.Global Pulp & Paper Fact & Price Book.

www.risiinfo.com.

TAPPI. 2007. Kruger to build $200 million deinking plant at TroisRivieres mill. Industry news website, posting, February 23, 2007.

www.tappi.org.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2005. Emissions of

greenhouse gases in the United States 2005.

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Comprehensive procurement guidelines, paper and paper products.

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/products.htm#paper.

———. 2005. Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2005 facts and

figures. www.epa.gov/msw/msw99.htm.

———. 2003. Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal

in the United States: Facts and figures for 2003.

———. 2000. Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2000 facts and

figures.

———. 1998. Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United

States: 1998 update.

———. 1996. Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United

States: 1996 update.

Additional Resources

Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC). www.fpac.ca.

McEntee Media. Paper recycling online, www.recycle.cc.

RISI. Annual Review of Global Pulp & Paper Statistics. www.risiinfo.com.

———. Pulp & Paper Week.

———. RISI News.

TAPPI. Ahead of the curve.

———. Solutions.

1 The data set included all deinking pulp mills in the United States and

Canada that are integrated with printing & writing mills, as well as all

recycled market pulp mills that make at least some of their pulp

available for printing & writing paper production. Deinking pulp

mills integrated to tissue mills were not included because their pulp

is not available to printing & writing mills. 2 Conservatree research based on industry data, including Paperloop

(RISI) Lockwood-Post Directory and interviews with pulp and paper

manufacturers.

3 Conservatree calculations using statistical data for different paper

grades’ fiber contents derived from Environmental Defense Fund

2002a.

4 Conservatree calculations based on industry data and interviews with

deinking pulp mill managers. 5 Conservatree calculations based on RISI 2006, AF&PA 2005 and 2006,

and deinking capacity research. 6 As of first quarter 2007, Weyerhaeuser finalized the sale of its fine

papers division to Domtar, which creates an even larger concentration of uncoated freesheet capacity. 7 Derived from 2003 AF&PA recycled and unrecovered tonnages

(AF&PA 2004, 27), and Franklin Associates, pp. C-6 and C-7.

8 9,200,000 tons recovered from offices in 2003 (AF&PA 2004, p. 27) x

55% = 5,060,000 tons, less 9,200,000 x 48.3% (AF&PA 2004) =

4,443,600 tons, yields an increase of 616,400 tons. 9 Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings has announced plans to start a

deinking pulp mill in January 2008 to provide 180,000 metric tonnes

per year of deinked pulp for both tissue and uncoated printing &

writing paper. Additionally, Stora Enso is pursuing a joint venture

with Shandong Huatai Group to install 200,000 metric tones per year

deinking capacity for supercalender mechanical publication grade

paper by late 2007.
OVERVIEW

Clean water, habitat for countless species, recreational and economic opportunities for people, the cultural heritage and territory of indigenous peoples—these are just a few of the vital

services and benefits that healthy forests provide.

Forests also protect against climate change, storing roughly 50 percent of all terrestrial carbon stocks. At the same time,

land-use change and forestry are responsible for approximately 18 percent of carbon emissions into the atmosphere

(Baumert, Herzog and Pershing). Old-growth and mature, second-growth natural forests store much larger amounts of carbon than newly planted stands and once logged, require

decades to recover the original amount of carbon they contained (German Advisory Council; Harmon, Ferrell, and

Franklin). The forest and paper industry, therefore, must move

away from the practice of replacing high-carbon forest stands

(old-growth, mature second-growth and intact forests ecosystems) with low-carbon second growth. Further, extending harvest rotations—leaving trees to grow for longer periods—can

also have a significant impact on carbon storage.

Unfortunately, roughly half the world’s forests have been

burned or cleared and converted to non-forest uses (see Figure

20). Human activity has degraded almost 80 percent of what

remains of the planet’s once vast forests (Bryant, Nielsen and

Tangley). These forests have lost, to varying degrees, many of

their species and much of their ability to function as healthy

ecosystems.Yet many of the remaining forests—including oldgrowth and other ecologically important forests—are still

being logged for the paper industry using unsustainable forest

management practices.

Threats posed today by the paper industry to forests

around the world include the logging of endangered forests,

poor management and degradation of forest ecosystems, conversion of forests to tree plantations, the loss of local and

— 28 —

CHAPTER FOUR

u

R ESPONSIBLE FIBER SOURCING

Common Vision Goals:

• End the use of wood fiber that threatens endangered forests and other

high conservation value ecosystems.

• End the clearing of natural ecosystems and their conversion into plantations 

for paper fiber.

• Source any remaining virgin wood fibers for paper from independent,

third-party certified forestry operations that employ the most environmentally 

and socially responsible forest management and restoration practices.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is currently the only international certification 

program that comes close to meeting this goal.

• Eliminate widespread use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in plantations 

and fiber production.

• Stop the introduction of paper fiber from genetically modified organisms,

particularly transgenic trees and plants with genes inserted from other species 

of animals and plants.

• Use alternative crops for paper if comprehensive and credible analysis indicates 

that they are environmentally and socially preferable to other virgin fiber sources.
indigenous peoples’ control of their forests, illegal logging and

even human rights abuses. Endangered forests occur in every

region where the paper industry is active, including regions

of intact forests as well as areas where forests have been

degraded.

Among the major producers of paper products, the United

States, Canada, Scandinavia, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and

southern South America have all come under scrutiny in

recent years for unsustainable forestry practices. The issues

range from the clearing of natural forests and ecosystems for

paper plantations (for example, in Indonesia, Brazil, the United

States and Chile), the loss of old-growth forests and other

important habitat (for example, in Canada, Russia, the United

States, Australia and Finland) and the violation of the rights of

indigenous peoples and local communities (for example, in

Indonesia, Canada and Finland).

The effect of the paper industry on forests is staggering.

Canada alone cuts down five acres (2.02 hectares) of forest

every minute, much of that going directly and indirectly to

feed pulp and paper mills (ForestEthics 2004). Approximately

eighty percent of these logged Canadian forests are old-growth

habitat (Natural Resources Canada). Other regions such as

Indonesia, Russia, Finland and Chile that export paper, pulp

and fiber to major consumer countries like the United States

and Western Europe are also losing old-growth habitat.

In many places, indigenous peoples and their cultures are

disappearing with the loss of the forests that are their homes. In

Chile, for example, local people have struggled against highly

polluting mills and fought against the conversion of the Chilean

native forests to pulp plantations of exotic species (Neira et al.).

The Sámi people of the boreal forests of northern Finland have

seen their ancient forests felled by Finnish companies supplying

wood for the European paper industry; these forests provide

the basis for traditional life of the Sámi reindeer herders, who

rely on the area’s old-growth forests to feed their herds in the

winter; these forests also provide habitat for threatened and

declining animal species such as wolverines, golden eagles and

the Siberian jay (Greenpeace 2005). In Sumatra, Indonesia, forest-dependent communities and farmers are losing their livelihood and facing violent oppression while the pulp industry

chops the last rainforests of the island and converts their ancestral lands to pulp-wood plantations.1 And in Canada, the

Grassy Narrows First Nation has been blocking logging trucks

in Northern Ontario from harvesting trees cut for paper and

solid wood and Amnesty International has just completed a

fact-finding mission related to possible human rights abuses.

— 29 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Figure 20. Frontier forests, current forest cover 

and historic deforestation. 

Source: World Resources Institute, 1997.

Frontier Forest - areas of intact 

primary forest large enough to 

support the area’s natural 

biodiversity

Current Forest cover (based on 

1992-93 satellite imagery)

Estimated ‘original’ forest 

extent (8,000 years ago)

under current climate conditions

(where climate would allow 

forests to occur)
To prevent further environmental and social tragedies, the

paper industry must adopt more environmentally and socially

responsible alternatives for sourcing fiber consistent with the

Common Vision. Environmental performance indicators for

each of these actions are presented in the following pages,

beginning with a discussion of wood fiber sources, followed 

by non-wood plant fiber sources. For more information on

paper and social responsibility see http://www.environmentalpaper.org/socialimpactsfactsheet.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

WOOD FIBER

Endangered and High Conservation Value Forests

Common Vision goal: End the use of wood fiber that threatens

endangered forests. (Some forests are so rare, threatened, or

ecologically vulnerable, or are of such global biological or cultural importance that any logging or commercial use could

irreparably damage their conservation value.)

Endangered forests include remaining wilderness forests,

which are sometimes called frontier forests; core forest habitat

of species requiring special attention; representative regions of

biological diversity (that is, the full range of different ecosystem types), endemism and high species diversity; and rare

ecosystem types. Rare forest ecosystems exist at different spatial scales; some forests, such as temperate rainforests, are rare

at the global level, while others are rare at more local levels,

such as tropical cloud forests in the Americas (ForestEthics et

al.). Some forests, such as the Appalachian and mixed mesophytic forests of the southeastern United States, are being

made rare and vulnerable through human activities, including

paper industry activities.2 Industrial development in endangered forests, including harvesting for paper, irreparably damages the forest’s ecological values.

Endangered forests occur in most forested regions of the

world, though their extent varies widely. For example, one

major type of endangered forest, the world’s intact—or wilderness—forests, are concentrated in just a few countries.

According to Greenpeace, “only fourteen countries, including

Canada, Brazil, Russia, Papua New Guinea, Democratic

Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia control 92 percent of the

world’s remaining Intact Forest Landscapes.” The World

Resources Institute found similar forest regions using different

methodology in its groundbreaking study, “The Last Frontier

Forests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge” (Bryant,

Nielsen and Tangley). Greenpeace estimates that less than 8

percent of these forests have formal protection. While both the

Greenpeace and World Resources Institute studies were

groundbreaking in delineating large areas of endangered

forests, neither accounts for other significant regions of endangered forests outside these wilderness regions. There is a great

deal of work to do to ensure these forests are protected from

industrial development.

High conservation value forests (HCVF)—a designation

that is more inclusive than endangered forests—often require

less strict conservation regimes than endangered forests, but still

require careful management and protection for the exceptional

benefits they provide. The High Conservation Value Resource

Network (www.hcvf.org) describes high conservation value

areas as natural habitats where inherent conservation values,

which “could include the presence of rare or endemic species,

sacred sites, or resources harvested by local residents...are considered to be of outstanding significance or critical importance.”

The paper industry is active in areas that have been defined as

endangered and high conservation value forests, and many of its

logging activities are threatening the values those forests provide.

The industry must work more actively with the full range of stakeholders—and with the companies that supply them with tree

fiber—to ensure increased protection of these forests and values.

A note on information gaps: Researching this report

uncovered significant information gaps that impeded our ability to accurately monitor specific indicators of the health of

endangered and high conservation value forests. Better monitoring and increased research into this question are required to

improve the accuracy of these indicators.

Indicator: Monitoring endangered and high conservation value forests 

A necessary first step in protecting endangered and high conservation value forests where the paper industry sources fiber is

the mapping of these regions. Some endangered and high conservation value forests have been mapped and analyzed, but to

date there is no single repository of this information.

Mapping and analyzing endangered and high conservation

value forests in all the regions where the paper industry

sources fiber is a daunting—but critical—task. Without accurate data and analysis, it’s difficult to evaluate conditions, set

priorities and measure progress toward protecting these

forests. The work requires in-depth information about forest

intactness, focal conservation species’ home ranges and habitat

needs,3 the extent and quality of native forests,4 rare and vulnerable native ecosystems, and the level and location of any

logging operations. Generating extensive satellite imagery is

often necessary in order to accurately map the locations of

these values and threats.

— 30 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Many maps have been created that outline these values

across extensive landscapes. Some studies apply all endangered forest values across entire landscapes. Other studies

focus on one value in a region, such as Mountain Caribou

habitat in Western Canada. The global conservation organization WWF has summarized most biodiversity values in

its series of studies of the world’s ecoregions.5 The studies

designate forests and other ecosystem types with high values of species richness, endemism and other biodiversity

values.

Figure 21 shows the world’s forests. The circles indicate

regions of high paper production from natural forests or controversial plantations (Borealis).

Green areas are intact forests; yellow areas indicate other

forest area that contain endangered forests. A: Finnish and

northeast Russian old-growth forests, Sámi people’s forests;

B: Siberian and Russian Far East; C: Indonesian rainforest;

D: Tasmanian temperate rainforest; E: Chilean temperate rainforests; F: Industrial plantations, southern and eastern Brazil,

Uruguay and northern Argentina; G: Southern United States

native hardwood forests; H: Canadian boreal forest; I: U.S. and

Canadian inland temperate rainforest and coastal rainforest.

Table 4 outlines existing maps and analysis of endangered

forests that comport with the definitions laid out in the paper,

“Ecological Components of Endangered Forests” (ForestEthics

et al). Other maps and important information exist, but to date

there is no single repository of the information; more work on

mapping needs to be done in other significant paper-producing regions. The members of the Environmental Paper

Network will monitor the regions where endangered forest

maps, conservation plans and maps of high conservation values exist to determine what progress has been made to protect

these forests and ecosystem values.

However, monitoring and studying these forests is not

enough and cannot replace protection of these forests and forest values. This indicator will only help us to arrive at the more

critical indicator described below, protection of endangered

forests and high conservation value forests.

— 31 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Figure 21. The Paper Industry and Endangered Forests: Forests of the world where the paper industry threatens

endangered forests and high conservation value ecosystems

Green areas are intact forests; yellow areas indicate other forest area that contain endangered forests. A: Finnish and northeast Russian old-growth forests, Sámi people’s forests; B: Siberian

and Russian Far East; C: Indonesian rainforest; D: Tasmanian temperate rainforest; E: Chilean temperate rainforests; F: Industrial plantations, southern and eastern Brazil, Uruguay and

northern Argentina; G: Southern United States native hardwood forests; H: Canadian boreal forest; I: U.S. and Canadian inland temperate rainforest and coastal rainforest.
— 32 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

4 Table 4. Endangered forests and high conservation value forests—select mapping to date in key regions

Forest Intactness Database Coterminous U.S. Conservation Biology Institute Intact forest landscapes

(lower 48 states)

A Science-Based Conserva- Klamath-Siskiyou Conservation Biology Institute Intact forest landscapes, rare forest types,

tion Assessment for the Ecoregion remnant forest landscapes, high endemism

Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion

Alaska Intact Forest Alaska Conservation Biology Institute Intact forest landscapes, rare forest types,

Landscapes remnant forest landscapes

Chile’s Frontier Forests: Chile Global Forest Watch Intact forest landscapes, forests of high endemism,

Conserving a Global great ecological and evolutionary value,

Treasure geographic isolation, high degree of

threatened species

Forest Conservation Priority Chile Conservation Biology Institute Intact forest landscapes, rare forest types,

Setting for the Lake Region remnant forest landscapes

of Central Chile Using a high endemism

Preliminary Endangered

Forests Assessment

The State of the Forest: Indonesia Global Forest Watch Intact forest landscapes, rare forest types,

Indonesia forests of high species richness, forests containing high concentrations of rare and endangered

species, forests of high endemism

Canada’s Large Intact Canada Global Forest Watch-Canada Intact forest landscapes,landscape connectivity

Forest Landscapes

Atlas of Russia’s Intact Russia Global Forest Watch Intact forest landscapes

Forest Landscapes

Low-Access Forests and Canada and Global Forest Watch—Conserva- Intact forest landscapes

their Level of Protection in Continental U.S. tion Biology Institute landscape connectivity

North America

Second Roadless Area U.S. Federal Public USDA Forest Service Intact forest landscapes

Review and Evaluation Lands

Wildlands of the U.S. Pacific Northwest, U.S. Pacific Biodiversity Institute Intact forest landscapes

Canada’s Forests at a Canada Global Forest Watch-Canada Intact forest landscapes, landscape connectivity,

Crossroads: An Assessment forests containing high concentrations of endin the Year 2000 angered species, core habitat for focal species

The Last Intact Forest European Russia Global Forest Watch Intact forest landscapes

Landscapes of Northern

European Russia

Endangered Forests of the Cumberland Plateau, Conservation Biology Institute Remnant forest landscapes, landscape connectivity

Cumberland Plateau U.S. (TN, AL, KY, GA) focal conservation species’ habitat, rare forest

types, ecological services

Large Landscape-level Global Greenpeace International Intact forest landscapes

Forests of the World

Chinchaga Wilderness: The Rocky Mountain Canadian Parks and Wilderness Intact forest landscapes, focal conservation

Last Hope for the Creation Foothills, Alberta, Society, Edmonton species’ habitat

of a Large Protected Area Canada

in the Alberta Foothills

Rocky Mountain Foothills Rocky Mountain Foot- Canadian Parks and Wilderness Intact forest landscapes, focal conservation

and the LIttle Smoky hills, Alberta, Canada Society, Edmonton species’ habitat, remnant forest landscapes

Mountain Caribou Habitat British Columbia Conservation Northwest, Focal conservation species habitat

Forest Ethics et al. (mountain caribou)

Study Name Region Source Ecological Values Identified
Indicator: Stakeholder engagement and agreements

Indicators of progress might include the total number of real

engagements with stakeholders by companies and governments on protecting endangered and high conservation value

forests, and the total number of stakeholder processes as a proportion of mapped or identified endangered forests and high

conservation values. No single repository of this information

currently exists.

Stakeholder engagement efforts and forest industry agreements can be effective strategies for protecting endangered

forests. In British Columbia, for example, the Great Bear

Rainforest conservation plan was the culmination of ten

years of campaigning to alter the markets for wood and paper

products coming from coastal British Columbia. The final

agreement, approved in 2005 by all stakeholders, including

local governments, indigenous peoples and the forest industry, sets aside 5 million acres (roughly 2 million hectares)

from logging and mandates ecosystem-based management

from the remaining 15.5 million acres (6.4 million hectares)

in the region. It also requires “comprehensive First Nations

involvement in management over their entire traditional territory” and “diversification of the economy based on conservation” (ForestEthics 2006).

Real engagement requires agreement by the stakeholders

that the dialogue is open, fair and has a real chance of productive outcomes. Logging in the areas of concern should not proceed while negotiations and dialogue are under way.

Indicator: Protection of endangered forests and

high conservation value forests

The paper industry’s progress toward protecting endangered

and high conservation value forests can be measured by the

amount of and increase in protected areas in pulp and paper

producing regions compatible with high conservation values

and endangered forest definitions. More research is needed to

determine the extent of these areas.

While not all values and forests have been mapped, nor

detailed conservation plans developed in many cases, members of the Environmental Paper Network will report back and

monitor the progress in those areas where maps and conservation plans have been put forward. See Table 4 for a list of

detailed conservation plans and maps of endangered forests

and high conservation value forests.

WHAT THESE INDICATORS MEAN

Much work remains to be done to map and analyze endangered and high conservation value forests where the paper

industry sources fiber. While that work continues, paper buyers and suppliers can take concrete steps now to help protect

these vital areas.

Printers and remanufacturers as well as 

buyers of end products should:

4Conduct full chain of custody certification for paper products from all suppliers (chain of custody is discussed in the

Certification of Forest Products section below).

4Work with environmental organizations to determine

whether the fiber for these end products comes from endangered forests or high conservation value ecosystems. The

Environmental Paper Network and its members are creating

tools such as PulpWatch.org that can help buyers identify these

forests and the mills that they supply.

4Require suppliers to engage in real dialogue with conservation advocates and other stakeholders to ensure that, as a first

step, moratoriums on logging in these areas are put in place,

and secondly, that long-lasting conservation agreements

include the long-term protection of endangered and high conservation value forests.

4Eliminate any products that come from these areas until full

conservation plans are finalized and agreed for the regions by

all stakeholders.

4Join with other buyers to support conservation processes in

key supply regions where controversial operations are ongoing.

Forestry and primary 

paper producers should: 

4Engage with environmental and social stakeholders in your

supply zone to identify endangered and high conservation

value forests.

4Work with stakeholders to place the areas under moratorium from industrial development while conservation studies

and processes are underway.

4Work with governments and landowners to ensure permanent

protection of these endangered and high conservation areas.

CERTIFICATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS

Common Vision goal: Source any remaining virgin wood

fibers for paper from independent, third-party certified forest

managers that employ the most environmentally and socially

responsible forest management and restoration practices.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is the only acceptable international certification program that comes close to meeting

this goal.

— 33 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Independent, third-party certification of forestry management

operations is a necessary element in protecting forest values.

The certification system most widely recognized as having the

most credible standards for responsible forestry management

was developed by the Forest Stewardship Council, an international nonprofit organization (Ozinga; Tan). FSC certification

was created with the input of balanced stakeholder representation, including forest managers and owners, purchasers of

wood and paper products, environmental organizations, scientists, indigenous peoples, wood and paper industry unions

and others. The FSC system gives buyers the best, most complete and most reliable means of ensuring their wood comes

from responsibly managed sources.

FSC’s ten principles and criteria form the basis of regional

and national standards specific to different forest types, legal

systems and stakeholder input. These principles and criteria

cover compliance with laws and the FSC principles; tenure and

use rights and responsibilities; indigenous peoples’ rights;

community relations and workers’ rights; benefits from the

forest; environmental impact; management plan; monitoring

and assessment; maintenance of high conservation value

forests; and plantations. The FSC system does not allow the

certification of forests or the procurement of fiber or wood

resulting from the conversion of natural forest ecosystems to

plantations after 1994. FSC is currently engaged in a process of

revising its plantations standards.

One of FSC’s strengths is that it provides chain of custody

certification for the FSC certified raw materials in its labeled

products. Chain of custody certification tracks each step in the

path from the forest to the consumer, including all successive

stages of processing, transformation, manufacturing, distribution and retail sales. A product can only carry the FSC label or

logo if the raw material for the product derives from a forest

that has received an FSC forest management certificate, and if

all steps along the supply chain receive a chain of custody certificate.

FSC’s chain of custody standards also allow for products

that are made from mixed sources of FSC wood, reclaimed

material and controlled wood. This standard is very important

for paper products, which are almost always made from a wide

variety of inputs from a number of sources and suppliers.

Adequate controls on any uncertified portion of the product

(where certified and uncertified wood are mixed in the production process) must be monitored by the company and the

certifiers in order to ensure that no controversial sources

(including fiber from threatened high conservation value

forests) are included. For details about FSC’s chain of custody

certification, go to www.fsc.org.

Other certification systems were created subsequent to the

development of FSC (Tan), including the Sustainable Forestry

Initiative (SFI), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA)

forest certification program, and the Programme for the

Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC). These

systems were designed by the timber and paper industries and

the boards and controlling bodies of these schemes are dominated by these industries (Ozinga). These systems have served

to maintain the status quo of the forest products industry in

the marketplace. Unlike FSC, these other systems provide little

or no chance for stakeholders to challenge the management of

forests systems or for stakeholders who are not directly

involved in the forest products industry to have their voices

heard. These systems can create confusion among buyers and

do not provide the assurances that the FSC system does.

Therefore they have not been endorsed by signatories of the

Common Vision.

These other systems—whether in North America, Europe or

other parts of the world—have given the thumbs up to some

egregious logging and business practices. For example:

The Canadian Standards Association certification system allows unrestrained old-growth logging in intact forests

throughout Canada. Companies are required to consult with

stakeholders, but have the option of ignoring the results of

stakeholder consultations. The Hinton Pulp Mill in Alberta, for

example, has its fiber supply certified despite the objections to

its management by environmental stakeholders and despite

the presence of endangered species that their forest management system does not even record (NRDC).

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative, used mostly in the

United States, does not track much of the fiber entering the

system. The system doesn’t take into account the rights of forest-dependent communities and indigenous peoples.

Conversion of natural forests to plantations continues apace

under SFI rules, even in regions where natural forests have

been almost entirely lost.

The Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) was endorsed

by Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification

schemes (PEFC) despite the fact that no Australian environmental organizations or stakeholders participated or supported the drafting process for the standard. The AFS currently

supports the conversion of old-growth native forest to plantation and the broad scale use of the poison 1080 to kill native

browsing marsupials. It continues to support the certification

of forest managers found by the Australian courts to be contributing to endangered species extinction.

In short, with the exception of FSC, these certification systems and standards currently cannot provide any guidance to

determine whether the paper industry is progressing toward

the goals laid out in the Environmental Paper Network’s

Common Vision.

— 34 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Indicator: FSC certification

As of May 2007, FSC has certified 226.3 million acres (91.6

million hectares) of forests in 73 countries and issued 5,806

chain of custody certificates globally (FSC 2007).

FSC certification is growing rapidly. Although it is not always

possible to determine from published statistics the volume of

wood going into solid wood products or paper products, as of

December 2006, FSC has certified 208.3 million acres (84.3

million hectares) of forests in 77 countries and issued 5,400

chain of custody certificates globally. In 2006, FSC’s market

share of paper products globally increased by 50 percent

(Malessa).

Indicator: FSC certified paper products 

reaching consumers

Measuring Chain of Custody certificates will help us to understand how many products are reaching consumers and how the

market is responding to the certification of paper products,

since chain of custody certification is the means by which the

industry assures that FSC products move along the chain of

production to consumers. Additional research is needed to

obtain data on the market share of FSC certified paper products by volume and value.

FSC fiber and FSC products comprise an increasing share of

the chain of custody of the world’s paper industry. According

to an internal survey of FSC certificate holders, the total sales

of FSC products in 2006 was more than 77 billion dollars (FSC

2007b). The FSC certifier Scientific Certification Systems

(SCS) reported very strong growth in Chain of Custody certificates from 2005 – 2006:

Dr. Robert J. Hrubes, SCS senior vice president and a

founding member of the FSC, announced, “The market

demand for FSC certification services continues to increase,

particularly for the paper and building products industries.

This signals to forest managers that responsible forest management can be good for business. These developments go hand

in hand with the increase in value that companies and individual consumers alike attribute to environmental stewardship

and responsible purchasing.”

Research by the FSC German Working Group found that

“the number of FSC certified companies in Europe had grown

to 41 as of September 2005. The number of printers certified

under FSC Chain of Custody has increased from 20 to over 73

in just two years” (FSC German Working Group).

WHAT THESE INDICATORS MEAN

FSC certification plays an indispensable role in helping ensure

that wood fibers in paper products come from environmentally sound sources. Paper buyers can spur demand for FSC fiber

by taking the steps described below, and suppliers can meet

growing demand by working to obtain FSC certification for

their forests and facilities.

Buyers of end products, such as office paper, 

stationary, printing and book papers, should: 

4Specify FSC certified recycled paper products or FSC certified mixed sources paper products with recycled content, or,

where market conditions are not ripe or where recycled paper

is not available, specify products with FSC certified virgin

fiber.

4Where there is inadequate supply of FSC certified fiber and

paper products, work with your suppliers at all levels to ensure

an increasing supply.

4Set time-bound goals for your suppliers who are working

toward achieving FSC certification of paper products.

Printers and paper remanufacturers should: 

4Get FSC chain of custody certification so that your own

products can carry the FSC logo.

4Educate your customers about options for FSC certified

papers.

4Give preference to FSC certified paper products and set

time-bound goals for your suppliers who are working toward

achieving FSC certification of paper products.

4Where there is inadequate supply of FSC certified fiber and

paper products, work with your suppliers at all levels to ensure

an increasing supply.

Forestry and primary paper producers should: 

4All production facilities should obtain FSC chain of custody

certification and immediately address issues of controlled

wood, ensuring that controversial sources of fiber do not enter

the chain of custody for any paper products.

4Work actively with stakeholders to achieve FSC certification

in forests that are under direct control of the company.

4Where there is inadequate supply of FSC certified fiber and

paper products, paper producers should work with their suppliers at all levels to ensure an increasing supply.

CONVERSION OF FORESTS TO PLANTATIONS

Common Vision goal: End the clearing of natural forest ecosystems and their conversion into plantations for paper fiber.

The pulp and paper industry relies heavily on industrial tree

plantations to meet its virgin fiber demand. Over the last several decades, as demand for wood and paper products has

— 35 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
grown, the establishment of industrial tree plantations for

intensive forestry management has soared, and trends indicate

rapid expansion of this practice in coming years. However,

poorly managed industrial tree plantations established

through the conversion of natural ecosystems can impose significant environmental and social costs. While there is legitimate debate on the role of industrial tree plantations to meet

humanity’s needs, there is a strong consensus that further

replacement of natural ecosystems with such plantations is

contrary to conservation and human rights goals.

The term “industrial tree plantation” is equivalent to the

term “productive forest plantation” used by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO

defines these as forests of introduced species, and in some cases

native species, established through planting or seeding, with

few species, even spacing and/or even-aged stands. The Forest

Stewardship Council (2003) defines plantations as “forest areas

lacking most of the principal characteristics and key elements

of native ecosystems, which result from the human activities of

planting, sowing or intensive silvicultural treatments.”

When natural forests are clearcut and converted to establish

a single-species industrial tree plantation, the diverse natural

vegetation and the accompanying wide variety of wildlife habitat it provides, is significantly reduced or lost altogether.Worldrenowned Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimates that compared to a natural forest, the plantation that replaces it contains

90 to 95 percent less diversity (Williams). Industrial tree plantations also require heavy use of synthetic herbicides, pesticides

and fertilizers, and their expansion is correlated closely with

environmental risks associated with these chemicals (for

details, see the section below, Use of Synthetic Chemicals).

The net climate change impacts of plantations are another

cause for concern. Globally, forests are among the largest reservoirs of carbon and absorb carbon much faster than oceans

(Adams). However, industrial tree plantations established at

the expense of natural forests may exacerbate climate change,

as demonstrated in recent research by Sohngen and Brown.

These researchers found that pine plantations do not retain

carbon as efficiently as hardwood or natural pine forests and

concluded that the increase in the number of pine plantations

in the southern United States will likely contribute to a rise in

carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.

Globally, 269 million acres (109 million hectares) of land

were managed as industrial tree plantations in 2005, according

to FAO’s Global Forest Resource Assessment. This study found

that 197 million acres (79.5 million hectares), or 73 percent of

the total global area of industrial tree plantations, are concentrated in just 10 countries (Figure 22). More than half the

— 36 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Figure 22. Ten countries with largest area of productive forest plantations, 2005

Source: FAO 2005.

Ten countries with largest area of productive

forest plantations, 2005

China

United States

Russian Federation

Brazil

Sudan

Indonesia

Chile

Thailand

France

Turkey

Remaining Countries

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
world’s industrial tree plantations are in China, the United

States and the Russian Federation.

Unfortunately, reliable global information specific to land

use prior to the establishment of plantations is lacking.

Without this monitoring and reporting, exact global numbers

on natural forest conversion are difficult to ascertain. However,

it is possible to highlight information on the scope and rate of

expansion of plantations worldwide, and to report what percentage are being managed by certification standards that will

not certify plantations converted from natural forests after

1994. Additionally, case study information can point toward

the areas where this issue must be addressed by producers,

purchasers and governments. Better national monitoring and

increased research into this question are required to improve

the accuracy of this indicator.

Indicator: Rate of conversion of forests 

to plantations 

Industrial tree plantations are being established at a growing

rate, but there is inadequate data tracking land use prior to the

establishment of these plantations.

There is no debate that rapid expansion of industrial tree plantations in the last half-century has led to displacement of biologically diverse natural forests. However, the exact degree to which

this displacement is occurring is unknown because inadequate

data and research exists about how the land was used before the

plantations were established. In lieu of this, we can report on the

rate of establishment of plantations, and draw conclusions from

existing regional examples and anecdotal evidence.

RATE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTATIONS

Seventy-one percent of the global annual increase in industrial

tree plantations was generated by growth in three countries or

areas: China, the Russian Federation and the United States.

China represented the largest annual increase in the last five

years; plantation area increased from 54 million acres (21.8 million hectares) in 2000 to 70 million acres (28.5 million hectares)

in 2005, an annual growth rate of 5.6 percent. In the Russian

Federation, industrial tree plantation area increased from 26.5

million acres (10.7 million hectares) in 2000 to 29 million acres

(11.9 million hectares) in 2005, an annual increase of 2.1 percent. During the same period in the United States, plantation

area increased from 40 million acres (16.3 million hectares) to

42 million acres (17.1 million hectares), an annual growth rate

of 0.9 percent. The next seven countries in terms of highest

increase in plantation area are Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile,

Australia, Portugal, Republic of Korea, and Turkey (FAO 2005).

See Appendix B for a discussion of three examples of areas

experiencing rapidly expanding plantations: the United States,

Chile and Australia. These examples illustrate the natural forest conversion occurring in areas with endangered and high

conservation value forests.

Indicator: Percentage of plantation area certified

by Forest Stewardship Council

As of May 2007, FSC had certified 18,780,009 acres (7,600,000

hectares) of plantations, amounting to almost 7 percent of the

total plantations worldwide. It had also certified an unknown

percentage of the 88,463,727 acres (35,800,000 hectares)

included in its “mixed” category (FSC, 2007a).

The Forest Stewardship Council is unable to provide the exact

amount of certified plantation area because some of its data is

classified as mixed, which includes forestry operations with

both plantations and natural forests. FSC’s standards for the

management of plantations include a provision that prohibits

certification of any plantation that was converted from forest

after 1994. For a full description of the FSC’s plantation standards, go to www.fsc.org/plantations.

Indicator: Number of corporate commitments to

avoid conversion of forests 

As of May 2007, there were six major U.S. purchasers 

and one supplier with corporate commitments that advance 

the Common Vision’s goal to eliminate conversion of forests 

to plantations.

Corporate commitments to examine the chain of custody of

forest and paper products to avoid conversion or give preference to suppliers who avoid conversion have recently found

growing support. For example, Office Depot states in its paper

procurement policy, “Office Depot believes that species conversion and ensuing simplification of natural forests that

results from replacing naturally diverse forests with monoculture plantations counters our commitment to environmental

stewardship and efforts to conserve natural resources. Office

Depot is committed to working with our stakeholders to

phase-out the use of wood fiber sourced from such areas.”

Other major purchasers with similar specific policies of

avoidance, and/or preference for alternatives to conversion

include Bank of America, Lanoga Corporation, North Pacific

Group, Cascade Wood Products and BMC West. On the supply

side, Bowater Inc., the largest newsprint manufacturer in the

— 37 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
southern United States, has committed that its southern U.S.

operations will eliminate the practice of conversion on its own

lands, as well as end the purchase of third-party fiber from

converted lands (Bowater).

WHAT THESE INDICATORS MEAN

The pulp and paper industry is increasingly relying on fiber

derived from intensively managed tree plantations that are

supplanting natural forests on a widespread scale. Achieving

sustainability in the pulp and paper industry will require:

4Reducing demand for virgin raw material through manufacturing efficiency, consumer efficiency, recycling and use of

non-wood fibers.

4Managing existing plantations according to the highest certification standards.

4Ending the practice of converting natural ecosystems to

industrial plantations.

Purchasers and producers of pulp 

and paper products should:

4Develop institutional policies to avoid the practice of converting natural forests to plantations.

4Examine their paper fiber supply chain to learn about its

sources and insist upon the highest certification standards for

any fiber from plantation management.

4Work with organizations and companies that can manufacture and use pulp and paper more efficiently and meet their

needs from sustainable sources.

This report also reveals:

4A deficiency of data available on land use prior to the establishment of timber plantations.

4A deficiency of current data on the end use of wood and

fiber harvested from plantations worldwide.

4A need for more understanding of the social conflicts associated with the establishment of plantations on other land uses

in addition to natural forest.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

USE OF SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS

Common Vision goal: Eliminate widespread industrial use of

pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in plantations and fiber

production.

To ensure that a natural forest does not regenerate on an industrial tree plantation, plantation managers typically turn to synthetic herbicides that reduce competition from other species

and synthetic fertilizers that promote the growth of plantation

trees. On a smaller scale, herbicides are also sometimes used in

natural forest management systems to control competing or

invasive species. In the context of paper production, herbicide

use is primarily associated with plantation management. The

application of these chemicals has many negative consequences, including impacts on human health and plant and

wildlife habitat.

For these reasons, Environmental Paper Network’s Common

Vision calls for a reduction or elimination of the use of chemicals

in forestry operations. Progress toward this vision can be measured by a reduction in overall chemical use, a reduction of

acreage sprayed or a reduction of the overall acreage of plantations in existence, as the intensive use of chemicals is inextricably

linked to intensive plantation management.

Indicator: Use of herbicides on tree plantations

No publicly available data exists on the global application of

chemicals in forestry operations. Data from the southern

United States illustrates the extensive use of chemicals in managing plantations, where the U.S. Forest Service estimates that

herbicides are applied to approximately 2 million acres

(800,000 hectares) of industrial tree plantations annually

(Wear and Greis).

While exact figures on worldwide application of chemicals on

plantations are not available, worldwide there are approximately 269 million acres (109 million hectares) of industrial tree

plantations (FAO 2005). Chemicals are used in the management of industrial tree plantations around the globe to select

for species including loblolly pine, radiata pine and eucalyptus.

Impacts on human health

The most common herbicides used in forestry are glyphosate,

hexazinone, triclopyr, sulfmeteron methyl, metsulfuron

methyl and imazapyr (Virginia Department of Forestry).

Chemicals are applied manually and by aerial application,

which has a high chance of unintentionally drifting beyond

target areas to neighboring properties.

These are all water-soluble, broad-spectrum herbicides.

They are nonselective, and affect everything they come in

contact with, sometimes sterilizing the soil. Many of these

chemicals pose a human health threat due to irritation, especially of the skin, eyes and respiratory system. Glyphosate is a

known carcinogen and has been linked with non-Hodgkin’s

lymphoma; long-term exposure is associated with kidney

damage and reproductive effects (EPA, 2006). Appendix C

contains a table with information on the known effects of the

common herbicides.

Unfortunately, the data on risks associated with herbicide

use on plantations is incomplete and far from comprehensive.

— 38 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Workers spraying chemicals manually, or people exposed

through drift from aerial spraying operations, are at risk. Most

of the studies on the human health risks of these chemicals are

based on observations, in isolated and controlled settings, of

only the active ingredient (for example, glyphosate). But reallife exposure occurs in the environment where interactions

between chemicals can occur. Carcinogenic activity and the

health effects of multiple herbicides mixed together with surfactants and other chemicals are unknown.

Some ingredients present in chemicals may have risks,

even when labeled as inert. According to Cox and Surgan

(2006), “Inert ingredients can increase the ability of pesticide

formulations to affect significant toxicological endpoints,

including developmental neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, and disruption of hormone function. Inert ingredients can increase

the phytotoxicity of pesticide formulations, as well as toxicity

to fish, amphibians, and microorganisms.”

More research needs to be done on the human health

effects of real-life exposure to pesticides and herbicides.

Until then, the prudent approach for the forestry industry

would be to minimize its use of these chemicals and follow

the precautionary principle, which states that if the risks of a

given activity are uncertain or potentially irreversible, then

the burden of proof of the activity’s safety should be on

those advocating the activity rather than on the public

(UNEP). Unfortunately, in the case of synthetic chemicals

used in forestry operations, the precautionary principle is

typically not followed.

Impacts on plant and wildlife habitat 

Herbicides applied on tree plantations have the ability to kill

many unintended plants and insects (Carrere and

Lohmann). Decreased biodiversity can have numerous

adverse ecological effects, including reducing the availability

of food and habitat that certain species require to survive

(U.S. Department of State).

Some herbicides used on tree plantations are also marketed as soil sterilants. This means that all living organisms, beneficial or not, are eliminated from the soil. This upsets the soil

chemistry, and leads to erosion and nutrient leaching. It also

eliminates the symbiotic relationship that naturally exists

between plants and beneficial soil fungi, which allows nitrogen

fixation to occur. The elimination of this natural system of

nitrogen generation makes fertilization necessary where it

normally would not be.

Indicator: Use of synthetic fertilizers 

on tree plantations

Nearly 10 million acres (4 million hectares) of plantations in

the southern United States were fertilized between 1969 and

1999, which exceeds the sum of acres fertilized in the rest of the

world (Wear and Greis).

As the establishment of industrial tree plantations has accelerated in the past decade, so has the use of chemical fertilizers.

According to the Southern Forest Resource Assessment, the 34

million acres (13.8 million hectares) of planted pine in the

southern United States will likely be fertilized at least twice

during a 20 to 30-year rotation (Wear and Greis). This fertilized area is expected to double in the next 40 years, corresponding to the increase in plantation acreage.

To reach their full growth potential, trees need enough

essential nutrients. Two vital limiting nutrients are phosphorus

and nitrogen. When growing in plantations, trees cannot

always obtain the required amount of nutrients from the surrounding area. In some cases, essential nutrients may not be

naturally present in the surrounding ecosystem. In other cases,

nutrients can become depleted when similar crops are planted

year after year in the same soil. This is now being observed not

only on cropland, but also on industrial tree plantations

(Bowyer et al.; NASA).

To provide essential nutrients, plantation managers often

turn to synthetic fertilizers. The two most common fertilizers

are dried urea, which provides nitrogen, and diammonium

phosphate, which provides both nitrogen and phosphorus.

Variable winds make drift from aerial application a significant

issue and it is common for aerial spraying to affect areas that

were not intended for fertilization. Fertilizer runoff into lakes

and streams can also alter the chemical balance of the water,

making the habitat unsuitable for its natural inhabitants (Wear

and Greis). For more information, see Appendix C.

Further, in most of the states in the southern United States,

few or no laws exist to require buffer zones around day care

centers, residences or other human communities. While comprehensive reports are not available, community organizations

in the southern United States such as Save Our Cumberland

Mountains record personal accounts of people living near pine

plantations in Tennessee’s southeastern counties describing

serious health effects after chemical exposure. Symptoms

included breathing difficulty, nose bleeds, skin irritation, eye

problems and other conditions indicative of toxic chemical

exposure. Several people required hospitalization after exposure. Most of the affected people live in rural areas near largescale clear cutting operations where airplanes apply fertilizers.

— 39 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
WHAT THESE INDICATORS MEAN

4There is a lack of publicly available information about the

extent of chemical use in forestry operations and the complete,

compounded risks to humans and the environment associated

with chemicals used.

4In the short term, plantation owners and managers should

immediately establish buffer zones from riparian areas and

neighboring landowners. Whenever possible, aerial spraying of

chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be avoided completely and, when it is necessary, caution should be

employed to strictly adhere to no-spray buffer zones and minimize aerial drift. Land owners and managers should also provide information on the chemicals applied to the local community and provide community notification prior to any spraying.

4In the long term, purchasers, suppliers, and plantation owners and managers should work to reduce the total volume of

chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers used.

4The Forest Stewardship Council provides guidelines for minimizing chemical use. An increase in the number of companies

certified by the FSC will result in a reduction in chemical use.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: 

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED TREES 

Common Vision goal: Stop the introduction of paper fiber from

genetically modified organisms, particularly transgenic trees

and plants with genes inserted from other species of animals

and plants.

To meet rising global demand for paper products, the pulp and

paper industry has teamed up with the biotechnology industry

to identify methods of producing more raw materials faster.

Research and experimentation with genetically engineered

(GE) trees has been conducted over the past two decades as

one method of increasing production, despite serious risks

posed to the world’s remaining natural forests. Environmental

concerns are associated primarily with the unpredictable

effects of releasing GE pollen or plants into natural ecosystems

and the disruption of plant and wildlife habitat. Due to the

long lifecycles of trees and the ability of pollen to travel

tremendous distances, it is very hard to accurately monitor

and predict the long-term implications of utilizing GE trees. It

is imperative that the risks of genetic engineering be thoroughly assessed before experimentation with GE trees in North

America or other regions proceeds any further.

For the most part, GE forest trees are currently in a research

stage, and to date in North America they have only been planted in field trials. China is the sole country where GE forest trees

are in commercial application and will likely be used for paper

products once the trees reach maturity. The rest of the world

has not yet approved commercial use of GE forest trees. For the

purpose of this report, we have included only a discussion of

GE tree species that could be used in timber production and

omitted an analysis of GE fruit trees.

Genetically engineered trees are transgenic organisms,

which means they have been altered by inserting genes from

another organism into the trees’ genetic material. This technology is a radical departure from traditional agricultural breeding programs, when breeders could only cross plants of the

same species or of closely related species. Genetic engineering

allows scientists to modify trees by inserting genetic material

from another tree of the same species, from another tree

species, or from another species of plant or animal altogether,

in order to create new DNA sequences that express certain

traits in the trees. Traits that are the focus of genetic engineering efforts in trees include herbicide resistance, insect resistance, disease resistance, lignin reduction and faster growth.

The introduction of genetically engineered trees poses many

serious concerns for natural forests, including these issues:

4Herbicide-resistant genes promote increased herbicide use,

which can have negative impacts on nontarget species and

human health (see the section above on herbicide use). Insect

resistance is engineered by introducing the bacterial pesticide

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into tree species. The primary risks

are the killing of beneficial insects and microorganisms and

the threat that “super pests” will evolve to withstand Bt

(Petermann and Tokar). Similarly, introducing disease-resistant traits could eventually cause new and more powerful epidemics while altering soil ecology (Sampson and Lohmann).

4Lignin reduction is a desirable trait for the paper industry

because it could allow a cheaper and less chemically intensive

pulping process. However, lignin provides structural support

to trees, and research has shown reduced-lignin trees to have

stunted growth. Sampson and Lohmann report that “because

lignin protects trees from feeding insects, low-lignin trees are

also likely to be more susceptible to insect damage, leading to

pressures to increase pesticide use. Low-lignin trees will also

rot more readily—affecting soil structure, fertilizer use, and

forest ecology—and will release carbon dioxide more quickly

into the atmosphere.” These problems threaten native ecology

primarily in the event of contamination of natural forests,

where structural support is critical to the longevity and composition of a forested ecosystem that needs to withstand

storms, insects and other natural factors.

4Faster tree growth means more rapid use of soil nutrients

and water resources. Managing plantations more intensively

puts a strain on water resources and depletes soil productivity,

requiring increased use of fertilizers.

— 40 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
4Concerns about GE trees are inherently linked with the

problems of industrial management of plantations and the loss

of natural forests for the establishment of plantations. GE trees

are being developed with the intent of being used in largescale, commercial operations and often such plantations come

at the expense of natural forests.

4Commercial production of GE trees is also expected to

exacerbate the negative social and economic impacts associated with industrial forestry. These include monopolization of fiber markets and concentration of production,

which makes production cheaper for the large companies

and further decreases the competitiveness of small-scale,

sustainable forest managers. This causes reduced opportunities for value-added processing, and declining economic

benefits to forest workers and forest communities (Bailey,

Sinclair and Dubois). Further, contamination of nearby

woodlots with the low-lignin trait could devastate smallscale sawtimber operations and lead to property rights disputes because of the patents held by corporations on the

engineered genes.

4Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, research into sterility technologies in genetically engineered trees is extremely

controversial. Sterility technologies include terminator technology, or producing sterile seeds, as well as non-flowering

and non-pollinating traits. As Petermann and Tokar state,

“engineering trees to be sterile is a lose-lose proposition.” If

it works, sterile plantations will not have the capacity to support wildlife that depends on fruit, nuts, seeds and pollen for

food and should it fail, engineered pollen could affect natural ecosystems with irreversible impacts.

Indicator: Outdoor field trials of genetically 

engineered trees

At least 225 outdoor field trials of GE trees have been or are

being conducted in 16 countries, including 150 in the United

States.

FAO reports 225 outdoor field trials, or test plots, of GE trees

worldwide in 16 countries (FAO 2004). One hundred fifty are

in the United States, with the remainder mostly in Europe,

Britain, Canada and Australia. Field tests are also taking place

in India, South Africa, Indonesia, Chile and Brazil. China is the

only country known to have developed commercial plantations of GE trees, beginning in 2002, with well over one million

insect-resistant poplars planted throughout ten provinces.

Global Justice Ecology Project reports that “Most of the

— 41 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Figure 23. Field test

applications for GE

forest trees in the

United States

Source: FAO 2004.

Field test applications for GE forest trees

in the United States

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1990 1991 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Includes applications that are denied, pending, issued and acknowledged.

number of applications
research is being focused on poplars (47 percent), pines (19

percent) and eucalyptus (7 percent).”

Figure 23 indicates the number of field trials of GE trees

that have taken place each year. Currently, the U.S. Department

of Agriculture regulates the field trials of GE trees. However, in

most cases USDA simply acknowledges field test applications

but does not require approval of permits for most GE tree

field trials. Before GE trees are allowed into commercial application, USDA would need to undertake a public comment

period and environmental review and likely deregulate the

planting of GE trees.

WHAT THESE INDICATORS MEAN

Due to the high risk of genetically engineered trees having a

negative impact on global forest biological diversity,

Environmental Paper Network’s Common Vision adopts the

precautionary approach and supports a ban at this time on

introducing genetically engineered trees into the environment.

EPN encourages paper buyers and NGOs to:

4Advocate to pulp and paper companies that they do not field

test or use GE trees.

4Encourage the USDA to invest in a risk assessment analysis

to establish the foundation for a credible scientific debate.

4Advocate for a ban on genetically engineered trees by the

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: 

NON-WOOD PLANT FIBER

Common Vision goal: Use alternative crops for paper if

comprehensive and credible analysis indicates that they are

environmentally and socially preferable to other virgin 

fiber sources.

There is significant untapped market potential in the use of

non-wood plant fibers for pulp and paper production. The

non-wood plant fiber category is very large. It includes annual

crops dedicated to producing fiber (referred to as “on-purpose”), perennial crops such as bamboo and switch grass (onpurpose), and the hundreds of millions of tons of agricultural

residues left after harvest (referred to as “residue”).

There are two primary external drivers to the potential

market shift toward non-wood fibers: market demand for ecofriendly paper options and technological innovation. Global

demand for pulp and paper is projected to increase significantly, particularly in Asian markets. Concurrent with rising

demand, the pulp and paper industry is at a crossroads in its

fiber sourcing: either exploit the world’s intact forests to depletion, or in addition to maximizing the use of post-consumer

recycled fiber, develop and adopt the technological infrastructure to produce pulp and paper from environmentally preferable non-wood sources.

Replacing wood fiber with non-wood options, such as agricultural residues, delivers numerous advantages for paper production. Compared to wood fiber, the pulping process for nonwood fibers requires less water. It also requires shorter cooking

times, which reduces energy consumption. The use of nonwood fibers also alleviates stresses on intact and endangered

forest ecosystems, as paper manufacturers can meet their fiber

needs while reducing their reliance on wood fiber. It also provides alternative economic options for rural communities by

offering a value-added element to byproducts of grain harvests.

Both on-purpose and residue non-wood pulps can be

blended with multiple types of fiber including other nonwoods, recycled and sustainably managed wood pulp, to develop paper characteristics that suit the grade, cost, environmental

and performance requirements. In addition to versatility of

application, non-wood fibers are widely available; 262 million

metric tons of non-wood plant fibers are theoretically available

in North America for papermaking, including nearly 93 million

metric tons of straw. Globally the volume of non-wood fiber

suitable for the pulp and paper industry is estimated to be 2.5

billion metric tons. Given that less than 10 percent of the currently available non-wood fibers are used for pulp production

today, there is a lot of scope for increased utilization.

Currently most of the non-wood paper production in the

world is in developing nations. Technological innovation in

this field has been happening in Europe and North America,

but its application in these production regions has been slow

due to a reliance on wood fiber. The historical lack of interest

in non-woods in North America and Europe has meant that

far less research and development funds have been dedicated

to creating efficient and clean pulping processes for nonwoods than for wood. And even less has been dedicated to

building non-wood mills. It is in Asia and South Asia that nonwood fiber paper technology has primarily been adopted.

China recently built mass-scale production of non-wood

paper using both their own and Finnish technologies and India

has added energy efficient non-wood pulping into their production. Because there has been comparatively little research

and development funds dedicated to environmentally sound,

energy—and chemical-efficient non-wood pulping, there are

few examples of mills producing commercial-grade papers that

have been built that meet the environmental standards of

Europe or North America. The performance of these new mills

built in India and China that are pioneering environmental

technologies deserve to be watched, as will a few other North

American and British technologies currently being trialed.

However, the use of non-wood plant fibers presents challenges to the pulp and paper industry. Non-woods are general-

— 42 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
ly bulkier and lighter than wood. Their composition is low in

lignin and hemicellulose content, and higher in minerals such

as silica that need to be dealt with in the pulping process and/or

black liquor. The fibers also are quite different from wood and

from each other—providing different length, shear and tensile

qualities to the papermaking process. Plants such as flax, abaca,

hemp and kenaf contain bast fibers that are upwards of 15 times

the length of softwood fibers. Cereal straw fiber lengths are

equivalent to eucalyptus. Different plant types require different

processing and pulping systems than wood. Once pulped, these

fibers can be fed into traditional papermaking streams.

The reports cited in this section precede the growing trend

of major commercial paper consumers in North America setting purchasing policies that specify preference for non-wood

fiber content in paper for environmental reasons. This trend is

gaining traction in Europe as well and could result in environmental markets determining non-wood investment over the

coming years. As familiarity with the quality and performance

of non-wood papers grows in Europe and North America to

match market acceptance of these papers in Asia, major buyers

will increasingly ask for commercial grade non-wood content

paper. At this time there is insufficient commercial production

of non-wood papers to meet that demand in the West. With

paper consumption projected to increase, regional wood

shortages occurring, and decreasing market tolerance for

wood from the world’s remaining endangered forests, nonwood plant fibers are destined to become a common commercial paper fiber worldwide.

Indicator: Leading non-wood fibers 

in papermaking

Straw is the most common non-wood fiber currently used for

pulp and paper, accounting for 46 percent of total production.

Indicator: North American pulping capacity 

for non-wood plant fibers

U.S. production and use of non-wood plant fibers have

declined over the past 30 years and in Canada there are currently no commercial non-wood pulping facilities. During

1991, total production of non-wood plant fiber pulps in the

United States accounted for about 240,000 metric tons out of a

worldwide pulp production in excess of 57 million metric tons.

According to Atchison (1992), in the United States market, the

economics of pulp production have favored wood, and hence

the production and use of non-wood plant fiber pulps have

declined over the past 30 years, but there is renewed interest in

non-wood plant fibers and new capacity is slated to be built in

the United States. In Canada, one pulp manufacturer has completed a successful feasibility study, a second is considering

non-wood pulping infrastructure, and a third has achieved

financing for new mill infrastructure.

In 1998, the United States made up between 0.5 and 1 percent of the world’s total non-wood pulping capacity of 17.7

million tons. Non-wood pulping made up less than 10 percent

of the United States’ total pulping capacity (Conservatree

2005). This U.S. tonnage consisted mainly of pulp for specialty

papers that sell at a high price, including cotton fiber for currency and other specialty papers, cotton linters and flax straw

for cigarette paper, bagasse for insulating board, and abaca

(manila hemp) and other specialty fiber pulps for products

such as tea bags, filter papers and sausage casings.

Indicator: World pulping capacities 

for non-wood fiber

Asia accounts for 86 percent of the world’s total non-wood

pulping production. North America and Europe combined

account for less than 4 percent (Ince).

— 43 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Sources: Atchison 1995; FAO 1997.

4 Table 5. Total global papermaking pulp capacities

of leading non-wood fibers

Straw 6,166 5,260 7,623 9,566 12,318 17,014

Bagasse 2,339 2,267 2,646 2,984 3,516 4,387

Bamboo 1,545 1,674 1,468 1,316 1,137 807

Miscellaneous (cotton, reeds, sisal, 3,302 6,366 6,870 6,870 10,168 14,276

jute, hemp, abaca, kenaf, flax)

Total papermaking non-wood capacity 13,352 15,567 18,607 20,736 25,832 35,624

Total paper and paperboard production 178,558 225,887 238,939 250,359 312,056 397,780

Percentage non-wood 7.4% 6.9% 7.8% 8.3% 8.3% 9.0%

Raw Materials Total papermaking pulp capacities (thousand metric tons)

1985 1988 1990 1993 2000proj. 2010proj.
Total non-wood pulp and paper production globally is

approximately 17.7 million tons, 85 percent of which occurs

in China; much of the rest takes place in India, Thailand

and Pakistan (Ince). Modest targets for increased nonwood pulp production, utilizing existing crops, project that

by 2010, non-wood production could be over 80 million

tons (Atchison 1995). More ambitious targets, such as

Europe, North America and Russia utilizing non-woods for

10 to 20 percent of their pulp production, would make that

over 120 million tons. Even replacing 5 to 10 percent of

wood pulp with non-wood pulp would have an important

impact on the conservation of forests and the environment

(Mohta and Roy).

According to Mabee and Pande, China and India lead the

use of non-wood fiber for papermaking. Table 6 shows estimated regional non-wood pulping capacities for 1993, and

projected capacities for 1998.

WHAT THESE INDICATORS MEAN

There remain substantial barriers to the mass commercialization of non-wood fibers for pulp and paper:

4Non-woods grow high volumes per acre in the same location annually but can be expensive to ship distances because of

their bulk. Developing on-purpose and residue non-wood

pulping capacity in countries with the fiber but without the

infrastructure or tradition, will require a rethinking of the

location of mills and ultimately an investment in new pulping

technologies.

4The chemical composition of many non-wood plant fibers

prevents them from being a simple plug-in to current pulping technology, which has been optimized to handle the

chemical composition of wood fibers. New pulping systems

will need to be built into existing mills or new facilities built.

The non-wood pulp can then feed into conventional papermaking systems.

4Under proper pulping conditions, stalks from grasses and

grains yield a strong, high quality fiber that can replace the

hardwood pulps used to produce printing & writing papers

and corrugated board. Most research efforts are devoted to this

type of fiber because of greater economic returns. Little

research has been done in North America to date on incorporating this fiber source into the production of cheaper publication papers, such as newsprint.

Strategies for government and industry stakeholders:

4Government policies and corporate business models will be

a critical determinant of whether there is a global shortage in

paper fiber supply in the not so distant future. Done with

alacrity, countries could not only avert a paper fiber shortage,

they could also develop non-wood’s production capacity

ahead of the downward curve, to conserve endangered forests.

4A key first step to the commercialization of agricultural

residues in pulp and paper production is for government and

industry to increase research into efficient pulping and testing

of agricultural fiber pulp qualities. Included in this body of

work are technology developments for outstanding processing

issues such as de-silication and black liquor treatment.

4Government and industry also need to jointly invest in

nationwide strategies for developing non-wood pulping

capacity. This includes looking into potentials for new mill

infrastructure, add-on infrastructure to existing mills located

near agricultural areas and bioregional mill designs.

Partnerships with private sector financing will be critical in

this stage of project rollout.

Strategies for environmental non-governmental

organization (ENGO) stakeholders:

Thorough ecological footprint and lifecycle analyses should be

conducted to resolve questions about the environmental benefits of using on-purpose and residue non-wood fibers in pulp

and paper.While there is broad support within the environmental community for using agricultural residues in paper, on-purpose non-wood fiber requires further research. Additionally,

attention should be paid to ensure that the amount of straw

removed from a farm does not contribute to soil degradation.

ENGOs should insist on this analysis prior to mills moving forward with the assumption of environmental approval.

ENGOs are in position to direct markets toward nonwood paper content. This can have a positive effect on the

investment climate for non-wood pulping infrastructure if it is

communicated in a coordinated fashion to the industry.

— 44 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

4 Table 6. Regional non-wood pulping capacities

Asia-Pacific 17,924 86.4 20,516 87.4

Latin America 1,466 7.1 1,511 6.4

North America 179 0.9 204 0.9

Europe 512 2.5 523 2.2

Africa 226 1.1 226 1.0

World Total 20,736 100 23,471 100

1993 1998 (estimated)

Region

Nonwood

pulping

capacity

(000 metric

tons)

%

of world

pulping

capacity

Nonwood

pulping

capacity

(000 metric

tons)

%

of world

pulping

capacity
REFERENCES

Adams, J. Estimates of total carbon storage in various important reservoirs.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/carbon2.html (accessed

September 1, 2006).

Atchison, J.E. 1992. U.S. nonwood fiber potential rises as wood costs escalate. Pulp and paper, 66(9): 139–141.

———. 1995. Twenty-five years of global progress in non-wood plant fibre

pulping—historical highlights, present status and future prospects.

Proceedings, TAPPI pulping conference (Book 1): 91–101. Atlanta:

TAPPI Press.

Bailey, C., P.R. Sinclair and M.R. Dubois. 2005. Future forests: Forecasting

social and ecological consequences of genetic engineering. Society and

Natural Resources 18(2):119-134.

Baumert, Kevin A., T. Herzog and J. Pershing. 2005. Navigating the numbers: Greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. Washington,

D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Bowater, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council and Dogwood Alliance.

2005. Memorandum of Understanding.

Bowyer, Jim, Jeff Howe, Phil Guillery, and Kathryn Fernholz. 2005. FastGrowth Tree Plantations for Wood Production: Environmental Threat

or a Means of “Saving” Natural Forests? Dovetail Partners, Inc.

Bryant, D., D. Nielsen and L. Tangley. 1997. The last frontier forests:

Ecosystems and economies on the edge. World Resources Institute.

http://pdf.wri.org/last_frontier_forests.pdf.

Cadman, S. 2003. Landscape change in the Meander Valley: A case study

for monitoring and reporting of land use modification, vegetation condition and biodiversity loss: Report to Meander Valley Council and

Environment Australia, May.

———. Personal communication, October 27, 2006.

Carrere, R. and L. Lohmann. 1996. Pulping the South: Industrial tree plantations in the world paper economy. London and New Jersey: Zed

Books.

Conservation International. Biological hotspots.

http://www.conservation.org/xp/Hotspots/chilean_forests/ (accessed

September 1, 2006).

Conservatree. 2005. Paper listening study.

http://www.conservatree.org/paperlisteningstudy/TreeFree/question44.html (accessed September 15, 2006).

Cox, C. and M. Surgan. 2006. Unidentified inert ingredients in pesticides:

Implications for human and environmental health. Environmental

Health Perspectives 114:1803–1806. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9374/9374.html (accessed September 19, 2006).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1997.

Provisional outlook for global forest products consumption, production

and trade to 2010. Rome: Forestry Department, Food and Agricultural

Organization of the United Nations.

———. 2004. Preliminary review of biotechnology in forestry, including

genetic modification. Forest Genetic Resources Working Paper

FGR/59E. Forest Resources Development Service, Forest Resources

Division. Rome, Italy.

———. 2005. Global forest resources assessment 2005: 15 key findings.

http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/data/fra2005/kf/common/GlobalFores

tA4-ENsmall.pdf (accessed September 1, 2006).

ForestEthics. 2004. Bringing down the boreal. July 20.

http://www.forestethics.org.

———. 2006. The great bear resource agreement. February 6.

http://forestethics.org/article.php?id=1327 (accessed September 19,

2006).

ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council and

Rainforest Action Network. 2006. Ecological components of endangered

forests. April. http://www.forestethics.org/article.php?id=1176.

Forest Stewardship Council. 2003. Forest plantations fact sheet, November.

http://www.fsc.org/plantations/docs/Briefings/Forest%20Plantations%2

0Fact%20Sheet%20November%202003%20(EN).pdf (accessed

September 1, 2006).

————. 2007(a). Personal Communication with Romona Anton of

Accreditation Services International using FSC data, (May 14, 2007).

————. 2007(b). “FSC International Market Survey.” Presentation of

Survey Findings. March 2007.

————. 2007(c). German Working Group. “FSC’s impact on the

ground: FSC Pulp and Paper Make Headlines the World Over.”

Forest Practices Authority (Tasmania, Australia). 2005. Annual report on

forest practices.

http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=81&tx_avotherresources_pi1[a

ction]=ResByCat&tx_avotherresources_pi1[cat]=2 (accessed October

30, 2006).

German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). 1998. Special

report: The accounting of biological sinks and sources under the Kyoto

Protocol—A step forwards or backwards for global environmental protection? Bremerhaven.

Global Forest Watch. 2002. Chile’s frontier forests: Conserving a global

treasure. World Resources Institute.

http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/chile/pdf/chile_report_lowrez

.pdf (accessed September 1, 2006).

Global Justice Ecology Project. International status of GE trees: UN FAO

Report. http://www.globaljusticeecology.org (accessed August 31, 2006).

Greenpeace. Web page: The world’s last intact forest landscapes.

http://www.intactforests.org/statistics/statistics.htm.

———. 2005. News release: Fighting forest felling for paper industry.

Republished on website of Printingtalk, May 4, 2005. http://www.printingtalk.com/news/grn/grn100.html, (accessed September 19, 2006).

Hannon, Susan J. and Cindy McCallum. 2004. Using the focal species

approach for conserving biodiversity in landscapes managed for

forestry. University of Alberta, Department of Biological Sciences.

www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/susan_hannon/uploads/pdfs/white_pa

per_focal_spp.pdf .

Harmon, Mark E., William K. Ferrell, and Jerry F. Franklin. 1990. Effects on

carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests.

Science, February, 247(4943): 699-702.

Ince, P .J. 2004. Pulping. USDA Forest Service.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2004/fpl_2004_ince001.pdf#searc

h=%22total%20production%20of%20nonwood%20plant%20fiber%20

pulp%22 (accessed September 18, 2006).

Mabee, W. E. and H. Pande. 1997. FAO global fibre supply working paper

no. 4: Recovered and non-wood fibre: Effects of alternative fibres on

global fibre supply. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the

United Nations. GFSS/WP/04.

Malessa, U. 2006. FSC holds its promises in paper. Forest Stewardship

Council German Working Group, April.

Matthews, E. et al. 2002. The state of the forest: Indonesia. World Resources

Institute, February.

http://www.wri.org/biodiv/pubs_description.cfm?pid=3147 (accessed

September 1, 2006).

McCloskey, J.T. 1995. What about non-woods? TAPPI Global Fibre Supply

Symposium, p. 95–106. Atlanta: TAPPI Press.

Mohta, D. and D.N. Roy. 1999. Forests, fiber, and the environment—in view

of the fiber supply to the pulp and paper industry. The Forestry

Chronicle, 75(2): 247–255.

NASA. 2005. Earth observatory news: Storing carbon to combat global

warming may cause other environmental problems. December 22.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/200512

2221292.html (accessed September 19, 2006).

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2005. NRDC fact sheet:

Logging pushes Alberta caribou herds toward extinction.

http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/tissuefacts/alberta.pdf (accessed

September 19, 2006).

Neira, Eduardo, et al. 2002. Chile’s frontier forests: Conserving a global

treasure. World Resources Institute/Global Forest Watch Chile.

www.globalforestwatch.org/english/chile/pdf/chile_report_lowrez.pdf

Newspaper Association of America (NAA). 1998. Alternative sources for

newsprint: NAA report on non-wood plant fibers. Vienna, VA: NAA.

Office Depot. Environmental paper procurement policy & vision statement. http://www.community.officedepot.com/paperproc.asp (accessed

October 30, 2006).

Ozinga, S. 2004. Footprints in the forest: Current practice and future challenges in forest certification. Forests and the European Union Resource

Network (FERN), February. www.fern.org/pubs/reports/footprints.pdf.

— 45 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Petermann, A., and B. Tokar. 2001. From native forests to Franken-trees:

The global threat of genetically engineered trees. Native Forest Network.

Sampson, V. and L. Lohmann. 2000. Corner House Briefing 21. Genetic

dialectic: The biological politics of genetically modified trees.

December. http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk.

Save Our Cumberland Mountains. Aerial spraying/toxics committee.

http://www.socm.org/toxics.html (accessed September 19, 2006).

SCS 2006. “SCS Reports Robust Growth in FSC Chain-of-Custody

Certification.” Press Release of November 13, 2006.

Sohngen, B. and S. Brown. 2004. The influence of conversion of forest types

on carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services in the South

Central United States. http://www-agecon.ag.ohiostate.edu/people/sohngen.1/forests/HW_SW_paper_v2.pdf (accessed

September 1, 2006).

Tan, A.L. 2003. On the ground—Forest certification: Green stamp of

approval or rubber stamp of destruction? ForestEthics, Greenpeace and

Sierra Club of Canada, BC Chapter. http://www.ecotimber.com/reports/.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Rio declaration on

environment and development. http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 (accessed

September 19, 2006).

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2005. Forest

and conflicts. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/conflict/publications/docs/CMM_Forests_and_Conflict_2005.pd

f#search=%22indigenous%20people%20and%20paper%20industry%20site%3A.gov%22 (accessed September 19, 2006).

United States Department of Agriculture. 1997. Economic Research

Service, Agricultural Outlook, November.

United States Department of State. 2001. The problem of biodiversity.

International information programs, April. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/biodiv/homepage.htm (accessed October 3, 2006).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Consumer factsheet on glyphosate.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/glyphosa.html

(accessed September 19, 2006).

Virginia Department of Forestry. What are the risks in forestry herbicide

applications? http://www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/herbicide-risks.shtml

(accessed May 31, 2006).

Watson, R.T., et al. IPCC special report on land use, land-use change and

forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use/index.htm (accessed

September 19, 2006).

Wear, D. and J.G. Greis. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. USDA

Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Williams, T. 2000. False forests. Mother Jones, May/June.

WWF. Valdivian ecoregion programme, Chile.

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_

caribbean/solutions_region/valdivian/index.cfm (accessed September 1,

2006).

1 For more information, see www.eyesontheforest.or.id.

2 For a description of rare and vulnerable ecoregions, see WWF’s

Ecoregion website at

www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/about/index.cf

m.

3 Hannon and McCallum define focal conservation species as “small number of species whose distributions and abundances are well known; used

in conservation planning; assumed to reflect the distribution and abundance of the regional biota; subsumes indicators and umbrella species.”

4 Native forests are indigenous forest types, or forests where the range of

species is natural to the region. These forests can be old-growth forest,

primary forest or secondary forest that has already been logged, but

retains a natural species range.

5 See www.worldwildlife.org/wildplaces/about.cfm.

— 46 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
OVERVIEW

This section presents the major indicators of environmental

impact of the manufacturing phase of the paper lifecycle.

While the indicators themselves are valid globally, aggregate

global data on paper industry emissions are difficult to come

by. Therefore, industry-level data reported in this section are

from paper mills in the United States.

Thanks to environmental regulations, notably the Clean

Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and

the Cluster Rules, paper mills in the United States are significantly cleaner than they were a few decades ago. Gone are the

days when paper mills routinely dumped untreated effluent

into rivers and streams, and when the rotten-egg smell of sulfur compounds hung like a blanket over paper mill towns.

But pollution remains a fact of life for the paper industry,

given its resource and chemical intensity, and paper continues

to rank at or near the top among manufacturing industries for

resource intensity, and releases to air and water.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

CLEANER PRODUCTION

Resource Inputs

Indicator: Wood use

Paper production is responsible for over forty percent of the

world’s total wood harvest (Abramovitz and Mattoon).

Even with advances in recycling over the past two decades, the

primary fiber input into papermaking is still trees. In the

United States, 38 percent of the industrial wood harvest, or 228

million tons, is used to make paper (Paperloop). The impacts

of commercial forestry to produce this much wood are discussed in the section on Responsible Fiber Sourcing.

Indicator: Water use

The paper industry is the largest user per ton of product of

industrial process water in the United States.

The paper industry is the largest user per ton of product of

industrial process water in the United States (U.S. EPA,

2002). A typical mill producing virgin bleached chemical

pulp uses between 4,000 to 12,000 gallons of water per ton of

pulp produced (U.S. Department of Energy).

Water use is of increasing concern due to problems with

freshwater scarcity in many parts of the world, exacerbated

by global warming which may cause flooding in some areas,

droughts in others, and shifts in the times of year when rain

falls. By 2025, roughly 5 billion people may live in waterstressed regions where global warming effects could further

reduce groundwater recharge and streamflow (Karas).

Depending on where they are located, paper mills’ heavy

reliance on process water may contribute to water scarcity in

those regions. Moreover, the withdrawal and return of large

amounts of water from rivers and streams can have major

ecological impacts, which are made even worse at drier times

of year and during droughts.

— 47 —

CHAPTER FIVE

u

C LEANER PRODUCTION

Common Vision Goals:

• Minimize the combined impacts of water, wood and chemical usage, as well as air, water,

solid waste, and thermal pollution across the entire paper productios system including:

fiber production/sourcing, pulping, production, transportation, use disposal.

• Eliminate harmful pulp and paper mill discharges and the use of chlorine 

compounds for bleaching.
Indicator: Energy use

The paper industry accounts for over 12 percent of total manufacturing energy use in the United States.

In addition to water, it takes a tremendous amount of energy to

turn a tree into paper. The paper industry accounts for over 12

percent of total manufacturing energy use (Martin et al.). In

1998, the pulp and paper industry accounted for 84 percent of

total fuel energy use in the forest products industry at 2.7

quadrillion Btus (U.S. Energy Information Administration

2004).

Paper mills draw energy from a variety of sources, including purchased electricity or fossil fuels, and the burning of

wood-derived process waste (sometimes called biomass).

Because no energy source is free of environmental impacts,

the most important indicator is total energy use, regardless of

the source.

Indicator: Calcium carbonate use 

Calcium carbonate use in paper quadrupled between 1992 and

2000, and now makes up over 50 percent of all fillers used in

paper production.

Calcium carbonate, or crushed marble, is increasingly used as a

filler in many kinds of paper. Calcium carbonate use quadrupled between 1992 and 2000, and now makes up over 50 percent of all fillers used in paper production.While it does reduce

reliance on virgin tree fiber, it comes with its own environmental impacts, which include land-use and industrial impacts on

communities where quarries and processing plants are located,

large-scale water extraction, toxic releases and waste disposal

(Vermonters for a Clean Environment). For more information,

visit www.vce.org/understandingomya.html.

RELEASES TO AIR

Indicator: Greenhouse gas emissions

The pulp and paper industry is the fourth largest emitter of

greenhouse gases among manufacturing industries, and contributes 9 percent of total manufacturing carbon dioxide

emissions (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2002;

Martin et al.).

As one of the biggest industrial consumers of energy, it follows

that paper is also one of the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide

and other gases that contribute to climate change. Looking just

at the manufacturing phase of the lifecycle, the biggest greenhouse gas releases come from energy production needed to

power the pulp and paper mill.

Some types of mills—those that produce chemical, or

kraft, pulp—are able to recover energy by burning the woodderived process waste from pulp production. (This reflects the

low yield of the chemical pulping process, where only 50 percent of the dry weight of the original wood ends up as usable

pulp.)

This energy source, known as biomass, is sometimes characterized as a renewable resource (because trees can be

regrown), or described as climate neutral (because the carbon

released from burning that wood was originally absorbed by

the trees as they grew). Both labels are deceptive, since no

energy source is free of environmental impacts. Growing and

harvesting trees for energy can deplete a non-renewable

resource—natural forests—and can adversely affect water

quality, biodiversity, habitat for endangered plants and animals, and the integrity of natural forest ecosystems (see the

Responsible Fiber Sourcing section). Note that mechanical

and recycled pulp mills do not have access to this energy

source, so their purchased energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions may be higher, on a per ton basis, than

those for virgin kraft pulp.

Finally, a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions

from the paper lifecycle is the decomposition of paper in landfills, which releases methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times

the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide (UNEP). As discussed in the Maximize Recycled Content section of this

report, switching to recycled paper can significantly reduce the

climate impacts of paper production and disposal.

Indicator: Sulfur dioxide

The U.S. pulp and paper industry emitted 488,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2001. It ranks third by industry in sulfur dioxide

emissions, behind ground transportation and fossil-fuel electric power production (U.S. EPA 2002).

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a chemical compound produced when

boilers burn fuel that contains sulfur. Of the fuels used in the

paper industry, oil and coal generally contain the highest

quantities of sulfur. In addition to being a greenhouse gas, sulfur dioxide can cause haze and acid rain. The environmental

effects of acid rain include the acidification of lakes and

streams, damage to forests, corrosion of buildings and

machinery, and poor air quality, which in turn causes respiratory problems such as asthma and bronchitis.

— 48 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Sulfur dioxide can also react with other chemicals and

form tiny sulfate particles in the air that can lodge in people’s

lungs. These particles have been associated with increased respiratory disease, difficulty breathing and even premature

death (U.S. EPA 2006c).

Indicator: Nitrogen oxides 

The U.S. pulp and paper industry emitted 318,000 tons of

nitrogen oxides in 2001. Pulp and paper production ranks fifth

in industrial nitrogen oxide emissions, behind ground transportation, fossil fuel electric power, the stone, glass, clay and

concrete industries, and oil and gas extraction (U.S. EPA 2002).

Nitrogen oxides (NOx, which include NO and NO2) are products of the combustion of fuels in boilers. Nitrogen oxides contribute to two major pollution problems: smog and acid rain.

NOx combine with volatile organic compounds and sunlight

in the lower atmosphere to form ozone, a key component of

smog. In moist air, nitrogen oxides can also form nitric acid,

which is precipitated as a component of acid rain. The environmental and health effects of acid rain are described above,

under sulfur dioxide.

Indicator: Particulate matter

In the U.S., pulp and paper production emitted nearly 150,000

tons of total particulate matter in 2001 and ranks fourth in

particulate emissions behind ground transportation, fossil fuel

electric power production, and the stone, clay, glass and concrete industries (U.S. EPA 2002).

Particulates are small particles that are dispersed into the atmosphere from combustion, either from producing the energy

required to power the mill, or from the pulp and paper production process itself.The relevant indicator for pulp and paper mills

is particulate matter (PM), which the U.S. EPA has identified as a

criteria pollutant, and for which it has established maximum

concentrations above which adverse effects on human health

may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (U.S. EPA 2006a).

Pulp and paper mills are required by law to report releases of

both coarse and fine particles (PM–10 and PM–2.5). In general,

the smallest particles pose the highest human health risks.

Exposure to particulate matter can affect breathing, aggravate

existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alter the body’s

defense systems against foreign materials, and damage lung tissue,

contributing to cancer and premature death (U.S. EPA 2006c).

Indicator: Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The U.S. pulp and paper sector ranks fifth in releases of hazardous air pollutants, behind commodity chemicals, construction, petroleum refining and furniture.

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are any of a group of 188 substances identified in the 1990 Clear Air Act amendments because

of their toxicity. HAPs include pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as

reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental

effects. The pulp and paper sector ranks fifth in releases of HAPs,

behind commodity chemicals, construction, petroleum refining

and furniture (Environmental Roadmapping Initiative), and are

required by law to report their HAP releases (U.S. EPA 2002).

Indicator: Volatile organic compounds

The U.S. pulp and paper industry emitted 144,373 tons of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 2001. It is the fourth

largest contributor of VOC emissions to the atmosphere by

industry sector.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a broad class of

organic compounds that are gases at room temperature, such

as vapors from solvents. VOCs react with nitrogen oxides

(NOx) to form ground-level ozone, the major component of

smog and a severe lung irritant.

The pulp and paper industry is the fourth highest contributor of VOC emissions to the atmosphere by industry sector

(U.S. EPA 2002). Methanol, a VOC that is a byproduct of pulp

production, is one of the paper industry’s highest-volume

chemical releases, as reported on the Toxics Release Inventory

for both fugitive air and point air emissions (U.S. EPA 2005).

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require pulp and paper

mills to report their emissions of VOCs.

Indicator: Total reduced sulfur

Total reduced sulfur compounds cause the distinct odor associated with kraft pulp mills. According to the EPA Sector

Notebook for the pulp and paper industry,“humans can detect

some TRS compounds in the air as a ‘rotten egg’ odor at as little as one part per billion” (U.S. EPA 2002).

Exposure to total reduced sulfur emissions has been linked to

symptoms including headaches, watery eyes, nasal problems and

— 49 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
breathing difficulties.Total reduced sulfur emissions are regulated

by new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section III

of the Clean Air Act. Reducing the release of these components

can improve the quality of life in the local community.

Indicator: Mercury

Some mercury is released when coal is burned by power plants

to produce electricity to run paper mills. Another significant

source of mercury is from the production of chemicals used in

the pulping process. Some older chemical plants release significant amounts of mercury when making caustic soda, or lye,

although the majority of caustic-soda manufacturing facilities

use mercury-free processes. According to the Natural

Resources Defense Council, “The pulp and paper industry is

the single largest consumer of caustic soda worldwide, and

paper suppliers and manufacturers thus have a large role to

play in the marketplace to reduce mercury pollution problems

from these sources” (NRDC). Specifically, paper purchasers

should avoid suppliers that purchase pulping chemicals from

facilities that use a mercury-based process. A list of these facilities is provided in Appendix D.

RELEASES TO WATER

Indicator: Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds

Pulp and paper ranks fourth among U.S. manufacturing industries in the release of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to the

air, and third in releases of these chemicals to surface water.

Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds (including furans) are a

group of persistent, toxic substances that are produced when

unbleached pulp is exposed to chlorine compounds. The

National Toxicology Program has designated dioxins as

known human carcinogens. (National Institutes of Health).

While replacing elemental chlorine with chlorine dioxide

in bleaching processes (as U.S. mills were required to do in the

late 1990s by the Cluster Rule) significantly reduces the generation of dioxins, it does not eliminate them. According to the

U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), pulp and paper

ranks fourth among U.S. manufacturing industries in the

release of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to the air, and

third in releases of these chemicals to water (U.S. EPA 2006d).

The TRI has included reporting parameters for dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds since 2000, and mills are required to

report their releases.

LOCAL INDICATORS

The next set of indicators measure pollutants released to a

paper mill’s receiving waters—typically, rivers or streams. The

resulting environmental impact depends on local factors such

as the volume and composition of pollutants released, and the

volume and flow of the receiving waters. For this reason, aggregate industry data is typically not available, but a general

explanation of the indicator is provided. These indicators are

useful primarily for tracking a particular mill or company’s

environmental performance (see “How to use the indicators”

at the end of this section).

Indicator: Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

Biochemical oxygen demand, or BOD, measures the amount of

oxygen consumed by microorganisms in decomposing organic matter in stream water. BOD also measures the chemical

oxidation of inorganic matter (that is, the extraction of oxygen

from water via chemical reaction).

BOD directly affects the amount of dissolved oxygen in

rivers and streams. The greater the BOD, the more rapidly oxygen is depleted in the stream. This means less oxygen is available

to higher forms of aquatic life. The consequences of high BOD

are the same as those for low dissolved oxygen: aquatic organisms become stressed, suffocate and die (U.S. EPA 2006b).

Indicator: Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) measures the amount of

oxidizable compounds (composed of carbon and hydrogen)

present in the water. Since an effluent-treatment system

removes most of the organic material that would be degraded

naturally in the receiving waters, the COD of the final effluent

provides information about the quantity of more persistent

substances discharged into the receiving water.

Indicator: Total suspended solids (TSS)

Total suspended solids (TSS) measure solid material suspended in mill effluent, which can adversely affect bottomliving organisms upon settling in receiving waters and can

carry toxic heavy metals and organic compounds into the

environment.

— 50 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
Indicator: Adsorbable organic halogens (AOX)

Adsorbable organic halogens (AOX) are an indirect measure

of the quantity of chlorinated organic compounds in chemical

pulp mill effluent, many of which are toxic and may persist in

the environment. AOX is mainly an issue for bleached kraft

pulp mills, which use chlorine compounds to brighten pulp.

Indicator: Total nitrogen and total phosphorus

Nitrogen compounds (such as nitrates, nitrites and ammonia)

and phosphorus are nutrients that are added to the wastewater

treatment process to aid in removal of dissolved organic material from the effluent. When present in excess amounts, nitrogen and phosphorus can have significant adverse effects on the

quality of receiving waters, by causing dramatic increases in

aquatic plant growth (known as blooms) and changes in the

types of plants and animals that live in the waterway. Changes

in algal communities can lead to blooms of toxic algae.

The excessive algal growth can result in very low dissolved oxygen levels which can kill fish and other

aquatic organisms.

Nutrient loading and its related impacts—including algae blooms and fish kills—are an increasing

environmental problem in both inland and coastal

waters. It is important to note that the problem of

nutrient loading is different from the release of specific water pollutants, and therefore, the impacts of nitrogen releases are not fully captured by other indicators

of releases to water such as BOD and COD.

Many paper suppliers routinely report both nitrogen and phosphorus releases; some are required to by

law because of the impact of such releases both on

local water quality and on water quality at distances

downstream where loadings can accumulate, such as

estuaries. Nitrogen is a problem in marine areas, while

phosphorus is more of a problem with inland (fresh)

water bodies.

Indicator: Effluent flow

Wastewater volume is a meaningful environmental

measure, as it indicates both the amount of fresh

water needed in production and the potential impact

of wastewater discharges—that’s why it’s often regulated. The

withdrawal and return of large amounts of water from rivers

and streams can have major ecological impacts, which are

made even worse at drier times of year and during droughts.

And even treated wastewater carries with it various processrelated pollutants (see BOD, COD, AOX, TRS above).

OTHER INDICATORS

Indicator: Bleaching processes 

used for all bleached pulp

The lion’s share of environmental impacts from producing

bleached kraft (chemical) pulp comes from the bleaching

process itself.And the choice of bleaching process is a major factor in a mill’s environmental performance. Thus, the bleaching

process is not a specific environmental measure, but an indirect

measure of mill efficiency and as such can be a useful proxy for

a range of different environmental impacts.Advanced bleaching

— 51 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Source: Environmental Defense 2001.

Totally chlorine

free (TCF) or

processed chlorine

free (PCF)

Enhanced 

elemental 

chlorine-free (ECF)

with ozone

ECF with extended

or oxygen delignification (“enhanced

ECF”)

Elemental 

chlorine-free 

(“traditional ECF”)

Elemental chlorine 

Completely substitutes

oxygen-based for chlorine

compounds.

Uses ozone as brightening agent in initial stages

of bleaching process

(final stage uses chlorine

dioxide).

Removes more of the

lignin before bleaching,

thus reducing energy and

chemical use during

bleaching.

Replaces elemental chlorine with chlorine dioxide.

Uses elemental 

chlorine to bleach pulp.

Further improves quality of

wastewater. Enables virtually

complete recovery and reuse of

wastewater.

Further improves quality of

wastewater. Reduces quantity

of mill wastewater by 70% to

90% compared with traditional

ECF. Enables recovery of most

wastewater.

Compared with traditional ECF,

reduces energy consumption by

30%, improves quality of mill

wastewater, and reduces quantity of mill wastewater by nearly 50%.

Improves quality of wastewater

compared to elemental chlorine.

 

Phased out in the United States

as of April 2001 per EPA’s

Cluster Rule.

4 Table 7. Common bleaching processes used 

by the paper industry

Process How It Works Environmental Advantage
processes reduce the quantity and improve the quality of all

environmental releases from pulp and paper mills. They also

can reduce water use, by allowing more of the process water to

be recirculated and reused prior to treatment and discharge.

While the environmental benefits of advanced bleaching

processes would also show up under other indicators, identifying the bleaching process separately allows purchasers and

others to recognize more easily which mills have installed pollution prevention technologies than a line-by-line comparison

of individual impacts would allow.

Table 7 lists the most common bleaching processes used.

Shaded rows represent environmentally preferable technologies.

While elemental chlorine bleaching has been phased out in

the United States, it still accounts for 20 percent of the bleached

kraft pulp production worldwide. About 75 percent of world

bleached kraft pulp production is elemental chlorine-free

(ECF), but significant variations in environmental performance exist within the ECF pulping processes. Only about 5 to 7

percent of world virgin pulp production is totally chlorine free,

mainly because this technology requires a higher capital

investment and is therefore found where environmental regulations are strongest and water scarcity is an issue (Reach for

Unbleached Foundation). Deinked pulp used to make recycled

paper is almost always brightened with hydrogen peroxide, so

the environmental impacts of chlorine-based bleaching are

not an issue.

Indicator: Solid waste

Solid waste from pulp and paper production may include noncombustible process waste, sludge from wastewater treatment,

or in the case of recycled paper production, deinking mill

sludge. (It is worth noting that the same inks, coatings and

fillers present in recycling mill sludge would go into the

ground anyway if the paper were landfilled instead of recycled.) Solid waste from pulp and paper manufacturing is

dwarfed by the lifecycle contribution of paper to solid waste,

when paper is disposed of in landfills and incinerators instead

of being recycled.

How to use the indicators

There are a number of levels on which these environmental

performance indicators may be tracked, depending on how the

information is to be used.

Industry level

For policy and advocacy purposes on a national or global

scale, it is most useful to track environmental performance

indicators on an industry level. This also helps purchasers,

NGOs and policymakers place the environmental performance of the paper industry in context, by allowing comparisons

with other industry sectors on key indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy and water use, and chemical

releases.

Company level

Many of these environmental performance indicators are

reported at the company level, often in paper companies’ annual environmental reports, which roll up all of the individual

impacts of the mills that the company owns. Tracking these

indicators at the company level helps purchasers differentiate

among suppliers on their environmental performance, and

helps inform advocacy efforts to influence individual suppliers.

Mill level

These same indicators can be used by purchasers, advocacy

groups and others to evaluate and compare the environmental

performance of individual paper mills. Indeed, understanding

a mill’s environmental footprint requires ongoing tracking of

the comprehensive set of indicators listed above. Paper purchasers can make environmental performance a key criterion

in their choice of suppliers, and use an annual review of

progress as a way to encourage continuous improvement. For

this purpose, data for each indicator should be gathered in

consistent units (for example, per ton of final product), so as to

enable apples-to-apples comparisons across mills and over

time. A sample form for evaluating paper mill performance is

attached as Appendix E.

Tracking these indicators at the industry, company and

mill level can highlight what’s working, what needs attention,

and what stakeholders can do to move individual paper suppliers, and the paper industry as a whole, toward cleaner, more

efficient paper production.

— 52 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
R EFERENCES

Abramovitz, J.N. and A.T. Mattoon. 1999. Worldwatch paper #149:

Paper cuts: Recovering the paper landscape. WorldWatch Institute.

http://www.worldwatch.org.

Environmental Defense. 2001. Evaluating supplier performance.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2850_Evaluating

SupplierPerformance.pdf (accessed November 9, 2006).

Environmental Roadmapping Initiative. 2004. Pulp and paper: impacts,

risks and regulations. National Center for Manufacturing Sciences.

http://ecm.ncms.org/ERI/new/IRRpaper.htm (accessed September

7, 2005).

Karas, T.H. 2003. Global climate change and international security.

Sandia National Laboratories, November. http://www.sandia.gov/

ACG/documents/sandreports/SAND20034114.pdf#search=%22fre

sh%20water%20scarcity%20global%20warming%20site%3A.gov%

20%22 (accessed September 19, 2006).

Martin, N., N. Anglani, D. Einstein, M. Khrushch, E. Worrell, and L.K.

Price. 2000. Opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce

greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. pulp and paper industry. Ernest

Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, July. http://

www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/767608-u2AeNa/

native/767608.pdf (accessed November 3, 2006).

National Institutes of Health. 2001. Press release: TCDD—Dioxin—is

listed as “known human carcinogen” in federal government’s ninth

report on carcinogens. U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, January 19. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/dioxadd

.htm (accessed November 4, 2006).

National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2006. Getting mercury

out of paper production. http://www.nrdc.org/cities/living/mercury.asp (accessed November 9, 2006).

Paperloop. 2004. 2003–2004 Pulp & paper global fact & price book. San

Francisco: Paperloop, Inc.

Reach for Unbleached Foundation. Clean production. http://www.rfu

.org/cacw/production.html (accessed September 12, 2006).

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2001. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment “Climate

Change 2001.”

United States Department of Energy.2005.Forest products: Industry of the

future.Annual report fiscal year 2004.Industrial Technologies Program.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/about/pdfs/forest_fy2004.pdf

(accessed May 24, 2005).

United States Energy Information Administration. 2002. Manu-facturing energy consumption survey. http:// www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/carbon_emissions/carbon_mfg.html#figure_1 (accessed

November 9, 2006).

———. 2004. Forest products industry analysis brief. http://

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/iab98/forest/sector.html (accessed

November 9, 2006).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Chemical

releases and transfers: Pulp and paper industry. Sector notebook.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/pulppasnp2.pdf (accessed September 5,

2006).

———. 2005. TRI on-site and off-site reported disposed of or otherwise released, U.S., 2003. http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer (accessed

September 8, 2005).

———. 2006a. Air and radiation: Basic information. http://

www.epa.gov/air/basic.html (accessed September 5, 2006).

———. 2006b. Monitoring and assessing water quality. http://

www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/vms52.html (accessed November 9,

2006).

———. 2006c. National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed November 9, 2006).

———. 2006d. TRI Explorer. http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer

(accessed November 9, 2006).

Vermonters for a Clean Environment. 2006. Understanding OMYA in

Vermont. http://www.vce.org/understandingomya.html (accessed

September 10, 2006).

— 53 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
APPENDICES

u

A PPENDIX A: LIST OF INDICA TORS

Minimizing Paper Consumption

• Global Paper and Paperboard Consumption

— By country or region 

— By paper grade

— Per capita

• U.S. Paper Consumption

— By grade

• U.S. Printing & Writing Paper Consumption

— By end use

Maximizing Recycled Content 

• North American Recycled Pulp

— Percent of pulp made from recovered fiber

—Volume of North American high grade deinking capacity

• North American Paper and Paper Products

— Recycled content in papers and paper products,

by sector and grades

— Recycled content in printing & writing paper

— Minimum content recycled fiber specifications 

and standards 

— Recycled paper choices available in each grade 

• Recovered Fiber Sources

— Paper in the U.S. municipal solid waste stream

— Recovery rates by grade of paper

— Recovery rate for office papers

— Recovered high grade papers directed to 

“highest and best use”

— Mixed paper in recovered paper collections 

vs. sorted papers

• Demand for U.S. Recovered Paper

— U.S. exports of recovered paper

— Recycling capacity in developing nations

Sourcing Fiber Responsibly

• Wood Fiber

— Monitoring endangered and high conservation 

value forests

— Stakeholder engagement and agreements

— Protection of endangered forests and high 

conservation value forests

• Certification of Forest Products

— Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification

— FSC certified paper products reaching consumers

• Conversion of Forests to Plantations

— Rate of conversion of forests to plantations

— Percentage of plantation area certified by FSC

— Number of corporate commitments to 

avoid conversion of forests 

• Use of Synthetic Chemicals

— Use of herbicides on tree plantations

— Use of synthetic fertilizers on tree plantations

• Genetically Engineered Trees 

— Outdoor field trials of genetically engineered trees

• Non-wood Plant Fiber

— Leading non-wood fibers in papermaking

— North American pulping capacity for 

non-wood plant fibers

— World pulping capacities for non-wood fiber

Employing Cleaner Production Practices

• Resource Inputs

— Wood use

— Water use

— Energy use

— Calcium carbonate use 

• Releases to Air

— Greenhouse gas emissions

— Sulfur dioxide

— Nitrogen oxides 

— Particulate matter

— Hazardous air pollutants

— Volatile organic compounds

— Total reduced sulfur

— Mercury

• Releases to Water

— Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds

— Biochemical oxygen demand

— Chemical oxygen demand

— Total suspended solids

— Adsorbable organic halogens

— Total nitrogen and total phosphorus

— Effluent flow

• Other Indicators

— Bleaching processes used for all bleached pulp

— Solid waste

— 54 —
UNITED STATES

In the southern United States, industrial tree plantations

expanded 1,600 percent from 1953 to 1999. Monoculture pine

plantations currently cover 32 million acres (13 million

hectares), comprising 15 percent of all southern U.S. timberland, that is, land covered by trees. Between the 1980s and

1990s, forty-seven percent of pine plantations were established

on land that was previously natural hardwood or mixed pinehardwood forests and 28 percent of pine plantations were

established on land that was formerly natural pine forests (U.S.

Forest Service 2001).

In addition, experts estimate that by 2030 some 10 million

acres (4 million hectares)—roughly the size of New

Hampshire and Vermont combined—of mainly natural hardwood and natural pine forests will be chopped down to make

way for pine plantations in just three states in the southern U.S.

(Sohngen and Brown 2004). These researchers estimate that an

area roughly equivalent to the size of Los Angeles, or about

333,600 acres (135,000 hectares), is converted to pine plantations each year in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

CHILE

Economic incentives and national forestry policies in Chile

have promoted the establishment of large-scale plantations of

pine and eucalyptus for the domestic and export markets,

often resulting in the clearing of native forest. The consequences have included a dramatic loss of biodiversity, soil erosion and changes in the water level of streams.

From 1985 to 1995, Chile lost 4.5 million acres (1.8 million

hectares) of natural forest. These forests were destroyed largely to make way for industrial tree farms. As a result, Chile now

has the world’s largest expanse of radiata pine tree farms and

some of the world’s most endangered natural forests.

Conservation International (2006) has designated these forests

as one of the world’s Top 25 Biodiversity Hot Spots. WWF has

listed Chile’s temperate forests as one of the Southern

Hemisphere’s top forest eco-region conservation priorities.

These forests will face increasing danger over the next 15

years as Chile’s wood products industry pursues its plans to

double plantation acreage from more than 5 million acres (2

million hectares) today to more than 10 million acres (4 million

hectares) by the year 2020. Substantial additional subsidies for

the planned expansion of these plantations are available under

the newly extended version of Chile’s Public Law 701 that will be

in effect for at least 12 more years (Global Forest Watch 2002).

AUSTRALIA

Industrial tree plantations are expanding at the expense of natural forest in Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Tasmania

is home to some of the most ancient and unique old-growth

forests in the world. This includes Eucalyptus regnans—the

tallest hardwood species in the world, in addition to being the

planet’s tallest flowering plant. Tasmanian forests comprised of

these and other high conservation value species are one of the

few remaining temperate rainforests in the world. These

majestic forests provide a habitat for many animal species,

such as the famous Tasmanian Devil, that can be found

nowhere else.

A case study analysis of the Meander Valley in Tasmania

completed in 2003 for Bushcare, an Australian Government

program, found that the establishment of industrial tree plantations was the overwhelming driver of land clearing and loss

of natural forest in the area (Cadman 2003). Across Tasmania,

an average of approximately 25,000 acres (10,000 hectares) per

year have been cleared of natural forests and converted to

industrial tree plantations, primarily pine (Forest Practices

Authority 2005). Early estimates for 2006 totals expected that

conversion would exceed 49,000 acres (20,000 hectares)

(Cadman 2006). Approximately 296,000 acres (120,000

hectares) have been cleared and converted to plantations since

1990, primarily to be turned into woodchips for a proposed

pulp mill and for export to Asia.

— 55 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES OF NATURAL FOREST

CONVERSION IN THE UNITED STATES, CHILE AND AUSTRALIA
— 56 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Surfactant

Inhalation Soil

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF THE COMMON CHEMICALS

USED IN FORESTRY OPERATIONS

AND THEIR TOXICITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FATE

(Compiled by Dogwood Alliance, 2006)

Main active

ingredient

Type of

chemical

Other 

hazardous

ingredients

Ingestion Absorption:

skin and/or

eyes

Chronic

exposure

Carcinogenic

activity Half-life Water Nontargetorganisms

Glyphosate

Broadspectrum

herbicide

POEAsurfactantModerate

toxicity

Generally

nontoxic

Skin and eye

irritant

Could cause

damage to

kidney and

liver

Class C* Moderately

persistent

47 days in

soil 12 days

to 10 weeks

in water

Risk of

ground water

contamination

Moderately

toxic to fish

Broadspectrum

herbicide

Ethanol in

Velpar-L

Moderate

toxicity

Acute toxicity Moderate

toxicity,

severe eye

irritant

No chronic

risk assessment

Class D* Mobile and

persistent

90 days Health 

advisory of

200 ppb

Highly toxic

to algae

Broadspectrum

herbicide

Diesal fuel

carrier

Corrosive 

irritant

Corrosive 

irritant

Corrosive 

irritant

“No chronic

risk assessment is

required”1

Class D* Soil sterilant 46 days Risk of

ground water

contamination

Some risk to

nontarget

organisms

Broadspectrum

herbicide

Corrosive 

irritant

Ulcers,

lesions

Corrosive 

irritant

Neurotoxin Some 

carcinomas

observed,

brain tumors

Mobile and

persistent

Residual activity: 6-12 mo.

in humid temperate zone

Risk of

ground water

contamination

Not enough

evidence

Hexazinone

Triclopyr

Imazapyr

Broadspectrum

herbicide

Surfactant Slightly toxic Slightly toxic Corrosive 

irritant

Increased

liver weight,

anemia

No observed

activity

Soil sterilant 20-28 days No evidence

of contamination

Slightly toxic

Sulfmeturon to fish

-Methyl

Broadspectrum

herbicide

Sodium

napthalene

Low acute

toxicity

Systemic 

poisoning 

if a lot is 

consumed

Corrosive 

irritant

Jaundice,

anemia

No evidence Highly mobile 14 to 180

days

Risk of

ground water

contamination

Practically

nontoxic

to fish

MetSulfuron

-Methyl

Fertilizer 

for 

phosphorus

Ammonia &

iron 

compounds

Results in

severe burns

to lungs

Burns to

throat,

mouth

Burns to eyes

and skin

Blindness,

lung disease,

liver cirrhosis,

fluorosis

No evidence Taken up as a

nutrient by

plants

n/a Risk of

ground water

contamination

Slightly toxic

to fish and

invertebrates

Diammonium

Phosphate

Fertilizer

supplement

for nitrogen

n/a Irritation,

severe cough

Irritation,

nausea,

vomiting

Corrosive 

irritant

Protein

metabolism

disruption,

emphysema

No evidence Mobile and

persistent

140 days Risk of

ground water

contamination

No information found Urea

TOXICITY ENVIRONMENTAL FATE

Summary of the Common Chemicals Used in Forestry and Their Toxicity and Environmental Fate

* Class C; possible human carcinogen; Class D; not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, (EPA)
— 57 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

R EFERENCES

Sources for Herbicides Information:

Alaska Community Action for Toxics: Imazapyr Fact Sheet:

http://www.akaction.org/PDFs/Imazapyr_facts.pdf

Brunjes, Kristina J. et.al. Effects of Thinning and Herbicide Application on

Vertebrate Communities in Longleaf Pine Plantations Proc.Annu. Conf.

South east Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Agencies 57: 252-267

Cox, Caroline. “ Glyphosate, Part2: Human Exposure and Ecological

Effects.” J. of Pest. Rfm.: v. 15 1995

Dupont Silvicultural Pesticide Instructions.

http://www.dupont.com/ag/vm/literature/K-06275.pdf link found at:

http://www.dupont.com/ag/vm/forestry.html 6/2/2006

Environmental Protection Agency: Pesticide Information:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/ 5/31/2006

Extension Toxicology Network: http://extoxnet.orst.edu/ghindex.html

6/1/2005 

Fowlkes, Mark et.al. Effects of the Herbicide Imazapyr on Benthic

Macroinvertebrates in a logged pond cypress dome; Environmental

Toxicology and Chemistry v. 22 no.4 900-907 2003

Goodman, Daisy. Aerial Herbicide Spraying: Poisoning the Maine (and New

Hampshire) Woods. http://www.powerlink.net/fen/tmwfall99_05.html

5/31/2005

Hardell, Lennart M.D. Ph. D., and Eriksson, M.D. Ph. D. A case-control Study

of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to pesticides. Cancer. V.85 Is. 6

p. 1353-60 2000

Holtby, LB. and Baillie, SJ. Effects of the Herbicide Roundup (glyphosate)on

periphyton in Carnation Creek, British Columbia www.csa.com 1989

Material Safety Data Sheet: Diammonium Phosphate (2003)

http://www.cfindustries.com/facilityinfo/msds/DiammoniumPhosphate(DA

P)-7-1-2003.pdf

Millar James H. Longterm effects of Forest Herbicides on Plant Diversity in

Pine Plantations in the South East; National Council for Air and Stream

Improvement Inc. 2000 Proceedings of the Southern Regional Meeting 208-

213

Miller, Karl V, and Millar James H; Forestry Herbicide Influences on

Biodiversity and Wildlife Habitat in Southern Forests; Wildlife Society

Bulletin 2004, 32 (4): 1049-1060

National Pesticide Information Center: Triclopyr Fact Sheet

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/triclogen.pdf

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Worst Kept Secrets: Toxic

Inert Ingredients in Pesticides. January 1998

http://www.pesticide.org/ActiveInertsRpt.pdf (6/23/06)

Ott. Betsey et.al. Preliminary Results: Effects of Fertilization, Herbicide

Application and Prescribed Burning on UnderstoryRegeneration on Pine

Plantatios in East Texas

Pattison, Fawn. Bitter Rains: Aerial Pesticide Spraying in North Carolina.

Agricultural Resources Center. PESTicide Educational Project. Oct. 2002.

Spectrum Labs Chemical Fact Sheets:

http://www.speclab.com/compound/chemabc.htm 5/31/2006.

USDA Forest Service: Hexazinone Human Health and Ecological Risk

Assessment: Final Report (2005). http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk_assessments/102505_hexazinone_ra.pdf.

Virginia Department of Forestry http://www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/herbiciderisks.html.

5/31/20.

Weed Control Methods Handbook, The Nature Conservancy, Tu et al. :

Hexazinone fact sheet: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/products/handbook/15.Hexazinone.pdf.

WSDOT Roadside Vegetation Management Herbicide Fact Sheet:

Metsulfuron methyl

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/pdf/Metsulfuron.pdf.

WSDOT Roadside Vegetation Management Herbicide Fact Sheet:

Sulfometuron methyl

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance/pdf/Sulfometuron.pdf.

Sources for Fertilizers Information:

Fristoe, Conner, and Gothard, Tim. Forest Fertilization: Basic Guidelines for

determining Potentially Suitable Sites/Stands.

http://www.forestry.state.al.us/publication/TF_publications/forest_management/forest_fertilization.htm.

Material Safety Data Sheet: Diammonium Phosphate (2003).

http://www.cfindustries.com/facilityinfo/msds/DiammoniumPhosphate(DA

P)-7-1-2003.pdf.

Material Safety Data Sheet: Urea: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/u4725.htm

Public Health Advisory: Ammonia Division of Toxicology 2004.

REFERENCES
— 58 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

1. ASHTA Chemicals Inc., 3509 Middle Road,Ashtabula, Ohio

44004

2. Occidental Chemical Corp., 1000 N. Wilson Dam Road,

Muscle Shoals, Alabama, 35661 (Occidental plans to phase out

the use of mercury at this plant.)

3. Olin Corp., 2402 Doug Barnard Parkway, Augusta, Georgia

30906

4. Olin Corp., 1186 Lower River Road, Charleston, Tennessee

37310

5. PPG Industries, State Route 2, New Martinsville, West

Virginia 26155

6. PPG Industries, 1300 PPG Drive, Lake Charles, Louisiana

70601, (PPG will phase out mercury use at its Lake Charles

plant by 2007.)

7. Pioneer Americas L.L.C., 4205 Highway 75, Saint Gabriel,

Louisiana 70776

8. ERCO (formerly Vulcan Materials), State Highway 73 S.,

Port Edwards, Wisconsin , 54469

List provided by the Natural Resources Defense Council

APPENDIX D: 

CURRENTLY OPERATING MERCURY CELL CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS

(AS OF 9.20.06)
— 59 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Please complete and return to [insert contact information]. Attach separate pages as necessary. This information 

is solely for [insert organization] internal use to evaluate and compare suppliers’ environmental performance over time.

Part I: Paper Supplier Information

Completed by: _________________________ Title: __________________ Date:______________

Company name: ___________________________________________________________________

Paper purchased by [insert organization]: _______________________________________________

Amount purchased by [insert organization]: _____________________________________________

Location of mill(s) where paper is produced: _____________________________________________

1. What is the composition of the paper you supply to [insert organization]?

Chemical pulp: ____________% (Hardwood: _____% Softwood: _____%)

Semichemical &

Mechanical pulp: ____________% (Hardwood: _____% Softwood: _____%)

Recycled pulp: ____________% (Postconsumer fiber: _____%) 

Coatings/fillers/moisture: ____________%

TOTAL: 100%

2. For the paper you supply to [insert organization], how much of the pulp you use is...

APPENDIX E: 

SAMPLE FORM FOR EV ALUATING

P APER MILL PERFORMANCE

Form provided by Environmental Defense

Chemical 100%

100%

100%

Semichemical, Mechanical

Recycled

Produced at your mill Acquired from another source (please

specify sources) TOTAL
— 60 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Part II: Pulp Supplier Information

Please answer the remaining questions for each source of pulp used in [insert organization] paper. Where there are multiple pulp

sources, have each source submit a separate response.

Name of pulp mill: _________________________________________________________________

Location of pulp mill: _______________________________________________________________

Contact name and title: ______________________________________________________________

Amount of pulp supplied annually: _____________________________________________________

Type of pulp produced (check):

______ Chemical

______ Semichemical or Mechanical 

Please specify type, e.g., TMP, CTMP, BCTMP: _______________________________

______ Recycled

For Chemical Pulp Mills:

1. How many bleach lines are in place at the mill?

2. For each bleach line, what is the pulping and bleaching sequence?

3. At what stage in the bleaching process are the filtrates from the first bleaching and extraction stages 

recirculated to the chemical recovery system?

For Mechanical, Semichemical or Recycled Pulp Mills:

4. What bleaching or brightening agents are used, if any?

For All Pulp Mills:

5. What technology upgrades to the pulping and/or bleaching lines have been made in the last five years,

or are planned in the next five years?
— 61 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

6. What other investments have been made in pollution prevention in the last five years,

or are planned in the next five years?

7. What investments have been made in pollution control technologies in the last five years,

or are planned in the next five years?

8. Please describe the major features of your environmental management system (EMS).

Provide examples of how your EMS has improved environmental performance.

9. (a) Indicators of general environmental performance: please complete for all pulp mills for the last three years.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

(kg/metric ton of final product)

Values for these indicators reflect

manufacturing technology used by mill

and effectiveness of pollution-control

equipment

20—Supplier

Annual Monthly

Average

20—Supplier

Annual Monthly

Average

20—Supplier

Process Variability

(%)

20—Supplier

Annual Monthly

Average

20—Supplier

Process Variability

(%)

Color

(kg/metric ton of final product)

Fresh Water Use

(gallons/ton of final product)

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

(pounds/ton of final product)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

(pounds/ton of final product)

Total Reduced Sulfur Compounds

(pounds/ton of final product)

Total Energy Consumption

(millions of BTUs/ton of final product)

Purchased Energy Consumption

(millions of BTUs/ton of final product)

Particulates

(pounds/ton of final product)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) or equivalent

(tons/ton of final product)

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

(pounds/ton of final product)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

(pounds/ton of final product)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

(kg/metric ton of final product)

20—Supplier

Process Variability

(%)
— 62 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

(b) Environmental performance indicators for bleached kraft pulp mills: please complete if applicable for the last three years.

Notes: (1) All data should be provided on a per ton of product basis. (2) The monthly average provides information about the mill’s level of performance. As

mills implement pollution-prevention technologies, the magnitude of the performance indicators should decrease. (3) The variability provides information

about the mill’s ability to control the manufacturing process. Improved process control, maintenance and housekeeping should reduce the variability of these

indicators over time.

10. Please provide details of any non-compliance incidents in the last three years. Summarize the degree of non-compliance,

enforcement actions taken (if any), fines paid (if any) and steps taken to correct the problem.

20_____: _____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

20_____: _____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

20_____: _____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Bleach Plant Effluent Flow

(gallons/ton of air-dried pulp)

Values for these indicators reflect:

• Performance of pollution prevention

technologies

• Progress toward minimum impact mill

20—Supplier

Annual Monthly

Average

20—Supplier

Annual Monthly

Average

20—Supplier

Process Variability

(%)

20—Supplier

Annual Monthly

Average

20—Supplier

Process Variability

(%)

Adsorbably Organic Halogens (AOX)

(kg/metric ton of air-dried pulp)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

(kg/metric ton of air-dried pulp)

Dioxins (in bleach plant filtrates)

(picograms/liter of water)

20—Supplier

Process Variability

(%)
— 63 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Part III: Forest Management Practices 

1. [Insert organization] is encouraging its paper suppliers to know the sources of and forest management practices employed to

provide their pulpwood supply, and to ensure that the landowners, loggers and others in their supply chains use the best environmental practices. Do you currently have chain of custody control over some or all of your pulpwood supply? If so, please

describe. Additionally, what steps are you taking to ensure that the loggers that harvest wood for your mills are using the best

environmental practices?

2. [Insert organization] believes that independent third-party certification helps paper suppliers ensure that environmentally

preferred forest management practices are employed at each link in the supply chain. Are the forest management practices that

you and/or your suppliers employ currently certified by an independent third-party? If so, please describe.

3. Environmental and social responsibility reports can provide accountability and transparency on a company’s environmental

and social responsibility record. Do you publish a report describing your forest management practices and efforts to minimize

your environmental impacts? If so, please provide your most recent report.

4.“Endangered,”“old growth” and “high conservation value” are terms that describe forests that may contain rare, threatened or

endangered species, habitats or ecosystems; provide critical watershed protection or erosion control; or be of special cultural or

ecological significance. What steps are you taking to ensure that pulpwood procurement does not contribute to the loss of such

forests? In addition, what steps are you taking to contribute to the conservation and restoration of these forests (e.g., land

donations, easements, increasing endangered species populations)?
The table below summarizes the field tests currently underway in the United States for GE trees that are being researched primarily for pulp production. Currently there are 120 field tests comprising 79 hectares (195 acres.) The table indicates the primary institutions that are conducting the field tests, the species planted, the genes altered and the states where the field tests are

taking place. The leading institution, ArborGen, is a research arm of several major paper companies. Most tests are taking place

in South Carolina, and the primary species being tested are pine, poplar and eucalyptus.

APPENDIX F: 

FIELD TESTS OF GENETICALL Y ENGINEERED TREES

Institution # of tests

ArborGen 86

Oregon State University 14

Westvaco 11

New York State University 4

University of Connecticut 3

Mississippi State University 2

Species

Loblolly pine 32

Poplar 30

Eucalyptus grandis 19

Pitch x loblolly pine 14

Sweetgum 9

Populus tremula 7

Eucalyptus camald. 3

American elm 3

Populus deltoids 2

Radiata pine 1

Phenotype

Visual marker 50

Growth rate altered 28

Fertility altered 18

Lignin altered 17

Dwarfed 4

Sterile 3

Disease resistance 3

Phosphinothricin tolerant 2

Institution # of tests

Phenotype (continued)

Flowering altered 2

Gene expression altered 2

Development altered 2 

Lysine level altered 2

Cold tolerant 1

Drought tolerant 1

Herbicide tolerant 1

U.S. State

South Carolina 86

Florida 22

Oregon 13

New York 4

Connecticut 3

Mississippi 2

Georgia 2

Alabama 1 

Washington 1

West Virginia 1

CURRENT FIELD TESTS OF GE FOREST TREES IN UNITED STATES

Data is as of March 10, 2006; does not include fruit trees.

— 64 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION 

Global paper consumption is currently running at more than

350 million tons per year and fast approaching an unsustainable million tons per day. Some pulp and paper companies

already demonstrate leadership and commitment to principles

of corporate social and environmental responsibility. It is

important that such commitments become the norm for the

industry. There are, unfortunately, companies that are less

attentive to their social impacts. The grave negative consequences of their activities must be highlighted and responded

to by customers and investors. Everyone involved in the production and supply of pulp and paper products needs to be

sensitive to the social impacts of their activities.

This factsheet highlights some of the ways in which the

pulp and paper industry can cause social impacts, giving

both good and bad examples in two areas: land rights and

livelihoods. These impacts can be on indigenous peoples

and on forest communities in areas where the industry

sources fiber, communities neighboring and downstream

from pulp and paper mills, and employees and contractors

of the industry. It concludes with recommendations for

paper buyers/financiers.

WHOSE LAND IS USED TO MAKE PAPER?

The land rights of indigenous peoples and rural communities

must be respected, but in some regions they are violated in the

course of activities by pulp and paper corporations. When

paper companies are granted concessions to log forests and/or

establish fiber plantations without gaining the full and

informed prior consent of local communities or indigenous

peoples with customary rights on that land, this is an abuse of

the land rights of those people and communities. Unfortunately these abuses are far too widespread. Indigenous people are

struggling for their rights in many paper producing regions,

from the Sami in Finland to the Maori in New Zealand, from

the Haida in Western Canada to the Udege in the Russian Far

East. Only some examples are given here.1 

Worst practice 

1. In Brazil there is bitter conflict in the state of Espírito Santo,

Brazil, surrounding the acquisition by Aracruz Cellulose, the

world’s biggest producer of eucalyptus pulp, of land claimed

by indigenous peoples. In Brazil, there is now more than 5 mil-

— 65 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

lion hectares (11 million acres) of eucalyptus plantation growing in vast monocultures, termed ‘green deserts’ by their opponents, who complain that the plantations consume vast quantities of water, causing rivers to dry up and leading to erosion,

deterioration of water quality and loss of fishing and water

resources to local communities. Aracruz has land holdings in

Brazil of more than 825,000 acres (375,000 hectares). In

Espírito Santo, it uses land which has been the subject of a

long-standing land rights dispute and is claimed by indigenous Tupinikins and Guaranis as part of their 40,000 acre

(18,000 hectare) traditional lands. In 2005, indigenous

activists moved onto land used by Aracruz Cellulose and

demarcated their traditional territory, felling eucalyptus trees

that they claim to have been planted illegally and in breach of

their human rights. In January 2006 the Guaranis and

Tupinikins were violently evicted by the company, to international condemnation. There are ongoing protests by a growing

movement of Brazilians and supporters around the world, who

want the Brazilian state and companies to recognize the land

rights of indigenous peoples and ensure non-violent resolution of land disputes. There are similar complaints in other

parts of the world, including Uruguay, Thailand, India and

South Africa, where eucalyptus is grown for pulp, lowering

water tables and causing droughts and water shortages for

rural people.2

APPENDIX G: 

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

-

Indigenous Guarani people occupy their traditional land,

used by Aracruz Cellulose for a pulp plantation.

FASE, Espírito Santo, Brazil
2. Land rights conflicts are not restricted to the tropics. The

indigenous Grassy Narrows community is located in the most

northerly part of the industrial logging zone in Ontario,

Canada. The provincial government has granted forestry permits to paper industry giants Abitibi and Weyerhaeuser on the

traditional lands of the people of Asubpeeschoseewagong

(Grassy Narrows First Nation), without their consent.

Industrial forestry has devastated the First Nation’s territory,

with more than 50% of the land having been clear cut, destroying the habitats of the plants and animals that form the basis of

traditional livelihoods: hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering of plants for food, fiber and medicine. Replanting by

Abitibi has been with tree plantations that are heavily sprayed

with chemicals that have negative impacts on berries and other

plants. According to an Amnesty International briefing to the

United Nations, Grassy Narrows falls within the territory covered by the 1873 treaty between the Canadian state and the

Chiefs of the Salteaux Tribe of the Ojibway Indians. This treaty

establishes that indigenous peoples have the “right to pursue

their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract”.

The Grassy Narrows First Nation claims that these treaty rights

have been violated by the damage caused to their natural

resources by forestry. In 2002, the First Nation took direct

action, establishing a blockade on logging roads into their

land that has successfully halted logging in the area. It is now

the longest running forest blockade in Canada. It has drawn

international condemnation for the Ontario provincial government, Abitibi and Weyerhaeuser and there are ongoing

calls for a moratorium on logging on any First Nation land

where there is not free, prior and informed consent of the

local community.3

3. The paper industry is the biggest industrial water user, consuming 11% of all freshwater in industrial nations. Not surprisingly, this leads to disputes about water resources and its

effect on water quality. Plans by Finnish company Botnia to

build a new pulp mill in Uruguay, which will take water from

and discharge into the Uruguay River, has led to cross-border

conflict with Argentina. In June 2006, the Argentina government took the Uruguay government to the International Court

of Justice in The Hague, for failure to notify them about potential pollution from the mill. They also accuse Botnia of breaching Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay and the

Equator Principles, a system of guidelines for assessing social

and environmental risk based on standards set by the World

Bank’s private sector lending arm. In addition to the legal conflict there have been massive protests by local people in

Uruguay alarmed at the prospect of water pollution and the

loss of farm land to eucalyptus plantations to provide the pulp

mill with fiber.4

Best practice: 

In some parts of Canada where First Nations have more

secure land rights as a result of treaty arrangements that give

them more power, there are some inspiring examples of the

paper industry working with the native people to plan how

the forest resources can be used to maximize benefits and

reduce negative impacts. For example, in Nitassinan, in

Eastern Quebec and Labrador, Canada, the Innu First Nation

has led a collaborative ecosystem-based planning process that

has guaranteed that traditional livelihoods are not threatened

by forestry operations. This was achieved after a long history

of conflict, when in 2001 the Government of Labrador and

Newfoundland reached a Forest Process Agreement with the

Innu Nation, empowering them to have full participation in

forest planning. The resulting Forest Guardians process

involved scientists, Innu elders, local communities and

forestry technicians working together to develop a long-term

ecosystem-based forest management plan. This kind of

process avoids conflict, builds trust and ensures that fiber

supplies will be truly sustainable. It demonstrates that collaboration and co-operation between the state, forestry and

paper industry and indigenous and forest communities is the

best way forward to resolve land use conflicts.5

LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS

There are bound to be economic and social impacts to local

communities when pulp and paper companies begin operations in their area. There is thus a profound responsibility on

these companies to work to ensure that these impacts are ben-

— 66 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

+

Grassy Narrows First Nations Youth protest paper 

industry clear cutting on their traditional lands, 

Ontario, Canada.

FreeGrassy.org
eficial rather than detrimental. Governments can play an

important role in ensuring that logging licenses do not conflict

with local resource use. Progressive paper companies embrace

the opportunity to work with local communities as allies and

beneficiaries without making them dependent on the company and supporting economic diversification. The worst companies ride roughshod over local community livelihoods.

Worst practice:

1. In Riau, Sumatra, concessions were granted by the Indonesian government to Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) and Asia

Pacific Resources International Holdings Ltd (APRIL) to log

and establish fiber plantations on forest land that is inhabited

by indigenous communities. The loss of community forest

leads to losses in livelihoods including hunting, fishing, honey

gathering, medicinal herbs and lumber for housing, furniture,

firewood and much more, as well as cash crops such as rubber.

For example, in Kuntu village, the community only found out

that their traditional lands had been signed away when APRIL’s

bulldozers and logging equipment arrived. Now they must

fight for their land rights in court. Meanwhile their community forest has been logged and replaced by a monoculture of

acacia trees. The company offers financial inducements and a

profit share in the harvest, but the local community wants their

forest land back or a fair rent for the use of that land. Kuntu is

just one of many such villages in Riau where there are complaints of heavy-handed and aggressive tactics by the ‘security’

firms hired by the paper corporations. These have led to violent clashes, in which property has been damaged, protesters

have been injured and in which there have even been some

fatalities. Activists in Riau say they have suffered intimidation

by the security firms and they urge paper buyers to boycott

APP and APRIL’s products and pressure the Indonesian government to put an end to the conversion of natural forest to

fiber plantations.6

2. China is the second biggest producer of paper in the world

after the USA, and a great deal of its paper has agricultural

residues as the basic ingredient. All over China, when farmers

harvest rice, maize and sugar cane, they sell the straw to pulp

mills – an important aspect of rural economies. Unfortunately,

many of the thousands of small pulp mills are old and polluting and the Chinese state is closing many of them down, whilst

encouraging paper corporations to invest in new modern pulp

mills: 40 new pulp mills are predicted to be built in China by

2010. However, modern technology exclusively uses wood as

its input, not straw, and a shift on this scale from agricultural

waste fiber to wood will remove an important income stream

from millions of farmers as well as causing the loss of up to a

million jobs. There is an alternative: China could retrofit existing mills with effluent treatment facilities, ensure all new mills

can use agricultural residues and exploit its role as the world

leader in ‘ag fiber’, showing paper makers in Europe and North

America how to make sustainable papers from the waste products of arable farming, which are mostly burned.7

3.Researchers in the south eastern states of the USA have established that the paper industry is threatening local economies.

This is because although the paper industry brings some economic benefits to land owners, small land owners tend to be

paid less for their wood and the consolidation of forest land

holdings has concentrated the economic gain among fewer and

fewer people. Research shows a down-turn in the well-being of

rural communities where the paper industry is concentrated,

which are economically worse off than other rural communities, experiencing higher levels of poverty and unemployment

and lower expenditures on public education.8

Best practice: 

Klabin is the largest forest products and paper producer in

Brazil with activities in paper, forestry, and recycling. All of

the company’s own forests and plantations are FSC certified.

The company has recently initiated a program they call ‘Legal

Woods,’ (that has a second meaning in Portuguese of ‘/excellent/ or /cool/ woods’) in collaboration with a local NGO to

promote planting and conservation among small farmers and

landholders in Parana state, where Klabin has a major mill.

Klabin is helping these farmers to diversify their economic

activities, increase sales of their products, protect waterways

and other ecologically sensitive areas as well as protect and

rehabilitate forests for conservation. The program is perhaps

unique because Klabin is helping these landowners even when

— 67 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Innu community members participating in the forest

management planning process.

Credit to come

+

-
the wood from these projects may go to competing companies,

which helps the small landowners compete for better prices for

their wood, but ultimately strengthens the community’s ability

to have a strong economic base, raise wages and rural income

and protect ecological values.

IMPACTS ON HEALTH

The use of toxic chemicals for pulping and bleaching paper

and dangerous chemical pesticides and herbicides on fiber

plantations can lead to pollution that causes negative impacts

on the health of paper company workers and communities

downstream from mills. The paper industry is responsible for

the release of persistent toxic pollutants like chlorine, mercury,

lead and phosphorus into the environment, resulting in a legacy of health problems including cancers, nerve disorders and

fertility problems. Chlorine bleaching is particularly widespread and although there has been some progress in shifting

away from the use of elemental chlorine for bleaching, the use

of any chlorine-based chemicals at all can still result in dangerous pollution, because they are the building blocks of organochlorines, which include some of the most toxic compounds

on earth, such as dioxins and furans. In the USA, in order to

meet Environmental Protection Agency rules, most paper is

now ‘elemental chlorine free’ (ECF), which has led to a 94%

reduction in dioxins, however the EPA’s own rules state that

there is no safe level of dioxin. Dioxin is known to cause reproductive problems, including low sperm counts and endometriosis and is implicated in a range of other health problems

including diabetes, hyperactivity, allergies, immune and

endocrine system problems. There are alternatives to chlorine

for bleaching, such as hydrogen peroxide, which are much safer

and are the basis of ‘processed chlorine free’ (PCF) processes

and they should be chosen every time. Recycling paper causes

far less air and water pollution than virgin manufacture and

thus can help to reduce negative health impacts of the paper

industry. For more information related to this topic, go to:

http://www.rfu.org.

— 68 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

Indigenous Indonesia villager next to logs being taken

from tradional land-use area.

Credit to come
— 69 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

RECOMMENDATIONS To the Paper Industry

• Companies must respect and comply with the following international conventions for the protection of human rights: the

International Labor Organization Convention 169 for the

Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the General

Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the United Nations

Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial

Discrimination (1966), the International Agreement on

Economics, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and the

International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

• Free and prior-informed consent of local people must be

ensured, through meaningful and culturally appropriate consultation methods, in the areas from which raw materials originate and where production takes place. Companies and governments must recognize and respect indigenous peoples’

legal and customary rights to control their traditional lands

and protect their cultural identity, and also respect local communities’ rights to a healthy environment, and their rights to

participation as a primary stakeholder in land-use planning.

• Companies must respect the rights of workers, including subcontractors’ workers, to beneficial employment and a safe

working environment. These include the ILO Fundamental

Work Rights: freedom of association, the right to organize and

to collective bargaining; the abolition of forced labor; the

elimination of child labor; and the prohibition of discrimination in employment and occupation (equality of opportunity

and treatment).

• The industry should respect and support local economies and

businesses, reversing the trend towards ever-larger industrial

units and promoting community-ownership and a diversity of

small- and medium-sized enterprises in the paper sector.

Production systems must not hinder local food production or

jeopardize environmental services or ecosystem assets, such

as water quality, and their equitable use.

• The paper industry should use the best available technology to

minimize the use of water, energy, chemicals and other raw

materials and minimize emissions to air and water, solid waste

and thermal pollution, to eliminate toxic waste and mill discharges, reduce brightness of products to reduce levels of

bleaching and eliminate the use of chlorine and chlorine compounds for bleaching.

• Any new pulp mill developers must demonstrate environmentally and socially sustainable sources of fiber.

• Companies should recognize that they are part of a larger

land use system and should take into account the indirect

effects of their land use, such as displacement of pressure 

for land.

RECOMMENDATIONS To Paper Buyers

• Buyers of paper have powerful leverage over paper companies, and should insist that their source companies are following the recommendations above. If not, take the business elsewhere.

• The most effective way to reduce the negative impacts of the

paper industry is to use it more efficiently, thus helping to

reduce demand and at the same time reducing waste and saving money. Explore paperless alternatives such as electronic

communication and encourage innovation to cut packaging.

• Paper buyers should seek to use as high a level of recycled

content wherever possible, because this is the best way to

avoid negative social impacts, particularly in forests.

• It is important for buyers to be able to track and analyze

where the paper they use comes from and be satisfied that

the paper source is sustainable. Where virgin fiber is necessary, seek to ensure that negative social impacts are minimized by sourcing only Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper and using its chain of custody information to verify

that its origins meet the recommendations above. The FSC’s

principles and criteria include complying with laws and international rights agreements, respecting legal and customary

land tenure, managing disputes and conflicts appropriately,

respecting indigenous peoples rights, giving opportunities to

local communities, ensuring health and safety and taking due

account of social impacts of forest management. No other forest certification system comes close to adequately addressing

all of these issues.9

• Ask paper suppliers for corporate social responsibility reports,

but beware that some corporations attempt merely to pay lipservice to social impacts, so it is important to read these

reports with a discerning eye and beware of greenwash.
— 70 —

THE STATE OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY

RECOMMENDATIONS To Investors

• Pulp and paper companies should be required to carry out

independent social impact assessments of all new developments, including comprehensive assessments of the impacts of

their fiber sourcing policies and procedures, and then to take

into account the results of these assessments. Ethical

investors should withhold support unless this can be demonstrated to have taken place and refuse to subsidize unsustainable developments.10

• Pulp and paper companies should meet international standards for corporate social responsibility reporting. They should

report against all the criteria recommended by the Global

Reporting Initiative. Analysis of paper industry reporting has

concluded that across the industry there is ‘a lack of detail in

independent verification and evidence which leads to a lack 

of transparency in reporting.’xi 

• Financers and investors who want to invest ethically in the

global pulp and paper industry should not enter into partnerships with companies that have bad social and environmental

records and should implement binding social and environmental standards, requiring independent social audits, not only

relying on company information.

R EFERENCES

1 Barry, J. and Kalman, J.Our Land Our Life. Taiga Rescue Network. 2005.

This is a good overview of forest land rights issues.

2 See www.braziljusticenet.org for more about the Aracruz conflict and

www.wrm.org.uy for links to campaigns globally against damaging fiber

plantations.

3 www.envirowatch.org/gnfnindex.htm

4 Chris Lang, Yes to Life, No to Pulp Mills, Robin Wood Magazine, August

2006.

5 www.innu.ca/forest/sec1overview.htm

6 More about APP and APRIL’s impacts in Indonesia can be found on

www.eyesontheforest.or.id

7 The Expanding Chinese Paper and Forest Products Industry, Don Roberts,

CIBC World Markets. 2004.

8 USDA Forest Service Southern Forest Resource Assessment 2001. Also

John Bliss and Conner Bailey. 2005. Pulp, Paper, and Poverty: Forest-based

Rural Development in Alabama, 1950-2000. Pp. 138-158 in, Robert Lee

and Don Field (eds.), Communities and Forests: Where People Meet the

Land. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

9 The Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org) sets out principles and

criteria for sustainable forest management including social and economic

criteria.

10 Christian Cossalter and Charlie Pye-Smith (2003) “Fast-Wood Forestry:

Myths and Realities”, CIFOR, Bogor,

11 WWF, The Ideal Pulp and Paper Corporate Responsibility Report, 2006.

www.panda.org/