I try and be a gentle-man. There are though, as my avid readers know, a few things that really get up my nose and I feel I just have to vent my spleen through the media of these blogs!

One thing I really, really hate is spurious information. You know the sort of thing, if you watch the ad’s on T.V. for cosmetics (generally, though not exclusively) that say that most women agree that a particular product is the best, and then at the bottom of the screen it states in very small writing that the figures are, for instance, 87% of 129 women canvassed.

So what? There are 61 million people in the U.K. and very slightly more of them are of the female persuasion as opposed to men or maybe not too sure, so does that really give a certain product the status of ‘preferred by most women’ when so few have been asked for an opinion and even then, not all of them said ‘yes’!

 The PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) very recently endorsed Malaya’s own forest certification process. I will not drag over old ground and bang on about that again – go read the blog! — but what made the steam come out of my ears was the spurious statement in the PEFC press release, and I quote: “Yet tropical forests in the Southern hemisphere offer the most benefits to tackling some of society’s biggest challenges, including climate change, combating deforestation and forest degradation, and maintaining the world’s precious biodiversity.”

 As my American chums would say, “What’s your beef?”. Simple: Malaya is NORTH of the equator, i.e. in the northern hemisphere, 2 degrees 30 minutes north to be precise (according to the U.S. CIA, and no-one doubts what they say!).

 The Malayan Forestry Certification Scheme is a contentious enough issue as it is, without the redoubtable PEFC throwing-in inaccurate, dare I say it, misleading, information to shore-up a shaky press release.

 The World’s largest supplier of Cocoa is the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire in West Africa. It is bordered by (among others) the Republic of Ghana, the World’s second greatest producer of cocoa beans. But Ghana’s position in the cocoa business is shaky, and the Country’s leaders are determined not to be knocked off their coveted number two spot, knowing very well that they can never catch up with their neighbours for pole position.

All well and good, but in order to maintain and strengthen their position, Ghana actually needs to plant more cocoa plantations. Although Ghana has signed a European V.P.A. (Voluntary Partnership Agreement) regarding timber extraction, the only way Ghana can increase cocoa plantations is by deforestation, which the U.S. C.I.A. cites as one of the major environmental problems facing the country.

So there is a dichotomy of interests here, as in so many other regions of the Tropics. In order for a country to create wealth and stability for its people it has no alternative but to increase the amount of land available for agriculture/plantations. This has a local, and indeed global, effect on climate control and ‘natural’ disasters, which harm the very people in the country where deforestation is carried out.

But who are we, in ‘The West’, the so-called ‘civilised’ world to stick our noses into Ghana’s business and say no to their plans. Practically all of us enjoy chocolate, in one form or another, and Ghana is very keen to supply as much of it as they possibly can! We all enjoy it when prices drop, and if greater production and a need for foreign dollars makes the product cheaper, then economies of scale of production have to be increased, ergo, increased production, equals larger plantation, equals less forest.

The best we can hope for is that the deforestation of Ghana’s small remaining areas of tropical forest are logged with all due care and attention to the local indigenous peoples and environment, and with an eye to re-planting other areas (a dream too far?). But this is unlikely, because Ghana’s deforestation is already out of control. Of an internationally agreed Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) of one-million cubic metres of timber, the latest figures show that 1.6 million cubic metres are being cut by the ‘formal’ sector, i.e. government approved/licensed loggers, and the ‘informal’ sector (illegal slash and grab chainsaw loggers) are taking a further 1.7 million cubic metres. That’s a whole lot of forest in a country that doesn’t have much left anyway!

So look out for the ethically produced brands of chocolate, stop thinking how good it is that Tesco (or whoever) have cut another 10p. per bar from the price of their own label chocolate (often at the cost of their suplliers!), and spare a thought for the beleagureed people, wildlife, and indeed the very trees themselves of Ghana. I have met several Ghanaians, and they are a warm, friendly, hospitable people. Give them a break.

I was amazed to see from the PEFC press release of the 5^th. of May, 2009 that Malaysia had received PEFC certification/endorsement for it’s Timber Certification Scheme (MTCS).

 At the Illegal Logging Update and Stakeholder Consultation meeting, held in London on the 19^th. & 20^th. of January of this year, the presentation of Dato’ Dr. Freezailah Che Yeom on behalf of the Malaya Forest Council, made it clear that it would be almost impossible to meet the EU FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement Governance & Trade) criteria and the Malay government were therefore pursuing their own certification programme, the MTCS. He was given polite attendance by the audience, as was the following presentation of Ms. Ivy Wong Abdullah of WWF Malaysia who spoke of what the FLEGT was and was not, and finally Professor Ramy Bhulan of the University of Malaya, who spoke on behalf of the indigenous peoples and their lack of representation in the consultation process, and the ‘rape’ of their tribal homelands, especially on Sarawak. Prof. Ramy Buhlan’s presentation included heart breaking photographic images of areas currently being destructively logged, as well as vast swathes of land that had been stripped bare of their former, lush, tropical forest.

 A question was asked by a member of the audience (me) of both Dr. Freezailah and Ms. Wong as to whether reforestation — and thus sustainability — formed any part of the work that they were doing toward the establishment of  the MTCS, and if not, was this not somewhat short-sighted of the Malay Government and a gross dereliction of duty on the part of WWF.

 Dr. Freezailah appeared disturbed, almost angered, by the question and yet was adamant in his response that there was NO provision for reforestation as a means of  sustainability. Ms. Wong was visibly embarrassed by the question and had to admit that Dr. Freezailah’s answer was true for WWF Malaya as well, adding that they feared being locked-out of the consultation process if they (WWF Malaya) tried to ‘insert’ topics which were outside of the Governments own agenda.

 After the meeting Dr. Freezailah openly snubbed me, while Ms. Wong continued to show acute embarrassment, and many of the audience congratulated me, one attendee even remarking that even the EU had assumed that reforestation/sustainability was automatically, nay, naturally, part of any State sponsored certification scheme, and that they, the EU, would therefore have to take a closer look at the situation, now that they knew such was not the case in Malaya.

 Have the Malayan Forestry Council re-written their certification process to include re-forestation, sustainability, and the rights of indigenous people, or have the venerated PEFC had the wool pulled over their eyes too?

Press release from International Paper reads:

Brazil’s IP launches cutsize paper for European market

 Brazil’s International Paper has launched to the European market an A4 and A3 new cutsize paper in a basis weight of 80 m/g2. In a statement, IP said that it expects to produce around 30,000 tonnes/yr of this paper at its mills located in Mogi Guaçu and Luiz Antônio, both in São Paulo state.

These volumes will particularly serve England, France, Scotland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. “IP will commercialize this new product with the brand and all technical specifications of its European customers,” the company stated.

This sort of arrangement does not happen overnight, and must have been very advanced in the plnning stages while International Paper were still ‘in discussion’ with unions at ex. Tommy Taits mill at Inverurie in Scotland, which makes such ‘under review’ situations a nonsense.

There are two questions here: 1) Can it really be financially justifiable to closed down a perfectly good mill in Scotland and make a similar product in Brazil, then ship it half way around the world to feed the European markets previously serviced from I.P.’s Scottish mill?

2) There must be a massive environmental cost involved in the shipping and distribution of this Brazillian paper, even when it docks, presumably in Rotterdam. Does this mean nothing to International Paper?

 For now I will draw a veil over the forestry and social aspects of the issue, other than to suggest that you do your own research starting with I.P.’s own website for Brazil at http://www.internationalpaper.com.br/ and then running through all the usual environmental ‘activist’ sites for their opinion.

There had been a terrible rumour in the paper industry watchers circle that Arjo’s Chartham Paper Mill in Kent was under threat of closure. You can therefore imagine the relief and delight when Arjo announced recently that it was to become the ‘tracing paper’ centre of their empire, though at the expense of one of the two paper machines at their French site at Annonay. This will affect 61 employees in France, but the mill still has another machine (PM7) which will continue to manufacture around 14,000 tonnes of speciality uncoated woodfree paper per annum (for now).

Tracing paper might be seen as a diminishing market, with consumption estimated at around 30,000 tonnes globally, a 50% chunk of which Arjo are said to supply. But tracing paper has come a long way from it’s days of drawing on one side in pencil, turning the sheet over and re-drawing (or even scribbling) over the image created on the face of the sheet, and then turning it over once more to carefully go over the image again in order to transfer that image to a separate substrate. Even the days of creating an original architectural drawing on a sheet of tracing paper and then using a dyeline machine to reproduce that drawing on to ‘regular’ paper are diminishing with the advent of wide format photocopiers, or even C.A.D. where the image is created electronically ‘on screen’ and fed to a wide format inkjet printer of even a basic plotter to create hard-copy images. These days, tracing paper comes in colours, good strong, bold colours, even black and metallics, and you can print on it, cut and crease it, even laser cut it and emboss it.

Tracing paper was also used as part of the form-set for credit card transaction documentation, (remember those awful Visa, Access and Amex machines that you had to put your card into to have it run-over to impart the raised information from your credit card on to every sheet in the set, and then you had to sign the top copy, hopefully without your ballpoint pen going through the tracing paper that, gee folks, you got to fold-up and keep as your copy of the transaction?) but that use has decreased dramatically with the advent of chip and pin, and this too has had an adverse effect on the ‘carbonless’ papers market.

Hence we see the future closure of Arjo’s Dartford Mill, the greater part of whose output was ‘NCR’ paper, though in truth they made lots of other lovely papers too, but these are of little consequence it seems, and doubtless of insufficient output to sustain the Mill as an entity, so look out Annonay, you may still be producing 14,000 tonnes of paper on your one remaining machine, but it has got to be something really special to justify the mill’s continued existence. Watch this space……

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!

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.

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 »

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

(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.”