By Sabine Lenz
“This is a sham,” Cynthia was up in arms, “A friend told me that there actually might not be any FSC-certified pulp in the FSC-certified paper that I buy! Then what about recycled pulp and … what is all this talk about auditing and … how can I trust anybody anymore?”
Okay, I never said eco-certification was easy, but Cynthia’s friend definitely didn’t do the best job at explaining the ins and outs. So let me try.
FSC, and SFI for that matter, both certify forests to ensure they are managed in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. Yes, they have differing standards, but I’ll write about this aspect in the coming weeks.
For now, let’s just keep it simple and say this: Both FSC and SFI care deeply about our forests and the environment. Their respective labels provide you and me with the assurance that the paper products we’re purchasing come from forests managed to conserve biodiversity and support local communities.
This is what we all have heard for years now. It is a good and noble cause, and we support it.
Where does the pulp come from?
As we agree on this, we can also agree on the fact that the FSC/SFI pulp has to come from certified forests. The certification of the forest as such is the part you and I can easily understand.
An independent auditor (both SFI and FSC work with third-party auditing companies) goes out to the forest that wants to be certified and makes sure it fulfills all the criteria required by the certification model.
This doesn’t just include visiting the actual forest, but also includes aspects like: making sure the forest workers are skilled; ensuring that no pesticides are used in managing the forest or that no genetically modified trees are planted – the standards are extensive.
Once the trees are ripe (fully grown), they are harvested and brought to a certified pulp mill.
NOTE: There are only around 40 FSC-certified pulp mills in North America producing somewhere between one and three million tons of certified pulp. Some of these mills produce their own paper from this pulp, but many paper mills in North America are non-integrated (meaning they don’t make their own pulp). Non-integrated mills buy their FSC-certified pulp from those certified pulp mills on a contractual or first-come, first-serve basis.
How is the pulp handled?
If we all wanted to buy 100 percent certified papers tomorrow, there just would not be enough pulp available to keep up with the demand. So, the most common logos we see today are those of “mixed sources,” papers that contain a certain percentage of certified pulp. Are you still with me?
The original idea – and a logical one at that – was to ask the mills to ensure that the certified pulp was stored separately from the rest of the mill’s pulp and was used in the papermaking process separately and … But if you have ever been at a paper mill, this poses quite a challenge.
For one, a paper machines run 24/7 (except the yearly downtime for maintenance), so asking a mill to stop and start the machine to make certified paper is an economic impediment.
Volume Sharing
Over the years, in an attempt to make the production of certified papers economically viable, FSC and SFI have adopted a “volume credit” system. A confusing term to be sure. I prefer “average percentage.” Let me explain with an example.
A mill produces 100 tons of paper a year. It buys 10 percent of the pulp needed from a certified pulp mill. In order to not have to interrupt its workflow, the mill and certifying body agree that this 10 percent can be called out on specific paper lines the mill produces. In our case, theoretically 100 percent of the mill’s paper could be called out as 10 percent FSC /SFI certified.
So far this all makes sense right?
Let’s take it one step further and say the mill wants to offer a specific paper line with a higher certified percentage to its customers – Brand XYZ is 20 percent certified. Now the mill can only label 50 percent of the papers it produces as 20 percent certified.
The Audit
The certifying body keeps a close eye on its mill clients and conducts yearly audits, which include lots of paperwork including checking invoices for certified pulp received to ensure that a mill doesn’t market or claim to have more certified papers than the percentage of certified pulp that it purchased allows it to claim.
This again is to assure you and me that we get what we pay for.
Does this mean that theoretically the specific paper you and I buy does not contain the full 30 percent FSC / SFI pulp it claims? Sorry, but yes.
And by the way, the same “average percentage” principle applies to the recycled content claims made by pulp and/or paper manufacturers.
The bottom line is that we are “paying” for the overall efforts a mill makes to be sustainable and offer certified papers, thus providing our forest managers the incentive to certify, while staying economically viable.
——
Seeing designers worldwide struggle to stay current with new papers and paper trends inspired Sabine Lenz to create PaperSpecs, an independent and comprehensive Web-based paper selection tool and weekly e-newsletter. Growing up in Germany, she started her design career in Frankfurt, before moving on to Australia and the United States. Lenz worked on design projects ranging from corporate identities to major road shows and product launches. From start-ups to Fortune 500 companies, her list of clients included Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Deutsche Bank, IBM and KPMG. Lenz is a noted speaker and author on paper issues and educational topics related to the paper industry.
Please post a Comment to this Tip – and let others benefit from your wisdom. Thanks.
This is actually very insightful. Thank you for the information.
It is governmental, eco-driven legalized extorsion and nothing more . . . a bunch of tree huggers gone loony. The paper industry in the US has been sustainable for many many years, they harvest, replant, harvest, replant, harvest, replant. Get a life and get honest. FSI and SFI is nothing but a glitzy wrapped hidden TAX and more government intervention into the private sector. Wake up and smell the coffee.
We are a commercial print shop located in Michigan and I have been watching this process since its inception. Now I agree that our forests must be kept up and used wisely but I think we have gone well overboard with regard to FSC, SFI, PEFC and the others.
I was once told that it was nearly impossible to keep FSC fiber and normal fiber separate in the wood yards of the mills. I was also told that a skid of FSC listed paper may not have any FSC fiber at all.
It is a ploy to making everyone fell like they are doing something to help the environment. The cost involved with being FSC certified is way more than our company can handle and the return is nil as a lot of the customers are unwilling to pay the extra cost involved in this volatile business environment. And, we would never be able to recoup the cost of the service. There are two many needless requirements and we can print FSC and SFI papers just as good, if not better, than anyone else. If you want a true “chain of custody” trail, then go from the tree, to the end user and see how many people rebel against that.
It is a ridiculous program in the States. Elsewhere in the world it may be necessary to protect the environment but if someone is going to skirt the system, they will find a way to do it.
This is only my opinion but I stand by it. I have been in the printing business for 42 years and have seen things come and go and this one will pass also.
Good effort Sabine. First, I am both an SFI/PEFC auditor for PriceWaterhouse Coopers and an FSC auditor for the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood Program. Yes, I play both sides of the fence and value both equally.
FSC’s Credit System and SFI’s Volume Credit Method both operate nearly identically from an accounting perspective. What you failed to mention is that the remainder of the pulp which is not certified under each respective system, can only come from what I call generically “verified” forests. The first criterion for both SFI and FSC is legal sourcing, which has to be proven by the mill and accepted by the certifying body through a risk assessment. There are many others, but to keep this short, we’ll just say that the balance of uncertified material in any certified paper is considered “good wood”.
The other point which requires clarification is how the credits are applied. Again, both systems are almost identical. First, credit accounts are established through and are equivalent to actual certified purchases. Second, credits accumulated under both systems are applied at a rate of 100%. In other words when manufactured paper which may or may not have actual certified pulp in a particular run has credits applied, there is no such thing as a partial credit. The bottom line is that the amount of certified paper sold in the marketplace never exceeds the equivalent amount of certified wood harvested.
Hope this helps.
Vic Nathan Barkin
Bravo! Thank you, Sabine, for helping to clarify an often misunderstood and confusing issue.
I am sure you will get numerous comments on this but using the volume credit system, we have to allocate 100% of the fiber from our credit account. So there is no longer any FSC mixed sources products from the volume credit process with less than 100% of the fiber from the volume credit account. Recycle is considered a neutral fiber source and is additive to the volume credit account.
Thanks for all the good feedback. We intentionally left the “credit system” out of this article and will be writing about that in a separate one. It is for many people the point of misunderstanding and confusion. We’ll also be addressing the mixed sources label soon!
Eric with all due respect you should sit down, have another cup of coffee and do some research before you spout political propaganda. Neither the FSC or SFI are government run organizations. Fact is, the FSC was formed by a group of paper, forest and environmental advocates. Fact is there is still over 86,000 acres of forest lost every day worldwide. Fact is, until Greenpeace together with the FSC pressured Kiberly -Clark to incorporate a new fiber sourcing policy in 2009 they were clear cutting over 90% of the Canadian Boreal Forest to make toilet and tissue paper.
Posturing for political idealism doesn’t cut it. The environment is not up for grabs by the left or right. Without environmental advocates we are capable of devouring all the natural resources that sustain us. And that’s a fact!
Odd that both the vehemently anti-FSC/SFI comments sound as if the writers never read the article. (Or are holed up in a compound somewhere out in the desert wearing tin foil hats.)
To Eric: You misunderstand “sustainability.” Not that you’re alone, but just replanting what you cut down is not “sustainability.” Not close and never was. And as others have tried to explain, it has NOTHING to do with the Government.
TChaffee: Repeating facts INCLUDED in the article really doesn’t do much for your credibility. It is PROBABLE that A LOT OF the paper from a partially FSI/SFI mill does not have FSI/SFI content. IT’S IN SABINE’S ARTICLE. And if you have seen fads come and go, you have also seen fads come and become industry standards. Optical color scanners? Digital pre-press? Computer-controlled presses? Here’s one: some of my printers have gone 100% soy inks. The others are slowly transitioning, but every time I talk to them, they are a little further along. The slowest ones are the crumudgeons (among whom I consider myself), a couple of whom don’t even have a computer on their desks.
Change is inevitable. When a ripple becomes a wave, you have to at least accept it. No one’s forcing you to go FSI/SFI. You don’t HAVE to use it. And when I call with a print job and require FSI/SI certification, you don’t have to quote it. But resist MARKET TRENDS and you make your bed.
Just like you didn’t have to go to digital prepress with those expensive computer things…
Certified fiber by one or more recognized schemes included in the manufacture of paper makes simple sense. Certification is an important step in the verification that woodland practices are in fact sustainable. Paper mills have accepted and integrated this practice into thier day to day operations, just as they did the regulations in improving air and water quality. Let’s not get hung up on one certification scheme or another, instead let’s agree that the major schemes are robust and thorough and that it’s not about what they say but rather how they say it. When a mill documents their certified fiber inputs, who cares where it ends up as long as it meets the requirements of the standard under which it was sourced. At the end of the day, we as end users should be comfortable with the fact that we didn’t use illegal or unsustainably sourced fiber. If we perceive a value in stating this fact on our finished goods, we should be able to simply do so without complicated compliance requirements or criticism about what certification scheme we utilized. If we want to see growth in the use of certified fiber from well managed forests, we’ll need to move beyond branding issues and simplify compliance from the landowner to the pressroom-
George, with all due respect you might want to do a little research yourself. You’re spouting environmental propaganda. Take a close look and you’ll find not much has changed with K-C’s practices in the boreal despite the Greenpeace extortion – because they don’t have to! If Greenpeace really cared about the environment they would find a way to improve practices in the Russian boreal – where so much product proudly bearing the FSC label comes from – rather than making bogus claims about what’s happening in Canada. And that’s a fact!
Sabine, great job on the SFI/FSC assessments and application. I wouldn’t be so quick to link recycled in the averaging bucket especially when you speak of PCW content. That is a different requirement and needs to have the percentage in the product that you buy.
It’s great to see such rich dialogue on this important and sometimes complex topic. But what seems to be missing is the big picture showing the benefits certification brings to our forests.
Half a billion acres in North America are certified. That means half a billion acres of our diverse forests are managed to standards that go beyond the law, and compliance is verified by independent auditors. Benefits include sustainable harvesting and prompt regeneration; protection for water quality, soil, wildlife habitat and biodiversity; and consideration of the rights of workers and local communities.
The work of a certification program like SFI is not limited to our label. We are involved in literally hundreds of projects to strengthen forest practices and local communities – from partnerships with Habitat for Humanity to support for collaborative conservation research. If you are part of the SFI program – or any credible certification program – you join thousands of people with a passion for forest management who are improving forest practices every single day.
When you look at the big picture, you will find the cost to printers is minimal compared to the opportunities offered. You are able to contribute directly to forest stewardship and show customers you are prepared to act to meet their high environmental standards. It is important to note however, that SFI doesn’t charge printers for label use – SFI is a non-profit and doesn’t make money from printers achieving chain of custody certification.
Even in the United States where we have great laws, certification is making a difference. Recent studies in Texas, South Carolina and Tennessee found SFI certification is helping achieve best management practices to protect water quality. An independent scientific study by The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences found owners whose lands were certified to the SFI Standard had “strong biodiversity practices”.
There’s no doubt the method to calculate certified fiber can be complicated. But it’s worth repeating a couple of Vic’s points: The amount of volume-credit certified paper sold by a mill never exceeds the equivalent amount of certified wood that goes into that mill, and certification tells you that 100% of the fiber comes from legal and responsible sources. That second point is important in a world where only 10% of forests are certified – and the 90% uncertified includes a lot in countries without our strong social and environmental laws.
Thanks to Sabine for tackling this complex topic (and to Gail at whattheythink.com for her repost). Anyone with questions might want to check the SFI website or contact me at Jason(dot)metnick(at)sfiprogram(dot)org.
My company looked into FSC certification. The cost was unbelievable. If the mills are FSC certified, the paper FSC certified, why do I have to pay a licensing fee to print the logo when I use FSC paper?
This has nothing to do with the ecosystem and everything to do with someone’s bottom line.
The multilayer certification seems excessive. It appears that the distributors and printers are nothing more than a cash cow to feed the system.
Since 10% of all pulp is certified it is financially impossible to generate enough funds from just the forest managers, wood suppliers and paper mills.
How can we generate more funding?
The only way is to multilayer the process and included distributors and resellers and printers.
-If the chain of custody continues through the publisher and to the end user, how come the publisher does not have to become certified or pay the certification fees?
-Couldn’t 100% of the forests in the US be certified should they wish to pay the fees? Or is it limited only in the caps that the certification companies apply to keep supply low?
-How come, as a printer, there is a 5 year minimum requirement to join? Doesn’t that mean we are required to send FSC a check every month for 5 years? How is that not a charge for label use?
-This statement is just rumored from top executives at a large mill here in the US, not based on personal experience, but wasn’t it a joke in the paper industry when AP&P became FSC certified? General understanding is that they relocate people and use elephants to tear down trees–everything certification is against. Yet they were willing to pay the fees.
-Paper is 11% of wood use. Tackling paper seems to be minor compared to what would make a real difference. The largest use for lumber is telephone poles, followed by furniture. Most US lumber for furniture is exported. Even if paper were completely eliminated by electronic alternatives, wouldn’t targeting telephone poles make a much greater result? How about all that wood we’re exporting?
-The average US printing company makes a 4% profit. 50% of printing companies in the US went out of business between 200 and 2008–before the recession started. In my opinion for a certification representative to claim that “the cost is low” is someone that doesn’t realize the true cost, not to mention the lack of cost/benefit analysis. Certification is very expensive, the certification reps seem to tell the general public that printers can’t charge for it, and it certainly does not seem to have a meaningful, quantifiable difference in how paper is farmed in the US. Sure, it did at one time many years ago, now it is nothing but marketing. Certification sure does not seem to be an effective way of managing environmental sustainability.