An optional tour of Domtar’s state-of-art Marlboro integrated pulp and paper mill was offered to all Working Group members the day before the meeting. Domtar rented a van a drove six of us two hours away to Bennettsville, SC where the mill operates. The Marlboro mill is a relatively new pulp and paper mill built in 1990 and has an annual production of 338,000 tonnes of pulp and 389,000 tonnes of paper. We were fortunate to get a tour of the entire operation, from the trees being brought in and chipped to a final 35 tonne roll of paper coming off the paper machine. Our host Lewis Fix of Domtar also took us to a converting facility that takes those giant roles of paper and cuts them down into regular office paper that gets fed into your copy machine.

The most fascinating part of the entire tour, to me, was the paper machine. If you ever have an opportunity to visit a mill and actually see how pulp (a tree fiber slurry comprising of over 90% water) starts at one end and travels through a series of dries, presses, starching, and rollers over the distance of almost an entire city block, I would highly recommend it. These machines run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, putting a 140 miles (that’s right, I said miles) of paper on a roll in about two hours. The precision the paper mill operators are able to control and the thickness and basis weight is astounding.

Every pulp and paper mill around the globe has a different and unique way of making paper, from the chemical recipe used in pulping to the design of the paper machine, all to utilize available resources and create a product with unique value in the marketplace. The challenges related to environmental stewardship in the paper industry are very complex and have global implications. GreenBlue and the Forest Products Working Group recognizes the complexity of these challenges and see the value of convening with industry leaders to bring innovative and science-based solutions to the industry. I look forward to continuing to work with this group and its future members, in addition to getting to participate in any future facility and paper mill tours.

The Guidelines draw heavily upon the expertise of some of the largest based packaging converters and paper mill operators including Amcor, Caraustar Industries Inc., Graphic Packaging International, International Paper, Pratt Industries, RockTenn Company, and Sunoco Products Company to provide science-based, practical information on using both pre and post-consumer recycled content in packaging. With a focused look at 20 high volume packaging applications in retail environments, my expert team and I looked at when, where, and how to optimize recycled content and why some packaging applications lend themselves to the use of high percentages of recycled content, while others do not. Here are some of the things I learned while developing these Guidelines:

Six Key Criteria
When contemplating the use of recycled content, there are six key criteria to consider 1) packaging performance requirements, 2) regulatory compliance, 3) technical/operational factors, 4) aesthetic considerations, 5) material availability, and 6) cost. Packaging design and engineering teams must first understand how the package needs to perform in the marketplace to fulfill job #1─product protection. Some good questions to ask their technical counterparts might be, How does recycling affect fiber and/or change its characteristics or attributes?

Strength, Strength, Strength
As I just suggested, it is really all about performance and one of the my big take aways from this effort is that strength—defined as compression strength, edge crush strength, burst strength, tensile strength, score bend strength, and drop impact strength—is absolutely critical in fiber packaging. Since the repulping process causes the fibers to shorten, which can then cause their cell walls to collapse during the drying process, recycled fibers tend to be weaker than virgin fiber. But, that doesn’t mean you can’t make a high performing packaging using significant percentages of recycled content; it simply means that for many applications, mixing recycled content with some percentage of virgin fiber will yield the best results.

The FDA
It’s more challenging to use recycled content in direct food/beverage or drug contact packaging due to the need to comply with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. But, keep in mind that the same regulations—specifically FDA 21CFR170 to 21CFR180— apply to food and drug packaging produced with virgin content. The one difference is that Section 176.260 states that pulp from reclaimed fiber may be used in food contact articles if the recycled content “does not contain deleterious substances that may migrate to food so as to be potentially injurious to the health of the consumers.” Being able to demonstrate, through appropriate testing, that the reclaimed fiber is not introducing any materials of concern is key.

Mill Technology
Mill technology is one of the primary factors in efficient and effective use of recycle fiber in packaging. The good news is that a number of technological advances in multi-ply recycled paperboard manufacturing have made better and faster sheet formation possible. Most of these involve a different means of applying pulp to the rotating cylinders of a conventional multiply machine. Improvements in press section and coating technology are also common. Distributed control systems (DCSs—i.e., that eliminate manual control of paperboard production) have also improved the ability to produce recycled content board. DCSs comprise an array of scanners, measurements, profilers, control software, and high-speed communication interfaces with operators to deliver both optimum sheet characteristics and maximum production. These systems can also help monitor overall energy consumption

Contaminants
Contamination in the recycle stream is another operational challenge. Unfortunately, with a trend toward single stream recycling, contamination may become a bigger factor in the short term. On the other hand, technological improvements in cleaning equipment that is being employed at an increasing number of mills could compensate for the increased contamination in the long term. In many cases, these improvements result from advances in alloys and other materials, which have led to the development of more sophisticated screening equipment. A 12,000-slot screen used to be required for fine screening. Today, a 6,000-slot screen provides optimum performance.

White and Bright
While many may say aesthetics should not be a barrier to recycled content use, consider the following scenario. You need an over the counter pain reliever. On one end of the shelf several offerings are packed in bright white (bleached) boxes. On the other end of the shelf a few options are packed in dull, uneven-toned brown or beige boxes. Because of the nature of the product, chances are you reach for the “clean” looking box. Consumer education may eventually eliminate selection based on perception, but we’re not there yet, and most brands won’t (really can’t) take the risk of losing market share. Nonetheless, until consumers really get on board with more eco-friendly choices, packaging converters have a number of options to achieve a whiter brighter packaging even when using significant percentages of recycled content. For example, keeping newsprint (which shouldn’t be used in food and drug contact packaging anyway) out of the furnish helps with coloration. Using multi-stage cleansing processes that utilize elemental chlorine-free and chlorine-free bleaching agents, such as hydrogen peroxide and other biodegradable cleaners, organic chelants, and/or optical brightening agents, can help achieve desired results. Another solution is the use of white pigmented coatings that have been specifically formulated for whiteness and brightness, for example, coatings with titanium dioxide.

Supply and Demand
Even though fiber is the most recycled packaging material—71.8 percent of paper and paperboard packaging was recycled in 2009, according to US EPA data—demand exceeds supply. This is partly true because offshore markets are willing to pay higher prices for recycled fiber. As an indication of current trends, the AF&PA reports that the US exported 3 percent more recovered paper in April than in March 2011 and by August 2011, year-to-date exports of recovered paper were up 13 percent.

Economics
Finally, if you think cost is the biggest consideration for brand owners and converters in deciding if and how much recycled content to use in their fiber-based packaging, think again. It’s not. As is true of virgin fiber, cost of recycled paper and paperboard fluctuates, so at any given time recycled paperboard may cost less than virgin or vice versa. It’s all about watching the market and making smart purchasing decisions.

Guidelines for the Use of Recycled Content in Fiber Packaging is available free to Sustainable Packaging Coalition members and to non-members for $125.00.
Download now

The Forest Products Working Group brings together leading companies that rely on paper, wood, and other forest products to share their knowledge and develop new solutions for making their businesses more sustainable.

The group, following the successful blueprint of GreenBlue’s industry-leading Sustainable Packaging Coalition, launched in October 2011 with eight founding members of notable and diverse companies from across different industry sectors. The founding members are: Avery Dennison Corporation, Avon Products, Inc., Bank of America, Catalyst Paper, Domtar, HAVI Global Solutions, Sappi Fine Paper North America, and Staples.

We believe the Forest Products Working Group takes a unique approach to corporate sustainability by bringing together stakeholders to tackle unmet challenges in the forest products sector. Our members pool their resources and bring innovative thinking to identify solutions that work for business, people, and the forest.

After a founders meeting in December, the group announced its inaugural project will be to design a set of clear, science-based guidelines to inform decision-making for paper design, procurement, use, and recovery. Additional areas of potential future work include increasing the quantity and quality of recovered fiber, alternative fibers, and increasing the availability of fiber sourced from sustainably managed forests.

Any company that relies on forest products to meet business objectives—including paper suppliers, consumer product goods companies, retailers, publishing companies, and building product manufacturers—is invited to join the group.

For information on membership eligibility and benefits, and to apply for membership online, please visit the Forest Products Working Group page of our website.

Another interesting question that comes out of the film is related to an unknown future for print media. Industries that rely on print, such as the newspaper industry, are facing decreased demand as readers move online. Therefore, so is the demand for paper in these industry sectors. This does not mean, however, that pressure on the forest will decrease. In fact, there are important questions we are confronted with as a result, such as, “How will transforming industries affect the world’s forests?” and “How do we incorporate intelligent, science-based, sustainability solutions to protect and ensure healthy forests worldwide?”

For example, will a tree farm in South Carolina that supplied wood fiber for newspapers be untouched and standing in a future without demand for its fiber for newspapers? Or, will this forested area be used for another wood product? Cleared for a shopping mall? Maybe used for bio-based energy? Forests face new pressures as the world population increases and their demands for forest-based resources evolve as well. Finding solutions led by principles of sustainability that are relevant to a changing marketplace and a world with more demands on the earth’s forests must play a role.

For those that are interested, here’s a description of Page One: Inside the New York Times:

Page One: Inside the New York Times deftly gains unprecedented access to The New York Times newsroom and the inner workings of the Media Desk. With the Internet surpassing print as the main news source and newspapers all over the country going bankrupt, PAGE ONE chronicles the transformation of the media industry at its time of greatest turmoil. It gives us an up-close look at the vibrant cross-cubicle debates and collaborations, tenacious jockeying for on-the-record quotes, and skillful page-one pitching that produce the “daily miracle” of a great news organization. What emerges is a nuanced portrait of journalists continuing to produce extraordinary work under increasingly difficult circumstances.

At the heart of the film is the burning question on the minds of everyone who cares about a rigorous American press, Times lover or not: what will happen if the fast-moving future of media leaves behind the fact-based, original reporting that helps to define our society?

Sustainable forest management is one of the most important strategies for reducing pressure on the world’s forests. Increasing corporate demand for sustainably managed forest products will be crucial in increasing the global share of sustainably managed forestland and ultimately in safeguarding our valuable forest resources. Through our work with the Columbia team, we wanted to get a better understanding of the current market for sustainably managed forest products and to identify practical actions that can be taken to increase the availability of these products in the marketplace.

More specifically, we asked the team to evaluate the corporate strategies and level of commitment that the largest buyers of forest products in the United States have in place for addressing sustainable forest management in order to analyze the current and trending demand for these products by leading corporate consumers. These results were then compared to supply of forest products being produced from a limited amount of sustainably managed forestland.

The students collected corporate procurement policies and strategies from publicly available corporate sustainability reports of 74 leadership companies across three primary sectors: paper and publishing, packaging, and solid wood. The students then developed a proprietary technique to evaluate the sustainability performance of these companies based on 17 criteria related to sourcing of forest products, and company progress was tracked over five years to evaluate industry trends.

The results showed that leaders in the paper and publishing sector have been increasingly moving towards greater use of certified paper, and that there has also been a proliferation of new sustainable sourcing policies. In this sector, leading companies have paper procurement policies with clear goals to increase their use of certified paper, robust supply chain platforms that ensure chain of custody compliance, initiatives to increase the share of certified forestland, and various paper recycling efforts. Corporate policies in the packaging sector tended to focus more on use of recycled fiber content and designing for recyclability rather than on sourcing of certified fiber. Finally, in the solid wood sector, the research found that homebuilders generally have a low commitment to sustainable wood sourcing and focus largely on improving energy efficiency of the homes they build, while household durable (or furniture) companies have more of an emphasis on wood procurement and particularly avoiding illegally harvested wood.

In general across the three sectors, environmental initiatives were more focused on efforts to recycle and reduce consumption of resources, likely because these efforts are less dependent on supply chains, and less focused on sustainable procurement.

On the supply side, the students identified various challenges along the supply chain that hinder the widespread availability of sustainable managed forest products. When considering forest certification in particular, forestland in the US is largely uncertified likely because certification may not be cost-effective for private landowners since certified products do not yield large price premiums as market incentives are currently structured. The report provides specific recommendations for engaging with industry leaders to increase the overall market share of sustainable forest products, including the need for standardized reporting in each sector with specific forestry metrics and performance indicators. The report also highlights the need for more cross-industry collaboration to increase awareness of and commitment to procurement of sustainable managed forest products, something which GreenBlue is working towards through our new Forest Products Working Group.

We are thrilled to have worked with such an impressive group of students and so grateful for their sophisticated insights on this project. You can download the full report entitled Corporate Strategies to Increase Market Share of Sustainably Managed Forest Products and read the group’s recommendations for increasing supply of sustainable forest products here.

Take kenaf, for example. Kenaf is a fast-growing annual, related to cotton and okra, that many studies suggest absorbs more CO2 than trees, outcompetes most weeds, and is resistant to many pests and diseases so that it can be farmed with minimal chemical inputs. It also produces two types of fiber suitable for papermaking. These studies also show that it is easier to pulp than wood-based fibers and therefore can be processed with less energy and water, as well as less environmentally problematical chemicals. Farmers can even rotate kenaf into production with other row crops like corn or soy.

Kenaf is also one example of what is referred to as an “alternative fiber” for papermaking. “Alternative,” at least to me, is an interesting choice of words given that wood fiber would have been considered an alternative for much of paper’s history. Regardless, in the present day alternative fibers are referred to as any non-wood fiber that can be used as material for paper and packaging. These fiber materials are also called “tree-free” and consist of fiber sources grown a: 1) a primary crop (like kenaf and hemp); and, 2) agricultural residues (like wheat straw).

Proponents of alternative fibers suggest that the use of non-wood fiber for papermaking has less environmental impacts due to the cultivation, yield, and efficiency of non-wood fibers. These proponents argue that using non-wood fiber will have less impact on the forest, save trees, and divert agricultural residues from being burned. It also could help areas that can’t grow trees create an industry for making paper fiber.

Opponents to the use of alternative fibers suggest that there is no existing infrastructure that can support alternative fibers on a commercial scale. Worldwide, alternative fibers consist of less than 10% of fiber in paper and packaging, and 85% of that amount consists mostly of non-wood papers made in China. (In the U.S. alternative fibers are less than 1% of fiber in paper and packaging.) Other challenges cited include the potential harmful effects of converting forest land to other uses, as well as converting farmland to non-food uses.

There is a significant amount of research and information available regarding the use of non-wood fibers for paper and packaging.  However, more information is still needed. The best thinking to address the questions of non-wood and wood fiber for papermaking requires a holistic and scientific approach. It is not enough to just say “if it’s not made from a tree, it’s a better choice.” Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs) have their own limitations, but a rigorous and science-based LCA is one way that we could find out more about how alternative fibers compare to wood fiber for paper and packaging in terms of the economic, technical, and environmental benefits of each fiber type. It is hardly realistic to think that one can replace another or vice-versa, but there is likely an approach that could suggest a more efficient use of all available fibers for papermaking than exists today.

Some important key questions to consider in this analysis include:

1. Would the use of alternative fibers remove incentives to keep the landscape forested?

2. Do the environmental advantages of alternative fibers persist when the production expands to the necessary scale, or does it result in more negative environmental impacts? (considering water use, chemical inputs, energy requirements, climate effects, etc.)

3. What is the risk that forest land will be converted to agriculture?

4. What effects, both positive and negative, would this have on local communities and indigenous peoples?

Partially as a result of the unprecedented levels of global trade and travel that we enjoy today, more and more non-native invasive* species are making their way around the world. Take insects, for example. Insects can hitchhike on airplanes, cargo ships, or other vehicles. The Asian tiger mosquito (carries West Nile Virus), the Asian longhorned beetle (kills a variety of hardwood tree species), and the hemlock wooly adelgid (decimates hemlocks in the Appalachians) are but a few examples of hitchhiking invasive insects that have made it to the US and become established. Invasive insects cause billions of dollars in damage to agriculture, the environment, and human health. But even the less obvious costs are significant, too. For example, local governments pay over a billion (yes, a billion) dollars each year in invasive forest pest detection and control costs. Loss of trees reduces US residential property values by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

There are many different types of invasive insects that attack trees, but it appears that wood-boring insects may be the worst kind, cost-wise. These beetles lay their eggs in tree bark or wood. The eggs hatch into larvae that tunnel through the wood, eating as they mature and pupate. The new adults emerge by chewing their way out of the wood. If an infested tree is harvested and made into crates and pallets to carry cargo, the new adult beetles hidden in the wood will emerge at the cargo’s destination. This pathway is suspected of establishing a number of species in the US, including the emerald ash borer and the Asian longhorned beetle, both of which kill valuable and abundant hardwood trees, like ash and maple.

A recent journal article detailed here published an estimate of the costs of invasive forest insects in the US. The results are staggering: invasive wood-boring insects alone are estimated to cause $1.7 billion in local government expenditures and $830 million in lost residential property values annually. Other types of invasive forest pests, such as sap and foliage feeders, cause hundreds of millions of dollars of additional damage annually.

Preventing invasive insects from getting to the US is one thing, but stopping their spread once they have arrived is another. The US Department of Agriculture and Department of Homeland Security require that all wood packaging material imported to the US be heat-treated or fumigated with methyl bromide (an ozone-depleting chemical with no comparable safe alternative). In 2005, implementation of these requirements finally harmonized US practice with global standards set by the International Plant Protection Convention. For already-established invasive insects, state and local governments and the “Don’t Move Firewood” campaign are tackling prevention within and between states.

Clearly international trade and travel has had a positive effect on our lives and the economy. But our experience with invasive forest insects serves as a warning of the unintended consequences that can negatively affect an untold number of things we value: a vista at our favorite national park, mature trees lining our neighborhood streets, leaf-watching tourism, the forest products industry, and more—even the production of the iconic Louisville Slugger baseball bat.

*According to the US National Invasive Species Council and Executive Order 13112, a species is considered “invasive” if meets two criteria:
1) It is not native to an ecosystem.
2) If its introduction causes, or is likely to cause, harm to human health, the environment, or the economy.
It is important to remember that most non-native species do not cause harm.

The Forest Products Working Group will focus on developing practical tools and resources to address forest resource challenges and opportunities. The founding members today include Avery Dennison Corporation, Avon Products, Inc., Bank of America, Catalyst Paper, Domtar, HAVI Global Solutions, Sappi Fine Paper North America, and Staples.

“We’re delighted to have such diverse representation of major companies coming together to develop innovative solutions for the sustainability of forest products,” said GreenBlue Senior Program Manager Tom Pollock, who is leading the initiative. “We believe better corporate decision-making around forest products can help address critical issues such as climate change, resource efficiency, forest health, and biodiversity. The emphasis with this group from the start will be on meaningful and measureable outcomes to help shape a better future for forests.”

Founding members convened for the first time last week to begin laying the groundwork and direction of the working group with plans to begin seeking additional members in early 2012. The focus of the Forest Products Working Group is on new and innovative thinking with initial topics that may include strategies for maximizing the quantity and quality of recovered paper, increasing the availability of certified fiber, and extended producer responsibility.

The Forest Products Working Group will build off the successful model of GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition, which has grown to include over 200 members and is recognized as the leading international voice on packaging sustainability.

GreenBlue brings significant expertise in the forest products sector thanks to its 2009 acquisition of Metafore, a nonprofit focused on environmentally preferable wood and paper products. Building on this work, GreenBlue launched its new Forest Products program earlier this year, which includes projects such as EPAT®, a web-based application to assess the environmental performance of paper; the Paper Life Cycle, an online resource that provides key environmental information about the sourcing, production, use, and end-of-life of paper; and the Corporate Forum for Paper and the Environment, a collaboration with the Forest Products Association of Canada to bring together paper and pulp buyers and sellers.

Yet I can’t help but notice that the quality of recovered fiber is never included in the equation. Is single stream recovery doing more harm than good in terms of creating technical challenges associated with mixed paper recovery streams?

One advantage virgin tree fiber has over recovered fiber in making paper is its reliability as a consistent quality material input. Recovered paper can provide quality and reliable sources of fiber, but there are other competing factors in play that need to be considered for achieving levels of quality and reliability required for certain paper types. Turning recovered fiber into recycled paper products efficiently is dependent on the quality of feedstock and the technical ability of a manufacture to de-ink, clean, and re-pulp the fiber. Contaminants such as food scraps, plastic, and metal make it more difficult for manufactures and lead to the further downcycling of the fiber.

Furthermore, as our waste management systems move from a homogeneous to a more heterogeneous stream of recovered fiber through single stream recycling, it presents additional challenges and constraints with the mixture of different paper types and qualities. For example, a magazine or catalog has different fiber characteristics and shiny coatings than an old newspaper does, which impacts the re-pulping process—and any additional processing likely causes unnecessary environmental impact.

In addition, recovered paper is a commodity and the thirst for fiber of China and other emerging markets were responsible for the consumption of 39% of the paper recovered in the United States in 2010, up 5% since 2007. Their ability to provide new capacities for processing mixed paper is making it difficult for the North American industry to compete and improve the quality of recovered paper streams since a market for lower quality streams exists elsewhere. So instead we export our recovered paper to get processed in a region with less than exemplary environmental controls and then it gets shipped back to us as packaging and the products we buy.

I can remember when it was required to sort all recyclables or it wouldn’t even get picked up. It wasn’t that much of a bother and it felt like I was contributing to the recycling and reuse of the materials I consumed. Today, everything goes into one bin and requires no sorting; it feels like I’m passing on the responsibility down the supply chain.

Recovered paper as a fiber source provides many environmental benefits, most significantly the efficient use of a resource (trees) through the recycling and reuse of its fiber. But is our fixation on the Recovery Rate number, often achieved via single stream and mixed stream recovery systems, creating a negative trade-off and diminishing environmental returns by reducing the consistency of quality recovered fiber?

If only it were that simple. Paper is certainly made from trees (or other fibrous plants), but there is a whole slew of other materials that paper is “made” from. Let’s look at the kraft pulping process, which is the first step used to make the majority of paper packaging. The trees are harvested, chipped, and put in a solution called “white liquor,” which is a mixture of water, sodium sulfide, and caustic soda. Your answer to our seemingly rhetorical question has already become more educated: paper is made from trees, water, sodium sulfide, and caustic soda.

Let’s keep going. Caustic soda is produced by running electricity through salt water. Interestingly, the salt water is created by adding fresh water to salt that was produced by evaporating naturally occurring salt water, instead of using the naturally occurring salt water itself, which has too many other types of dissolved solids. Where does the sodium sulfide come from? Most of it is made by mixing ground up coal with a substance known as “salt cake.” And where does salt cake come from? About two thirds of salt cake is harvested as the mineral mirabilite, and the remainder is produced as a byproduct of hydrochloric acid production.

If the paper is white, then it’s probably been treated with chlorine (also made from running electricity through salt water), chlorine dioxide, or an alternative combination of ozone (made from running electricity through air) and hydrogen peroxide (don’t even ask how hydrogen peroxide is made. I looked it up, and found phrases like “autoxidation of a 2-alkyl anthrahydroquinone”).

Modern papermaking is a fascinating process and decades of innovations have resulted in every single input being used to its fullest extent with a minimized amount of non-paper outputs. The white liquor is recycled inside a paper mill, using lime (calcium oxide, made from limestone) and small amounts of new white liquor to reconstitute its needed properties. By amount used, trees vastly outweigh every other resource used to make paper. Nonetheless, it’s important not to oversimplify the answer to my seemingly rhetorical question.

So what is paper made from? Trees, water, salt water, coal, mirabilite, limestone, maybe 2-alkyl anthrahydroquinone. It might contain calcium carbonate (more limestone), kaolinite (clay), talc, or titanium dioxide as a filler. Perhaps a wax emulsion is used as a sizing agent. Formaldehyde could be added to improve its strength when wetted. Some paper is treated with optical brighteners, dyes, pitch control chemicals, and slimicides. It might still suffice to say that paper is made from trees, but sustainability is complicated and we shouldn’t oversimplify our concept of paper production to the point where we think that the only inputs are trees. It’s important to keep in mind that paper as we know, as well as all products, couldn’t be made without a fascinating array of other additions.