In the Forest no-one can hear a Panda scream

Press release from the FSC/World Wildlife Fund reads in part:

“WWF has released a statement on the PEFC governance system and has reaffirmed that “FSC is still the best”. Their position follows WWF’s latest assessment of forest certification systems and concludes that FSC best meets WWF’s core requirements. WWF continues to see credible forest certification as an important tool to promote responsible forest management and purchasing of forest products from well-managed forests….”

http://www.fsc.org/news.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=96&tx_ttnews[backPid]=107&cHash=5f7fb82609

At a recent meeting in London on the subject of illegal logging in the tropical rainforests of the World, the delegation from Malaya gave several short presentations, one from the ‘State’ side detailing how difficult they are finding it to fall in line with the proposed EU FLEG-T certification scheme and are thus working hard to create their own forest certification scheme; a lady from WWF Malaya telling the audience how closely they are working with the State to create a workable certification system; and finally a lady (a professor from the University of Malaya no less) who is from one of the minority indigenous peoples of Malaya, from the Island of Sarawak, who showed devastating slides of the rape of the forest on her island.

Having listened intently to the whole presentation I asked first Dr. Ramy Bhulan of Sarawack if her pictures of devastation were taken to show the extent of illegal logging or whether this was state sponsored terrorism. Her reply was brief and to the point: The logging and consequent destruction of the island was state approved/licensed, and typical of what was occurring, with government sanction in other parts of Malaya.

Next I asked Dato’ Freezailal Che’Yom (Malayan Forestry Minister) and Ivy Wong (WWF Malaysia) the same two linked questions: Did I mis-hear them both when they said that replanting and re-forestation were NOT part of their plans for the Malayan forest certification scheme, and if such was the case, was not a) the Malayan State being somewhat short-sighted because without replanting surely the forests of Malaya (of which only 8.3% are protected as National Parks) once gone, would never return; and if WWF were condoning such inactivity and short-sightedness was this not a gross dereliction of their duty as protectors of wildlife and their natural habitats?

A somewhat peeved Dr. Freezailah retorted that reforestation was NOT part of their plans and had no place in the State scheme, while a somewhat embarrassed Miss Wong for WWF Malaysia had to admit that for their part, WWF were unable to bring pressure on the Malay Forest Service to replant, for fear of being dismissed from the consultation process completely!

If this is the case for Malaya, what credibility does WWF have when it speaks of forestry certification generally? It’s enough for this author to send his little Giant Panda lapel badge back in disgust, as when so many sent their medals and awards back to The Queen in Great Britain when popular music group The Beatles received their M.B.E.’s back in 1965, feeling that their own awards (or in my case now former-membership) had been devalued! 

From subsequent conversations with other delegates at the illegal logging conference it transpired that even the EU had not realised the lack of reforestation clauses in the MTCS (Malayan Timber Certification System), nor yet anybody else. Somehow I think a visitors visa for me to go to Malaya would not be forthcoming, and if I did get there maybe there’s a bullet with my name on it!

Don’t Trust ALL Forest Certificates!

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

Indonesian Ecolabel Institute Must Stop Issuing Sustainable Forest Management Certificates to Unsustainable Industrial Timber Estates

 

Jakarta, 10 February 2009: The Indonesian Ecolabel Institute must stop issuing sustainable forest management certificates to industrial timber estates that convert natural forest or drain peatland ecosystems, national environmental groups Telapak and Forest Watch Indonesia demanded today.

 

The Indonesian Ecolabel Institute (LEI), which has just concluded its second congress, has issued sustainability certificates to two companies in Sumatra, despite the fact that both companies converted natural forests and some of their concessions are on peat ecosystems.

 

The companies are Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper, a subsidiary of Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings Ltd., and Wira Karya Sakti, a subsidiary of Asia Pulp and Paper, which is a member of the Sinar Mas Group.

 

Wirendro Sumargo, Executive Director of Forest Watch Indonesia said, “ LEI’s certification only looks at how the timber estates are managed once operational, without considering the significant ecological impacts of forest conversion, especially in peat ecosystems. These industrial timber estates are built by converting natural forests into monocultured plantations, which is clearly against the principles of sustainable forest management.”

 

The government has several criteria for timber estate development that stipulate they must be on barren land or land without forest cover. In reality, many timber estates have been established on logged-over areas in productive forests and even in virgin forests.

 

“Establishing industrial timber estates on natural forest and peat ecosystems means ignoring the risks of deforestation, forest fires, social conflicts and climate change. Such certification must be halted until there is a guarantee that industrial timber estates will not be allocated on productive natural forest and peat ecosystems”, said Wirendro.

 

In 2008, the government issued 18 new industrial timber estate licenses. One such permit was issued to PT Semesta Inti Selaras, a subsidiary of the Medco Group, which plans to convert a quarter of a million hectares of forests in Papua. Telapak says a large proportion of the forest is still in good condition.

 

Husnaeni Nugroho, Telapak forest campaigner added, “Industrial Timber Estate certification like the ones in Sumatera are a misleading eco-label.  LEI must stop this scheme or the forests in Papua will suffer from great risks associated with forest conversion.”

 

# # #

For More Information:

Wirendro Sumargo, +62-815 9280 585, rendro@fwi.or.id

Husnaeni Nugroho, +62-813 2884 1307, unang@telapak.org

 

Notes to the Editor:

1.       Forest Watch Indonesia is an independent network of individuals and organisations committed to achieving transparent forest information that contributes to just and sustainable forest management in Indonesia.

2.       Telapak is a member-based environmental organisation based in Bogor, Java.

3.       The second congress of the Indonesian Ecolable Institute was held on 7-8 February 2009 in Bogor and attended by all of its constituents from various stakeholders. Justice and Sustainable Natural Resource Management was a central theme in this four-yearly event.

4.       Forest Watch Indonesia analysed forest cover change in Riau and Jambi Provinces from 1989-2006.  The provinces lost 3.1 million hectares and 1.1 million hectares of forests respectively. PT. RAPP and PT. WKS’s concession areas lost 176 thousand hectares and 75 thousand hectares of forest respectively, including 71 thousand and 17 thousand hectares of peat lands.

5.       Natural forest and peat ecosystems are distinctive areas with rich biodiversityvital for the livelihoods of  indigenous and local peoples. Peat ecosystems also stores a huge amount of carbon.

6.       PT.Selaras Inti Semesta is an Industrial Timber Estate covering 259.000 hectares of land in Muting District, Kurik, Kaptel and Anim Ha in Merauke, Papua. An analisis of Environmental Impact Management data of this company reveals that 124.456 hectares (44%) of the concession area is good natural forest and only 84.247 hectares (33%) of its area are not forested.

 

Ethical Biomass Use

See forest biomass harvesting in UPM Forest Life

(UPM, Helsinki, 3 February, 2009) – The use of forest biomass – logging residues, small wood from thinnings and stumps – for energy generation is continuously growing. Since the 1990’s, UPM has invested in biomass-fired power plants as well as in harvesting and logistics. The energy content of spruce stumps is especially high and stump lifting has become more and more common. In UPM Forest Life you can now see how biomass is harvested and what kind of machinery we use. Exploring the different scenes you will also hear where forest biomass is used and find out how biodiversity is taken into account.

In Finland, UPM has 9 of its own or associated companies power plants using forest biomass as fuel. Further similar plants were started-up in 2006 and 2007 at the Shotton mill in the UK and at the Chapelle Darblay mill in France. New plants are under construction at the Caledonian paper mill in Scotland and Lappeenranta in Finland. Most of the power plants in Finland generate heat, steam and power for the UPM mill and district heating for the local community.

UPM’s own wood sourcing organisation is responsible for supplying forest energy. The price and conditions attached to forest biomass harvesting are agreed with the forest owner as part of the timber sales agreement.

For further information please contact:
Ms Päivi Salpakivi-Salomaa, Director, Environmental Forestry Affairs, telephone
+358 204 162 162
Ms Anja Silvennoinen, Senior Vice President, Energy, telephone +358 204 150 733

Links:

UPM Forest Life »

Just Keep On Trucking (that waste paper)

PRESS RELEASE

 

4th February 2009

 

PaperChain Members maintain healthy demand for quality UK recovered paper and board

 

Despite the reported recyclate market downturn, and sensationalist stories in much of the national and trade media, PaperChain Members continued to provide strong and healthy demand for quality recovered paper and board from the UK waste stream throughout 2008.

 

Members recycled 3.2 million tonnes of quality recovered paper and board from various UK waste streams over the course of the year, the same quantity as recycled by these Members in 2007. This represents over 80% of UK domestic paper and board recycling and over 36% recycling of all UK paper and board collections. In carbon terms, this represents a benefit of almost 4.3 million tonnes to the UK environment against disposal of the material through landfill and incineration¹.

 

Furthermore, the tonnage recycled by PaperChain Members is likely to increase significantly through 2009 with the acquisition and conversion of the m-real office-paper mill in Kemsley, Kent, to light-weight packaging materials by St Regis Paper Company.

 

These impressive figures make a mockery of any calls to abandon UK paper and board recycling in favour of energy recovery; this would undermine a healthy UK industry and put many direct industry jobs at risk, as well as companies and employment within the paper and board industry supply chain. The number of jobs required to service UK paper and board recycling is much higher than that of the energy recovery industry and brings significant economic and environmental benefits to the UK.

 

The UK paper and board industry is built around recycling with over 80% of its fibrous raw material being recovered paper and board. Without this valuable raw material, paper and board making would not be viable in the UK and would leave us importing more paper and board, damaging further the UK’s trade balance. There is also significant investment in paper and board recycling coming to the UK over the next 2-3 years, all based on recovered waste paper and board. Any move to reduce the level of recovery for recycling of waste paper and board in favour of energy recovery would jeopardise these projects and curtail future investment opportunities.

 

PaperChain data clearly shows that the main UK recovered paper and board market issues in 2008 were confined to export routes where we have little control over global supply and demand. This supports the Confederation of Paper Industries (CPI), Waste and Resource Action Programme and Environmental Agency statements that problems were limited to low-quality materials previously acceptable on the export market. PaperChain Members continued to provide a stable outlet for high-quality recovered paper and board.

 

Simon Weston, Chairman of PaperChain, said, “UK paper recycling mills continue to provide a reliable outlet for high quality recovered paper and board from the UK waste stream, but they will not buy material that leads to problems in the paper recycling process. UK mills must remain competitive, and low quality recovered paper and board leads to higher reject levels through the paper and board recycling process and adds cost to the mills.”

 

He continued, “Some Far East buyers have accepted lower-quality materials in the past where they could afford to sort the material further; however, this is not viable in a falling market where cost becomes critical. It is imperative that all waste paper and board recovered from the UK waste stream is of high quality to ensure future UK and global demand.”

 

PaperChain aims to promote the adoption of segregated collection methods for waste paper and cardboard wherever practical, to minimise the quantity of material rejected for quality reasons².  Where mixed dry recyclate collections are required, a clear, effective quality management system must be in place to protect the integrity of the recovered paper and board through the collection and sorting processes.

 

PaperChain supports the use of waste paper and board for efficient energy recovery only where the material is not suitable for recycling or the economic and environmental impacts of the collection phase make it non viable. Landfill of waste paper and board should be avoided wherever possible.  This is in line with the Waste Framework Directive hierarchy³.

 

 

 

 ¹   ‘Paper and cardboard recycling – greenhouse gas benefits explained’, PaperChain & CPI 2008

    http://www.paper.org.uk/information/factsheets/greenhouse_gas.pdf 

 

²  ‘Quality Counts’, PaperChain & CPI 2008

    http://www.paper.org.uk/information/factsheets/quality_counts.pdf

 

 ³   ‘Recycling versus incineration’, PaperChain & CPI 2008

    http://www.paper.org.uk/information/factsheets/recycling_incineration.pdf

 

 

 

ENDS

 

Notes to Editor

 

·         For additional information on PaperChain, in the first instance please contact Catherine Waterfield, External Affairs Coordinator, on 01793 889612 or email enquiries@paperchain-recycling.org.uk   Alternatively, please visit: http://www.paperchain-recycling.org.uk.

 

 

 

·         PaperChain Members used around 3.2 million tonnes of recovered waste paper and board in 2008, representing 80% of recovered waste paper and board used in the UK, and 36% of recovered waste paper and board collected from the UK waste stream.

 

·         In carbon terms, this represents a benefit of almost 4.3 million tonnes to the UK environment against disposal of the material through landfill and incineration.

 

·         PaperChain supports the “Campaign for Real Recycling”. Please visit: http://www.realrecycling.org.uk

 

Keep On Recycling Paper & Board

(Press Release) – World prices for recovered paper tumbled to very low levels in October and November last year as a reflection of the early impact of the global economic downturn – but subsequently, prices have climbed steadily to more sustainable levels. Volumes of recovered paper have continued to be shipped both to domestic customers and into the export market. “At no point did the purchased volumes of recovered paper fall as sharply as prices,” explained Ranjit Baxi, President of the BIR’s Paper Division and Managing Director of UK-based J & H Sales International. “What happened recently in the recovered paper market was a direct consequence of the sudden global economic downturn.”

With this world economic downturn leading to a reduction in the volume of paper and board products bought by the public, there is a danger of less material coming forward for collection and recycling. “It is vital that collections are maintained and that the public continues to pursue its love affair with recycling – otherwise, in the longer term, we could be facing a shortage of the recovered paper on which the world’s paper and board industry has come to depend,” warned Mr Baxi.

Globally, more than 200 million tonnes of recovered paper is used annually in the production of around 400 million tonnes of new paper and board. And while the economies of developed countries/regions such as the USA and the EU are expected to contract in 2009, key recovered paper consuming nations such as China and India are still expecting GDP growth to exceed 6% this year. From the global perspective, therefore, demand for recovered paper will remain considerable – if perhaps slightly below the levels of last year. In 2008, Chinese paper mills alone imported approaching 25 million tonnes of recovered paper; continued demand from China will ensure that this figure does not fall substantially in 2009.

Some media reports have alleged that massive quantities of recovered paper are entering storage because there is no longer any market for the material. However, statistics indicate that the vast majority of local authorities are storing recyclable materials for no longer than normal. The material that has required storage is generally of a lower quality for which there is a limited demand from the world’s paper and board producers.

Mr Baxi commented: “Quality is already an important issue and will become even more vital in the future. The recycling industry has made huge investments over many decades in increasingly sophisticated processing equipment so as to be capable of providing the world’s paper mills with the quality of recovered paper they require to make new, higher-quality paper products that their customers now demand.”

And he added: “If, as expected, global demand for recovered paper remains close to – or even exceeds – previous levels in the near future, there should be absolutely no need to put good-quality recovered paper into storage.”

Continued recycling of paper and other materials makes sense not only commercially but also environmentally. Through the recycling of paper and six leading metals, emissions of the leading greenhouse gas – carbon dioxide – are reduced by a minimum of 550 million tonnes per annum, according to preliminary research conducted by Imperial College in London. This figure is equivalent to almost 2% of worldwide fossil fuel emissions – a fact which has prompted leading climate change expert Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford to describe the recycling industry as environmental “heroes”.

Further studies have suggested that, for every tonne of paper produced, recycling saves 0.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This would mean that paper recycling alone cuts global CO2 emissions by some 170 million tonnes per year. Furthermore, with continued advances in recycling and in papermaking technology, the world’s paper mills are able to manufacture ever-finer and lighter-weight paper without loss of quality, meaning more paper products available on the market for the same tonnage.

Public enthusiasm for recycling has been built over many years; huge numbers of people now recognise that, through recycling, they are making a valuable contribution to the conservation of natural resources and to the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions. “The public’s growing involvement in recycling has been a huge success story,” said Mr Baxi. “The current economic downturn is temporary and reversible whereas discouragement of recycling would pose an irreversible threat to our planet. Recycling is the only way forward.”

Recycle Paper AND Cardboard!

SWINDON, UK, Jan. 21, 2009 (Press Release) – Today’s publication by BSI of PAS 2020 ‘Direct Marketing – Environmental Performance – Specification’ on environmental management of direct marketing campaigns is a laudable initiative to address this important area. However, the conclusions that it draws about the recyclability of certain materials does not reflect the reality of the paper recycling industry.

The document states that brown paper, including envelopes, is not currently collected within the majority of UK kerbside recycling systems and therefore should not be the material of choice. Confederation of Paper Industries (CPI) does not agree that kerbside collection should be the single criterion used to determine recyclability. CPI can not accept this part of PAS 2020.

Brown paper, including envelopes, is readily recyclable and the majority of this material is already made from recycled fibre. Discouraging the use of a product made from recycled materials that is easy to recycle makes no sense. If kerbside opportunities do not exist, then they can be easily recycled within the corrugated cardboard collection systems through bring or civic amenity sites.

There are large variations in UK Local Authority kerbside collection systems, based on contractual arrangements between local authorities and their end market reprocessors. If a particular collection system is employed for recycling into newsprint then they may not want brown paper, including envelopes or cardboard. However, if they are recycling into paper for corrugated cardboard boxes or other uses then brown paper is very desirable. None of this alters the basic fact that household paper – both white and brown – is readily recyclable.

To determine recyclability simply by the popularity of collection method employed is not appropriate when a product is easily recyclable with clear end-market demand. There should be no differentiation in this standard between white and brown paper.

This reinforces the CPI position that there needs to be a greater understanding of the realities of recycling, focused on what is genuinely recyclable for the benefit of both the environment and the economy.

And Then There Was One

“…upon whose track it is expedient to follow with hurried steps, lest this history should be chargeable with inconstancy, and the offence of leaving its characters in situations of uncertainty and doubt…” Charles Dickens, The Old Curiosity Shop)

 

In an earlier article, ‘New U.K. Recycled Newsprint Mills’  – February 9^th. 2008 – I spoke of my scepticism about the possibility of three new massive recycled newsprint manufactories that were scheduled to be made underway this year. My concern at that time was the genuine availability of sufficient waste material for these as well as existing users, to say naught of a proven market for the production itself. No-one expected the bottom to fall out of the financial world – or if they did they locked their money tightly down at a fixed rate of interest and watch the turmoil fall about them – which has caused so much upheaval, not least in the world of pulp and paper.

 

There were, at the beginning of 2008, new plants and machines destined for Palm Paper at Kings Lynn in Norfolk; Ecco Newsprint at Wilton, on Teeside in North-East England; and a new machine on Aylesford Newsprint’s existing site near Maidstone in Kent.

 

As is my wont, I’ll start with the last one first, Aylesford Newsprint. The new machine, PM15 will not now be built, a) because of the current financial situation and it’s knock-on effects on commerce and industry, and b) because they have only recently completed (very successfully I might add!) Project Jura, which was the almost total rebuild of the wet-end on their current leviathan, the (then) 310,000 tonnes per year 9.4 metre wide machine that “went bang” last November. Early reports were that the headbox slice had been bent but all was now well again (RISI November 27, 2006). In truth, it took the use of a 1000 tonne jack to pull the headbox back into shape. This and a few modifications allowed the machine to carry on production, short-term, but a major overhaul was required, and what an ideal opportunity to bring the machine bang up-to-date?

 

A year later (5^th –17^th. November 2007) the machine was stopped and the pre-fabricated new headbox was installed, along with numerous other bits of kit, and 68,000 engineering man-hours later, Renaissance Newsprint was again being made on a revamped machine “..now firmly in the 21^st. century.”  Please go to http://www.aylesford-newsprint.co.uk/PDFs/Project_Jura_Book.pdf and be awestruck and inspired! But the millions of pounds that project Jura must have cost, as well as the increased and improved production, coupled with a declining market and worldwide over-capacity (thank you China) meant there was no money, nor yet need, for the proposed PM15 at Aylesford. One down, two to go.

 

Ecco Newsprint have signed a 125 year lease for the land in Wilton on Teeside, and a Letter of Intent for Metso “ …to purchase a very efficient, environmentally important and highly productive PM1 newsprint line for Ecco’s new recycled newsprint mill in Teeside which is to be started up in the first quarter of 2009. The Letter of Intent includes an order to start engineering work.” But there it all grinds to a halt, it seems, although a spokesman for Ecco (not to be confused with ECO, a suffix brand name for supercalendered – ask me later — publishing grades from the embattled Norske Skog of Scandinavia) said in May of this year that “It’s taking longer than it might have, but these sort of investments are a marathon, not a sprint.”

 

But this author certainly doesn’t see any paper rolling out of the North-East during the first quarter of 2009, if at all. Metso are keeping tight-lipped too. When there is massive unemployment and lay-offs announced on a daily basis in the U.K., perhaps Ecco Newsprint should ask Britain’s Prime Minister to step up to the mark with guaranteed funding so the scheme can press ahead, with all the guaranteed jobs the build, and new mill even once completed, will provide, as well as the environmental benefits of recycling waste newspapers and magazines. Perhaps Mr. G. Brown or Mr. A. Darling (both of Downing Street, London SW1) should visit http://www.ecconewsprint.co.uk/default.htm for ideas. Of course if ‘Two Jags’ was at the helm……

 

And then there was one, and that one is Papierfabrik Palm’s English adventure which is storming ahead on an old sugar beet factory site in Kings Lynn, in Norfolk. All credit to Dr. Palm and his people for sticking to their guns and forging ahead with this wonderful off-shoot of their recycled newsprint and packaging papers based company. Their mill at Eltmann in central Germany currently produces 520,000 tonnes per year of high-grade re-cycled newsprint from waste newspapers and magazines. Kings Lynn will house a 10.6 metre (trimmed width) machine producing 400,000 tonnes per annum. And I mean that, the Kings Lynn mill WILL house that machine, the ‘topping-out’ ceremony for the buildings is scheduled for December the 11^th. of THIS year, entry by invitation only though, so that’s me and you out. But at least we can go to http://www.palmpaper.co.uk/index.php?call=home and look from a distance. There’s even a pdf gallery of progress so far worth checking out.

 

One out of three isn’t bad for a country officially in recession, AND there’s to be a new packaging grades mill built in Lancashire by SAICA of Spain. But that’s another story.

New U.K. Recycled Newsprint Mills

Three new newsprint mills are planned for the U.K., all using recycled fibre. This begs the questions: 1) Is there a market for all the production; 2) Is there going to be enough raw material (old and over-issue newspapers and magazines) for the P.C.W. fibre needed to feed these mills?

 

Who are the contenders? AYLESFORD NEWSPRINT want to build a new machine at their site near Maidstone in Kent where they currently produce approx. 400,000 tonnes of Renaissance brand newsprint on two machines, and it is Aylesford’s intention that a new ‘state-of-the-art’ machine will replace the aging PM13 which at 5.4metres wide and a run-speed of 900M per minute, is dwarfed by the newer PM14’s 9.4M width and 1680M per minute (roughly 68 miles per hour!). That makes a whole lot of sense to this author anyway. Overall, Aylesford’s proud boast is that they currently, at 400KT produce 1% of the World’s newsprint, and 4% of the European requirement, yet the U.K. as a nation still imports 60% of its newsprint requirement.

 

Ramsey Hampton, doyen of Aylesford Newsprint’s ‘new’ mill and machine back in the 1990’s, now heads-up a team called ECCO who plan to build a 400KT recycled newsprint mill in Geordieland, and has recently signed the lease for 125 years use of land for the mill and related infrastructure. Mr. Hampton, a thoroughly nice fellow, has a habit of making things happen, and there is no doubt that the new mill will be a great success. The North-East of England is crying-out for redevelopment, and the area has a huge population to provide the workforce and the raw materials (waste and over-issue news & magazines) needed for this exciting adventure.

 

Not so ‘home grown’, German paper maker Palm Paper have obtained planning permission for their anticipated 400KT mill at Kings Lynn in Norfolk, on the site of an old sugar beet factory, and subject to a European recession (when America sneezes Europe catches a cold) the mill is very likely to go ahead.

 

But the figures quoted above, which will add over a million tonnes of recycled newsprint to the U.K.’s current production of 1.1 million tonnes, may make the U.K. self-sufficient in newsprint (current demand estimated at 2.3 million tonnes), but taking Palm’s mill/machine as an example, to produce 550,000 of fully recycled newsprint, you need to pour in to the other end of the system 630,000 tonnes of ‘waste’ paper. Do we have an additional one-and-a-quarter million tonnes of waste and over-issue news and magazines available to feed these 3 new mills?

 This subject is to be continued………