Final Report

Duke University Environmental Defense FundJohnson & Johnson McDonalds

The Prudential Insurance Company of America Time Inc.

The Paper Task Force

Paper Task Force Recommendations for Purchasing and Using

Environmentally Preferable Paper

Authors/Special Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Project Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2I . I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2

Why Paper? Whats at Stake? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3What Is the Pulp and Paper Industry Doing about All This? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4The Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5Types of Paper Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

I I . What Can a Purchaser Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5Approaches to Implementing the Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5Five Steps for Direct Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

I I I . A Preview of the Task Forces Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9Appendix: Paper Task Force Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage for Purchasing Environmentally Preferable PaperI . I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6I I . Scope and Process of the Paper Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

A. Types of Paper Examined by the Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8B. Basic Steps in the Paper Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

1. Virgin fiber acquisition: forest management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 92. Pulp and paper manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 03. Recycling and waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0

C. The Task Forces Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1D. Research Approach for Functional, Environmental and Economic Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2

1. Approach to the functionality research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 22. Approach to the environmental research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 33. Approach to the economic research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5

I I I . Key Findings on Functional Requirements for Various Grades of Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6A. Business Communication Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6B. Publication Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7C. Corrugated Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8D. Folding Cartons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8

I V. The Economic Structure of the Pulp and Paper Industry and Its Relation to Paper Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9A. Capital-intensive Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9B. Capacity and Price Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0C. Paper Manufacturing and Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

D. What the Pricing Cycle Means for Purchasing Environmentally Preferable Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2E. The Global Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3

Appendix A: Paper Task Force Memorandum of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix B: List of Expert Panel Topics and Panelists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6

Chapter 2: Source ReductionI . Source Reduction: Why Should We Do It?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2I I . Reducing Paper Use in Your Organization: Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3I I I . Implementation Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3

A. Reducing Paper Use in Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4B. Publications and Direct Mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4C. Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4D. Electronic Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5E. Implementation Examples from the Paper Task Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6

1. Source reduction in office settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62. Source reduction in direct mail and publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63. Source reduction in packaging materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7

I V. Information Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8

Chapter 3: Recycling and Buying Recycled PaperI . I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4

A. The Use, Recycling and Disposal of Paper in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4I I . R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5

A. Rationale for the Recommendations and Summary of Task Force Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61. Environmental comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62. Paper performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63. Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7

I I I . Implementation Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8A. Expanding and Optimizing Paper Recycling Collection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9B. Assisting in the Development of a Recycling Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0C. Approaches to Buying Paper with Recycled Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1

1. Getting started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12. Defining recycled content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 13. Setting levels of recycled content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 24. Action steps for effective purchasing of paper with postconsumer recycled content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3

D. Increasing the Recyclability of the Paper Your Organization Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 51. Printing and writing papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 52. Corrugated boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63. Folding cartons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6

E. Information Resources For Purchasers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6

3

I V. General Conclusions in Support of the Recycling Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8A. Environmental Comparison of Recycled and Virgin Fiber-based Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8

1. Scope of the comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 92. Results of the comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 03. Energy in transportation vs. manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814. Important caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2

B. The Impact of Recycled Content on the Functional Performance of Paper Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3C. The Economics of Paper Recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3

1. Recovered paper prices and recycling collection and solid waste management costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 42. The cost of manufacturing paper with recycled content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63. Projections of the future cost of pulpwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74. Increased recycling as a cost-containment strategy for paper purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75. The economic benefits of increased recycling for paper producers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9

V. Findings for Specific Grades of Paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9A. Printing and Writing Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9

1. Environmental issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 03. Paper performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 04. Price premiums for printing and writing paper with recycled content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915. The cost of producing printing and writing paper with recycled content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 26. Manufacturing costs for specific paper grades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3

B. Corrugated Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 51. Environmental issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 52. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74. Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 75. Purchasing corrugated boxes with environmental improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8

C. Folding Cartons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 91. Environmental issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 92. Performance and availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 13. Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 24. Recycling of folding cartons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3

V I . Answers To Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3Appendix A: Energy Use and Environmental Releases Associated withComponent Activities of Three Methods of Producing and Managing Different Grades of Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 8

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

4

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Chapter 4: Forest ManagementI . I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0

A. How Is Forest Management Relevant to Paper Purchasers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0B. Methodology and Scope of the Task Forces Work on Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1C. Forest Management in Broad Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2D. Overview of Forest Management Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

1. Road construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 42. Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 43. Site preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 54. Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 55. Stand tending and protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 56. Commercial thinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 6

E. Current Efforts to Mitigate Environmental Impacts of Forest Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 61. Federal requirements affecting forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 62. State-level regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 73. Voluntary efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 7

II. Recommendations for Purchasing Paper Products Made from Fiber Acquired throughEnvironmentally Preferable Forest Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 9A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 9

1. Environmental and economic context for the recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 92. Objectives of the Task Force recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 03. Context for purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 04. Structure of the recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 15. Purchaser implementation options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1

B. Recommendations and Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 31. Recommendations to advance management of lands owned by forest products companies in a

manner that preserves and enhances the full range of environmental values forestlands provide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 32. Recommendation to extend environmentally sound management practices to non-

industry lands from which forest products companies buy wood for their products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 23. Recommendations to promote environmentally sound forest management at a landscape

level and across ownership boundaries, including increased support for natural and less intensive management on public and non-industry private lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 4

I I I . Purchaser Implementation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 7A. Dialogue with Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 7B. Periodic Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 7C. Goal-setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 8D. Purchasing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 8E. Auditing/Certification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 8

I V. Environmental and Economic Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 9A. Environmental Findings and Summary of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 9

1. Findings on forest management in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 92. Findings on potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 03. Findings on natural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 14. Findings on management activities of special interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 1

5

B. Economic Findings and Summary of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 31. Findings on U.S. timber supply and harvests, pulpwood supply and the impact of paper recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 32. Findings on trends in pulpwood prices and the impact of recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 53. Findings on economics of pulpwood production and market intervention into

forest management practices: Assessing costs and benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 6V. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8Appendix: Smart Questions for Paper Purchasers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 2

Chapter 5: Pulp and Paper ManufacturingI . I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 0

A. How Is Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Relevant to Purchasers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 7 0B. Overview of the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1

I I . Overview of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1A. Raw Materials and Other Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 2

1. Fiber sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 22. Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 33. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 34. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 3

B. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 31. Mechanical pulp production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 42. Chemical pulp production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 53. Recovered fiber pulping and cleaning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 64. Bleaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 65. Papermaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 8

C. Releases to the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 81. Releases to air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 02. Releases to land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 03. Releases to water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 0

D. Pollution-control Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 11. Air emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 12. Solid waste disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 13. Effluent treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 1

E. Pollution-prevention Technologies for Pulp and Paper Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 11. Mechanical and unbleached kraft mills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 12. Recovered-fiber processing technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 23. Bleached kraft pulp mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 24. Bleached sulfite pulping processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 45. Technologies in research and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 5

F. Environmental Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 5I I I . Environmental and Economic Context for the Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 6

A. Environmental Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 6B. Economic Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 7C. Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 7D. The Role for Purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

6

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

I V. Recommendations for Purchasing Paper Made with Environmentally Preferable Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 9A. Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 9

1. Minimum-impact mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 92. Product reformulation by changing the types of pulps used in paper products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 7

V. Implementation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 9A. Action Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 0

1. Educate yourself about your paper use and your suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 02. Have a dialogue with your supplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 03. Develop a specification for a specific paper product. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 0

4. Reward suppliers with additional business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 0 05. Develop a strategic alliance with a supplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 06. Work with your suppliers to establish goals and milestones for changing the paper you purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 0

B. Minimum-impact Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 01. Vision and commitment to the minimum-impact mill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 12. Environmental management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 13. Pulp and paper manufacturing technologies and research programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 1

C. Environmental Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 21. Indicators of general environmental performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 22. Performance of indicators for bleached kraft and sulfite pulping technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 3

D. Product Reformulation Based on Changes in Pulps Used in Specific Paper Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 3V I . Answers to Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 4Appendix A: Ranges for Data on Environmental Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 8Appendix B: Cost Model for Bleached Kraft Pulp Manufacturing Te c h n o l o g i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 8Appendix C: Environmental Comparison for Different Paper Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 0Appendix D: Examples of Evaluation Forms for Environmental Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . 2 1 2

The Paper Task Force Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 6Explanation of Key Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9Order Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 6

7

A U T H O R S A N D S P E C I A L A C K N O E L E D G M E N T S

8

AUTHORS

Duke UniversityPaul BrummettEvelyn Hicks

Environmental Defense FundLauren Blum

Robert BonnieRichard A. Denison

Nat KeohaneAnnette Mayer-Ilmanen

Jane B. PreyerJohn F. RustonMelinda Taylor

Johnson & JohnsonHarold J. CapellBrenda S. Davis

Barbara M. GreerAnthony A. Herrmann

Peter Turso

McDonalds CorporationLinda Croft

Bob Langert

The Prudential Insurance Company of America

Joe DeNicolaSteve Ritter

Time Inc.David J. RefkinDavid Rivchin

SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe Paper Task Force gratefully acknowledges thefollowing members, past and present, of theirorganizations who helped make possible thesuccessful completion of this project. Theseindividuals contributed to the Task Force in manyvaluable ways- --as support staff, as reviewers of TaskForce documents and as researchers, and byproviding expertise and advice on various topicsthroughout the process. We extend our sincere thanksfor the time, effort and support they provided.

Duke University

Dr. Stephen BoyceDr. Norman ChristensenDr. Richard DiGiulioStephanie FinnDr. Douglas LoberDr. Daniel RichterDavid RobersonDr. Aarne VesilindDuke Un i versity School of the En v i ronment graduate students: Teos AbadiaChris BenjaminDavid CohenJonathan CoscoJason KarasElizabeth McLanahanKerry MularczykPamela NiddrieMark RampollaPaul SchinkeStewart Tate

Environmental Defense Fund

Maxine AdamsBob BravermanMechelle EvansAlexandra HanerSuzanne HamidSteven LevitasAllan MargolinDiane MinorCiara OConnell

Diane PatakiJackie Prince RobertsEliza ReedKaren RoachMelody ScottSandin WangJohnson & Johnson

Suzanne GogginBill HoppesJeff LeebawElizabeth RichmondKarl SchmidtM c D o n a l d s Corporation

Iris KastDave KouchoukosTauquincy MillerWalt RikerNationsBank Corporation

Bruce LawrenceSaundra NeusumThe Prudential InsuranceCompany of America

Mary DonelikRachel IngberPaul LambdinMarijane LundtBob ZanisnikTime Inc.

Elaine AlestraPeter CostiglioBarry MeinerthDeane Raley, Jr.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSIn developing our recommendations and report, the Task Forceconducted a compre h e n s i ve data-gathering effort, assisted byhundreds of experts representing a broad range of interests andp e r s p e c t i ves. The information provided by these individuals andthe cooperation of the organizations they represent were majorreasons for the Task Forces success.

The Task Fo rce either met with or re c e i ved written commentson draft work products from individuals re p resenting the orga-nizations listed below. These interactions included more than 50visits to manufacturing, re c ycling and fore s t ry sites, in excess of400 re s e a rch meetings and discusssions and approximately 200sets of written comments re c e i ved on the Task Fo rc es draftre s e a rch papers.

Members of the Task Force gratefully acknowledge the time,e f f o rt and expertise that the following individuals and organiza-tions provided to its research. The work and final products ofthe Task Fo rce are the sole responsibility of its members.Ac k n owledgment of the parties listed below does not implytheir endorsement of this report.

With the exception of independent consultants, academi-cians and others who re p resented themselves and not their orga-nizations, we have listed organizations rather than individuals.

3M Corporation

American Forest & Paper Association

American Forests

American Pulpwood Association

Appalachian Mountain Club

Arbokem, Inc., Canada

Atchison, Joseph, Joseph E. Atchison Consultants, Inc.

Banana Kelly South Bronx Community Improvement Corp.

Bass, Everett, City of Houston, Solid Waste Management Department

Blandin Paper Co.

Boise Cascade Corp.

Bowater Inc.

Browning Ferris Industries

Bulow, Dr. Jeremy, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business

Canadian Pulp and Paper Association

Canon Corp.

Carey, Dr. John, Environment Canada, Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Branch

Champion International Corp.

Clarke, Marjorie J., independent consultant

Clephane, Thomas, Morgan Stanley & Co.

Consolidated Papers, Inc.

Copytex Corp.

Craftsman Printing Co.

Cross Pointe Paper Corp.

Crown Vantage, Inc.

Cubbage, Dr. Fred, North Carolina State University, Forestry Department

Dillard Paper Co.

DuPont Canada

Eka-Nobel

Environmental Industry Association

Federal Express

Ferretti, William, New York State Department of Economic Development

Fibre Box Association

Fibreco Pulp Inc.

Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd.

Forest Resources Group

Fox River Fiber

Franklin Associates, Ltd.

Fraser Paper Ltd.

Gaylord Container Corp.

9

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Goodwin, Dr. Dan, Rochester Institute of Technology,Department of Packaging Science

Grass Roots Press

Green Bay Packaging Inc.

Green Seal

Green, Charles, Paper Science Consultant

Greenpeace

Hambro Resource Development Inc.

Hoffman Environmental Systems, Inc.

Hunter, Dr. Malcolm, University of Maine, Wildlife Department

Hurter, Robert, HurterConsult, Inc., Canada

Institut National de Recherches Agronomiques, Colmar,France

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

International Paper Co.

Jaakko Pyry Consulting

James River Corp.

Jefferson Smurfit Corp.

Jordan Graphics

Kinkos Copies

Kugler, Dan, Danforth International Trade Associates, Inc.

Lake Superior Paper Industries

Lansky, Mitch, Author of Beyond the Beauty Strip: SavingWhats Left of Our ForestsLee, G. Fred, G. Fred Lee & Associates

Levenson, Dr. Howard, California Integrated Waste Management Board

Lifset, Reid, Yale University, Program on Solid Waste Management Policy

LightHawk

Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Lowry, Tom, Ethan Allan, Inc.

Lyons Falls Pulp & Paper Co.

Manofsky, Lawrence, Environmental Air Force

Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group

McCubbin, Neil, President, N. McCubbin Consultants, Inc.

McDonough, Dr. Thomas, Institute of Paper Science andTechnology, Research and Academic Affairs

McKinlay, Alfred, Consultant-Packaging, Handling, Warehousing

Mead Corp.

Millar Western Pulp Ltd.

Moore Business Forms

Morris, Dr. Jeffrey, Sound Resource Management Group

Motor Freight Association

National Audubon Society

National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement

National Office Paper Recycling Project

National Recycling Coalition

National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes office, Portland office

National Woodlands Owners Association

Natural Resources Council of Maine

Natural Resources Defense Council

North Carolina State University, Department of Wood & Paper Science

Orians, Dr. Gordon, University of Washington, Seattle,Department of Zoology

P.H. Glatfelter Co.

Packaging Systems, Inc.

Paper Recycler newsletterPenobscot Nation

Phoenix Resources

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

10

11

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

Procter & Gamble Co.

Quebecor Printing (USA) Corp.

R.R. Donnelley & Sons

R.W. Beck & Associates

Repap Enterprises, Inc.

Resource Information Systems, Inc.

Resource Recycling magazineRock-Tenn Co.

Rodale Press

Rust Engineering

S.D. Warren Paper Co.

Sayen, Jamie, editor, Northern Forest ForumScarlett, Dr. Lynn, Reason Foundation

Scott Paper Co.

Seattle Solid Waste Utility

Sheil, Mary, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Sierra Club, Maine Chapter

Singh, Dr. Paul, Michigan State University, School of Packaging

Smith, Maureen, Independent Consultant

Sdra Cell

Solid Waste DigestSouthern Environmental Law Center

Springer, Dr. Allan, Miami University (Ohio), Department of Pulp and Paper Science and Engineering

Stevens, Barbara, Ecodata, Inc.

Stone Container Corp.

Sudol, Frank, City of Newark, NJ

Superior Recycled Fiber Industries

Tembec Inc.

Temple-Inland Inc.

The Nature Conservancy

The Wilderness Society

Tree Free EcoPaper

Union Camp Corp.

United Paperworkers International Union

USDA Forest Service Cooperative State Research Service Forest Products Lab, Madison, Wisconsin NW Experiment Station NE Experiment Station SE Experiment Station

Vasuki, N.C., Delaware Solid Waste Authority

Visalli, Dr. Joseph, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Websource

West Fraser Pulp Sales/Quesnel River Pulp Co.

Western Ancient Forest Alliance

Western Ancient Forests Campaign

Westvaco Corp.

Weyerhaeuser

Wildlands Project

WMX Technologies, Inc.

Xerox Corp.

Paper Task ForceRecommendations forPurchasing and Using

EnvironmentallyPreferable Paper

The Paper Task Force

Paper Task ForceRecommendations forPurchasing and Using

EnvironmentallyPreferable Paper

Duke University Environmental Defense FundJohnson & Johnson McDonalds

The Prudential Insurance Company of America Time Inc.

Project Synopsis

Copyright 1995 The Environmental Defense Fund

Produced by the Paper Task ForceDesigned by RuderFinn Design, New York

Printed by New York Recycled Paper

Support for the Environmental Defense Funds work on the Paper Task Force was generously provided by individual donors and the following:

The Mary Duke Biddle Foundation Carolyn Foundation The Educational Foundation of AmericaHeinz Family Foundation Hillsdale Fund, Inc. Lyndhurst Foundation The Moriah Fund

Newmans Own, Inc. C.D. Spangler Foundation, Inc. Surdna Foundation, Inc. Turner Foundation Inc.

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

I n t r o d u c t i o nWhy paper? Whats at stake?

What is the pulp and paper industrydoing about all this?

The results

Types of paper examined

What Can a Purchaser Do?Approaches to implementing

the recommendations

Five steps for direct action

A Preview of the Task Forces Report

3We all use paper lots of it. The average American now usesnearly 700 pounds of paper each year a doubling in per-capita consumption since 1960. And further growth in con-sumption is projected both in the United States and worldwide.

As with other materials, the use of all this paper carries withit a considerable impact on the environment. The members ofthe Paper Task Force came together to find ways to reduce theseimpacts. We comprise an unusual mix of partners: four ofA m e r i c as premier corporations from various sectors of the econ-omy, a major university and a leading environmental advocacyorganization. Each of our organizations purchases and uses largeamounts of paper. We also share the common purpose of find-ing ways to increase the purchase and use of enviro n m e n t a l l ypreferable paper. Weve worked cooperatively to craft a volun-tary, cost-effective initiative for environmental improvement.

By adopting a market-based approach grounded in the pur-chaser-supplier relationship, we seek to create demand for envi-ronmentally pre f e rable paper, defined as paper that re d u c e senvironmental impacts while meeting business needs. This defini-tion explicitly acknowledges that economic and perf o r m a n c econsiderations are central to purchasing decisions. It alsodefined the course of our more than two years of extensiveresearch, during which we: developed a thorough understanding of key performance char-

acteristics of various grades and uses of paper, and how suchfunctional properties can be affected by changes in the fibersource or processes used to make the paper;

re v i ewed available studies and developed our own analysesand models to elucidate the e c o n o m i c s of paper pro d u c t i o nand use; and

e x p l o red e n v i ronmental impacts associated with the pro d u c t i o nand use of paper.T h rough this approach, the Task Fo rce met its goal: to identify

ways to integrate environmental criteria into paper purc h a s i n gdecisions on a par with traditional purchasing criteria, such ascost, availability and functionality. By so doing, we ensure thatthe right environmental choice also makes good business sense.Many of the Task Fo rc es recommendations can cut costs andoffer longer-term strategic advantages for purchasers, and, ifadopted bro a d l y, can positively reshape the overall economics of

1

IntroductionIntroduction

Why paper? Whats at stake?

What is the pulp and paper industrydoing about all this?

The results

Types of paper examined

4paper production and use. Our recommendations also canenhance emerging purchasing practices, such as strategic alliances,that are being adopted by successful business organizations.

Rather than considering only a single or a few attributes ofpaper its re c ycled content, for example, or how it is bleached the Task Fo rce chose to examine the e n t i re lifecycle of paper, lit-erally from the forest to the landfill. We developed a basis forjudging the available options that considers: how the fiber used inpaper is a c q u i re d, whether from a forest or a re c ycling collectionp rogram; how that fiber is m a n u f a c t u re d into a range of paperp roducts; and how those products are managed after use, whetherin landfills or incinerators or through collection for re c yc l i n g .

We reviewed the published literature, analyzed data and hads c o res of internal meetings, but we also got away from thelibrary, our offices and meeting rooms: We made more than 50 site visits to forests, pulp and paper

mills, research facilities and recycling centers. We conducted more than 400 meetings and discussions with

experts from the forest products industry, academia, environ-mental organizations, consulting firms and related businessessuch as makers of office equipment.

We subjected our re s e a rch to extensive re v i ew by a range ofexperts.

Why Paper? Whats at Stake?Paper is an essential part of our lives and our work. At the sametime, its use has major environmental and economic consequences.

Environmental impacts can arise across all stages ofthe lifecycle of paper:

Fiber Ac q u i s i t i o n: Obtaining the fiber used to make paperproducts entails a range of environmental impacts. Collectionand processing of re c ove red paper re q u i res energy and canrelease pollutants to the environment, but these impacts need tobe viewed from a larger perspective: by displacing some of theneed for virgin fiber and extending the overall fiber supply, re c y-cling can offset the environmental impacts of acquiring virginfiber, making virgin paper and disposing of paper after use.

Acquiring virgin fiber from trees can significantly alter the eco-

logical values or functions of forests. Because specific forest man-agement activities, such as how trees are harvested or where ro a d sa re placed, can have immediate, localized effects on water quality,a number of steps, both re g u l a t o ry and vo l u n t a ry, have been takento lessen their impact. Howe ve r, the most significant impacts off o rest management arise on a larger or longer scale, and these havebeen less effectively addressed by existing safeguards. These cumu-l a t i ve effects can include impairment of the integrity of naturalecosystems and the health and diversity of plant and animalspecies and economic re s o u rces such as fisheries and re c re a t i o n dependent on them.

Pulp and Paper Ma n u f a c t u r i n g : Whether from re c ove red orvirgin fiber, the process of making paper consumes large quan-tities of fresh water, chemicals and energy; pulp and paper is thef o u rth most energy-intensive manufacturing industry in theUnited States. Outputs from paper manufacturing pro c e s s e sinclude conventional and hazardous air and water pollutantsreleased to the atmosphere and to bodies of water, as well as avariety of solid wastes.

The Task Fo rc es re s e a rch has shown that manufacturingp rocesses based on re c ycled fiber, while still using re s o u rces andgenerating releases to the environment, generally re q u i re fewe rinputs and generate fewer outputs than do virgin fiber manufac-turing processes. Weve also identified environmental pre f e re n c e samong the technologies and practices used to make virgin paper.

Used Paper Management: Managing used paper is also a sourceof environmental impacts. Waste collection, landfilling andincineration each generate releases of air and water pollutants(and, in the case of incineration, an ash residue that itselfrequires landfilling). Rapid increases in recycling have occurredover the last several years, yet paper still makes up one-third ofall waste Americans send to landfills and incinerators. In fact, in1994, approximately 20% of all paper produced worldwide wasd i s c a rded in the United States. While not all such paper is capa-ble of being recovered for recycling, an increase in the recoveryrate from 40% (the 1994 level) to 50% would increase fibersupply worldwide by 3.3%.

The Cost of Paper to Business: Paper entails a considerable costto businesses that use it in large volumes. The value of total

5shipments of paper from U.S. manufacturers in 1994 was $138billion. This figure includes $55 billion for market pulp andpaper in its basic form (large rolls) and $83 billion in va l u eadded from converting rolls of paper into products like corru-gated boxes, paperboard cartons, envelopes, writing tablets, etc.1

Paper is also a cost factor for and the material that makespossible entire business sectors such as publishing, catalogand direct mail retailing and commercial printing.

What is the Pulp and Paper Industry Doing about All This?

The environmental concerns described above are by no meansnew to the pulp and paper industry; indeed, many companiesand the industry as a whole have been proactive in addressingthem. Some examples are provided below.

Re c ycled Fiber Ac q u i s i t i o n : The last decade has witnessed anunprecedented rise in the collection of used paper products forrecycling, from about 27% in 1985 to just over 40% in 1994(including both postconsumer finished paper products and pre-consumer manufacturing scrap). Continued increases in thepaper recovery rate are expected through the rest of the decade;the pulp and paper industry has set a goal of 50% recovery forthe year 2000.2 In the late 1980s paper manufacturers beganinstalling significant additional deinking and re c ove red fiberp rocessing capacity, projected to amount to an investment ofmore than $10 billion over a decade.

The Task Fo rc es recommendations directly bolster thisi n vestment in re c ycling by calling for action by organizationsthat purchase and use paper on both the supply and demandsides of the recycling equation.

Virgin Fiber Acquisition T h rough Fo rest Ma n a g e m e n t : The Amer-ican Fo rest & Paper Association (AF&PA) recently issued a Su s-tainable Fo re s t ry In i t i a t i ve (SFI) that sets out guiding principlesfor changing how forests are managed so as to sustain, not only theoutput of forest products, but also non-timber values provided byf o rests, such as soil, air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat,and aesthetics. The initiative is the most compre h e n s i ve expre s-sion of the industrys collective effort to improve forest manage-

ment on its lands. It also commits AF&PA member companies toencourage similarly sustainable practices on the part of others,such as loggers and other landowners from whom they purc h a s ewood. As expected for an initiative developed by the industrystrade association, the guidelines do not contain specific perf o r-mance standards in most areas, leaving the administration and exe-cution of the stated objectives up to individual companies.

The SFI provides a useful point of reference for the recom-mendations of the Paper Task Force, many of which reinforcethe principles articulated in the industrys guidelines. Becauseour recommendations are intended to be implemented by pur-chasers working with individual forest products companies,they set out more specific performance measures that purc h a s e r scan use to assess or compare individual suppliers practices andother activities.

Other private-sector initiatives tow a rd sustainable fore s t rythat invo l ve or potentially affect the pulp and paperi n d u s t ry have been developed re c e n t l y. A 1993re p o rt entitled Sustaining Long-term Fo re s tHealth and Pro d u c t i v i t y, was issued by theSociety of American Fo resters (SAF), thep rofessional organization re p resenting thef o re s t ry profession as a whole; it re p resents arecognition by much of the profession ofthe need for new approaches to forest man-agement. In 1994, the Fo rest St ew a rd s h i pCouncil (FSC), an independent, internationalbody being set up to accredit organizations toc e rtify forest management practices, issued its Pr i n-ciples and Criteria for Natural Fo rest Ma n a g e m e n t , which embody a set of environmental objectives re m a rkably sim-ilar to those articulated in the AF&PA and SAF initiatives justdescribed: conservation of biological diversity and its associatedvalues, water re s o u rces, soils and unique and fragile ecosystemsand landscapes. The SFI, SAF and FSC initiatives are all dis-cussed in Chapter 4 of the Task Fo rc es main re p o rt .

Pulp and Paper Manufacturing: Over the last several decades,the nations environmental laws and industry efforts have pro-duced substantial reductions in pollution from pulp and papermanufacturing. Since 1970, the industry has invested over $10

Our recommendations

bolster investments in

recycled paper

manufacturing by calling

for action by organizations

that purchase and use

paper on both the supply

and demand sides of the

recycling equation.

6billion to install pollution-control systems and practices at pulpand paper mills to reduce releases of pollutants to the environ-ment. As a result, releases of conventional air and water pollu-tants have declined by 80-90% over the last 25 years. Mo rerecently, the industry has spent additional capital to install pol-lution-prevention technologies. For example, by reducing theiruse of elemental chlorine, bleached kraft pulp mills havereduced releases of dioxin by over 90% since 1988, and furthersubstantial reductions in chlorine use are underw a y. In addi-tion, several paper companies have installed or made commit-ments to install more advanced technologies at bleached kraftpulp mills that can significantly reduce the quantity as well asimprove the quality of their discharges to air and water. Finally,the American Forest & Paper Association has identified addi-tional re s e a rch directions for new pulping, bleaching and re c ov-ery systems as part of its Agenda 2020.

The Task Fo rce recommendations build on these industry ini-t i a t i ves, by informing purchasers of these technological adva n c e s .This will allow purchasers to buy paper made with enviro n m e n-tally preferable systems and processes that further reduce naturalre s o u rce consumption and releases to the enviro n m e n t .

The Task Force believes that organizations that purchase anduse paper have a vital role to play in realizing further environ-mental improvements in each of the areas we have studied. Thepurchaser-supplier relationship is an appropriate and powerfulvehicle for developing and implementing cost-effective, mark e t -based solutions to the environmental challenges in these areas.Our recommendations are intended to facilitate this process.

The ResultsThe Task Fo rce has produced a variety of tools for organizationsthat use paper: A set of actionable recommendations (a summary of which is

provided in the Appendix), each accompanied by a menu ofimplementation options, with which paper purchasers andusers can systematically integrate environmental considera-tions into their operating pro c e d u res and purchasing deci-sions, alongside cost, performance, service and othertraditional purchasing criteria.3

En v i ronmental, economic, and product performance ra t i o n a l efor the recommendations, as well as answers to key questionslikely to arise in the course of their implementation.

A decision framew o rk with specific action steps (see below) thatorganizations that purchase and use paper can employ inexamining their overall paper use and in applying the Ta s kFo rc es recommendations to identify opportunities to effectpositive environmental change.

A set of detailed, fully documented White Papers that presentall of the Task Forces technical research.To g e t h e r, these Task Fo rce products comprise a p u rc h a s i n g

model for organizations that buy and use paper and that seek tolessen the environmental impact of their paper use.

Types of Paper ExaminedThe recommendations of the Paper Task Force focus on threemajor categories of paper products: printing and writing papers, including those used in publica-

tions as well as in business and office applications corrugated shipping containers folding cartons used to package consumer goods for retail sale These categories together re p resent approximately 70% of allpaper used in the United States.

7Approaches to Implementing theR e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

The Task Fo rc es recommendations provide actionable steps thatorganizations that purchase and use paper can take to reduce paperuse and address forest management, manufacturing and re c ycling.

Pu rchasers buy paper through a variety of entities. T h o s ewho buy directly from specific mills or paper companies canimplement the Task Fo rc es recommendations using these estab-lished relationships. En v i ronmental factors can be intro d u c e das purchasing considerations in the same manner as pro d u c tquality, price, availability and service.

Other purchasers buy from office supply stores, printers,packaging converters, or paper brokers who in turn buy fromm a n u f a c t u rers or other intermediaries. These purchasers cand i rectly request of their vendors paper products with cert a i ne n v i ronmental attributes, such as re c ycled content. Mo re gener-a l l y, they can express their pre f e rences to these vendors, andrequest that they pass such information back up t h e i r s u p p l ychain. In t e r m e d i a ry suppliers can be encouraged or requested toadopt these recommendations in their capacity as paper pur-chasers. Proactive purchasers may wish to link their volume ofbusiness with such vendors to the extent to which they offerpapers made using fiber produced in accordance with these rec-ommendations.

Depending on the specific nature of the purchasing relation-ship, purchasers can take several basic approaches to apply therecommendations: Wo rk with existing suppliers. Paper purchasers can use the re c-

ommendations to communicate their preferences to existingsuppliers or vendors, and work with them to modify existingproducts, practices or technologies or introduce new ones.

Comparison shop. Paper purchasers can evaluate and pre f e re n-tially buy from existing and pro s p e c t i ve suppliers based onthe degree to which suppliers offer products or employ prac-tices that are consistent with the recommendations (and thepurchasers economic and paper performance needs).

Me a s u re pro g re s s . Pu rchasers can use the recommendations toestablish criteria by which they will evaluate a current sup-p l i e rs pro g ress and continuous improvement over time. Estab-

2

What Can a Purchaser Do?

What Can a Purchaser Do?

2

Approaches to implementingthe recommendations

Five steps for direct action

lishing milestones and re p o rting mechanisms for trackingp ro g ress can be used to ensure accountability and results.

Send a signal. Pu rchasers can use the re c o m m e n d a t i o n sto send signals to existing and pro s p e c t i ve suppliers

that, functional and economic needs being met, theywill shift their paper purchases over time to suppli-

ers who adopt pre f e r red practices and develop pre-ferred products.

As these approaches to the Task Force recom-mendations are put to use at each step of thedecision framew o rk described below, envi-ronmental priorities and functional andeconomic needs specific to a given organi-zation will need to be considered in decid-ing the extent to which that step can beapplied to the organizations paper use.

Five Steps for Direct ActionThe following decision framework can aida purchaser in evaluating his or her organi-z a t i o ns overall paper use and in identify-ing opportunities to apply enviro n m e n t a lpreferences. The steps laid out below leadthe purchaser through a logical progressionof decision points to apply to an organiza-

t i o ns paper use. They provide a systematicway to apply the various sets of Task Fo rc e

recommendations, in order to conduct a fullassessment of improvement opportunities.

Only the basic steps of the decision fra m e w o rk and abrief rationale are provided below, as an ove rv i e w.

When using the fra m e w o rk, purchasers should refer to therecommendations contained in the Task Fo rc es main re p o rt .

Step 1. Understand your paper use.

The logical starting point is to develop a baseline inven-tory of your paper use. Identify the major uses, approximate

quantities used, mode of purchase and amounts distributedthrough business activities, disposed of and recycled.

Step 2. Look for opportunities to reduce paper use.

Reducing paper use (a form of s o u rce re d u c t i o n) can take theform of eliminating a given use of paper altogether. For exam-ple, business forms can be consolidated or a layer of packagingcan be eliminated. Or less paper can be used in a given applica-tion. For example, printing and copying can be done on bothsides of a page or the basis weight of paper used in a publicationcan be reduced. When carried out in a manner consistent withfunctional and other constraints, source reduction offers majorenvironmental and economic benefits. By reducing the amountof paper that is used in the first place, environmental impactsresulting from all stages of the lifecycle of paper are entire l yavoided. Using less paper can also save money less paper top u rchase, less storage or filing space needed, and less used paperto manage. While cost savings may seem to provide ampleincentive to reduce paper use, many studies have identified sig-nificant opportunities for further reductions in even the mostefficient business operations.

In Chapter 2 of the Task Forces main report, we offer rec-ommendations and implementation options for reducing theuse of paper in different settings, as well as references to otherresources available to the purchaser.

Of course, no matter how much source reduction you achieve,most businesses will still purchase and use plenty of paper. For thepaper you do use, along with considering availability, functionalperformance and price:

Step 3: Look for opportunities to recycle your paperand work with others to do the same, and to buypaper with postconsumer recycled content.

Paper recycling is good for the environment. The Task Forcese x t e n s i ve re s e a rch shows that, compared to virgin paper pro-duction and disposal, recycled paper production and recoverygenerally result in significantly lower environmental releases ofnumerous air and water pollutants, less solid waste and lowerconsumption of energy and forest resources.

For paper users acting in the aggregate, increasing the collec-tion of paper for re c ycling while expressing a pre f e rence forpaper with recycled content is a strategic approach to containingprices for new paper products. Increased collection of paper forrecycling makes more raw materials available for paper manu-

8

D i r e c tA c t i o n

Five steps for direct action

Step 1: Understand your paper use.

Step 2: Look for opportunities to reduce paper use.

Step 3: Look for opportunities to recycle your paper and workwith others to do the same, and tobuy paper with postconsumerrecycled content.

Step 4: Look for opportunities to buy paper made by suppliersthat employ environmentallypreferable forest managementpractices to produce virgin fiber.

Step 5: Look for opportunities to buy paper made by suppliersthat employ environmentallypreferable pulp and papermanufacturing technologies and practices.

9f a c t u rers and can also reduce solid waste disposal costs and earnpaper users re venues from selling the re c ove red paper. Ma x i-mizing the purchase of re c ycled paper consistent with economicand functional re q u i rements encourages manufacturers toi n vest further in re c ycling-based manufacturing capacity andre s e a rch and development. Within this context, it should benoted that the comparative cost of manufacturing virgin andrecycled paper varies among different grades and among mills.

Recycling ultimately provides paper manufacturers with animportant means of adding productive capacity, and providespurchasers with greater choices among paper products. Growthin re c ycling-based paper manufacturing capacity is now out-pacing growth in virgin paper production capacity. Be t we e n1984 and 1994, total production of pulp from wood grew by10.2 million tons, while total consumption of recovered paperby U.S. manufacturers grew by 13.3 million tons.4 At least insome pulp and paper grades, the advent of this recycling capac-ity is already creating lower prices for paper purchasers.5

Pu rchasers should also identify steps that will enhance the abilityto collect paper within their business operations, whether in-houseor in the products they distribute. Options to consider include: De veloping in-house re c ycling collection programs, and

expanding such programs to include used paper generated inemployees homes.

Initiating or participating in efforts to spur greater paperrecovery in the communities in which the purchasers busi -ness operates, by working with other companies that generateused paper, business organizations, local government andrecycling and waste management companies.

Identifying items that can be redesigned to increase the easewith which they can be recycled (for example, by eliminatingcoatings on boxes, eliminating or switching adhesives onlabels or bindings, or eliminating windows in envelopes).

Step 4. Look for opportunities to buy paper made bysuppliers that employ environmentally preferableforest management practices to produce virgin fiber.

No matter how successful you are at recycling and buying recy-cled paper, a large part of the paper you purchase will likely stillcontain virgin fiber. An input of virgin fiber is necessary to sus-tain a balance with used paper that is recycled, and to maintain

the physical properties of paper products. When buying papercontaining virgin fiber, consider how impacts arising fro macquiring it can be reduced.

The Task Fo rce has identified a number of re c o m m e n d a t i o n sto address the major environmental impacts of forest manage-ment practices used for fiber production. The re c o m m e n d a-tions serve three key objectives: Lands owned by forest products companies should be man-

aged in a manner that pre s e rves and enhances the fullrange of environmental values forestlands provide.

Sound environmental management practicesshould be extended to non-industry lands fro mwhich forest products companies buy wood.

Sound forest management should be pro-moted at a landscape level and across ow n-ership boundaries, including incre a s e ds u p p o rt for natural and less intensiveforms of management on public and non-i n d u s t ry private lands.Because forest products companies have

direct control over practices used on their ownlands, purchasers can work with their existing sup-pliers to implement pre f e r red practices or identify newsuppliers that use such practices on their own lands alre a d y.Howe ve r, the majority of pulpwood is harvested from lands notowned by forest products companies. Here the purchasers roleis to encourage his or her suppliers to exert influence over theirwood suppliers, through their own purchasing relationships aswell as other available means.

Fi n a l l y, to address the most serious and large-scale impacts offorest management on entire ecosystems and plant and animaldiversity, it is essential that forest management planning crossownership boundaries to ensure the integrity and functioningof these communities and ecosystems. Pu rchasers can makeclear their intention to evaluate and compare their suppliersbased on the leadership, commitment and cooperation they dis-play in the areas in which they operate.

As a starting point, purchasers may wish to survey their sup-pliers practices relating to one or more of the Task Forces rec-ommendations, and to set minimum requirements for all their

No matter how successful

you are at buying recycled

p a p e r, you will likely

purchase a lot of paper

containing virgin fiber.

When buying such paper,

consider how impacts

arising from fiber

acquisition and manu-

facturing can be reduced.

10

suppliers, including, for example, full compliance with Be s tManagement Practices. Pu rchasers can then identify specificTask Force forestry recommendations that they will introducein their discussions with existing and prospective suppliers.

Step 5. Look for opportunities to buy paper made bysuppliers that employ environmentally preferable pulpand paper manufacturing technologies and practices.

Within the manufacturing area, each of the following eva l u a t i vesteps can be followed: Consider the manufacturing processes used at the mills owned by

your suppliers. For example, give pre f e rence to paper made bysuppliers who:

a rticulate a vision of a minimum-impact m i l l .6 Su p p l i e r sshould be able to provide a definition of the minimum -impact mill that includes their long-term goals for envi-ronmental perf o r m a n c e .

implement sound environmental managementa p p roaches in the daily operations of their mills and com-ply with environmental regulations.

demonstrate continuous environmental improvement byinstalling pollution-pre vention technologies at their mills.For bleached kraft pulp mills, purchasers should considerassessing and comparing pulping and bleaching tech-nologies, including the following:

(a) The replacement of elemental chlorine with chlorined i oxide in the bleaching process reduces the discharge ofchlorinated organic compounds, including dioxins.(b) Oxygen delignification and extended delignification aretwo available, proven and cost-effective manufacturingtechnologies that form a foundation for pro g ress tow a rd sthe minimum-impact mill. These technologies allow millsto increase their re c ove ry of organic waste and re d u c echemical consumption in the bleach plant. (c) Technologies that allow for the reduction or eliminationof process water discharge from the bleach plant representadditional pro g ress tow a rds the goal of the minimum -impact mill and are the most advanced processes currentlya vailable. These technologies, which include ozo n e - b a s e delemental chlorine-free and totally chlorine-free bleachingsystems, re c i rculate most of the process water within the

mill instead of treating and discharging it to the environ-ment. In the process, such mills burn more organic wastesto produce energy and recover more chemicals for reuse.(d) New technologies may emerge that offer other ways toa c h i e ve the goal of the minimum-impact mill. For example,a mill-scale demonstration has begun for a process thatremoves chlorides from mill process water to facilitate therecirculation of bleach plant filtrates.

Consider the types of pulps used to make the products you pur-chase. For example: Identify opportunities to incorporate alternatives to

bleached pulps, including high-yield pulps (which makethe most efficient use of wood, chemicals and water) andunbleached pulps (which reduce chemical use in the man-ufacturing process).

It is in purchasers economic interest to send a long-term sig-nal of support for pollution prevention in pulp and paper man-ufacturing. By using pollution-pre vention approaches, supplierscan design environmental improvement into manufacturingprocesses. Michael Porter, an expert on competitive strategy atthe Harvard Business School, observes that [l]ike defects, pol-lution often reveals flaws in the product design or productionprocess. Efforts to eliminate pollution can therefore follow thesame basic principles widely used in quality programs: Us einputs more efficiently, eliminate the need for hazardous, hard-to-handle materials and eliminate unneeded activities.7

A study of 50 manufacturers of white pulp and paper in sixcountries found that the longer a firm had invested in pollution-p re vention technologies in its bleaching process, the better itseconomic perf o r m a n c e .8 O ver the long term, paper users are bet-ter served by suppliers that use practices or technologies thatlessen the likelihood of unwanted environmental surprises. Su p-pliers with lower manufacturing costs will gain a competitiveedge in the global paper market and will be best pre p a red tomeet the needs of paper purchasers and users.

11

The full report of the Paper Task Force comprises two volumes. Volume I, the main report, consists of five chapters. Chapter

1, Setting the Stage for Buying En v i ronmentally Pre f e r a b l ePa p e r, presents the context for understanding and acting onthe Task Forces recommendations. It describes: The origin, scope and process of the Task Force project The Task Forces research process and our approach to assess-

ing paper performance, economics and enviro n m e n t a limpacts

The key functional re q u i rements for the grades of paper weexamined

The basic activities involved in forest management, pulp andpaper manufacturing, paper recycling and waste disposal, andtheir environmental impacts

The basic economics of paper production and purchasingChapters 2-5 set out the Task Fo rc es recommendations, a

s u m m a ry of the supporting rationales, and implementationoptions for purchasers, in each of four areas: Source reduction Paper recycling and buying recycled paper Forest management Pulp and paper manufacturing

Volume II, the technical supplement, provides the underlyingtechnical re s e a rch supporting the Task Fo rc es re c o m m e n d a t i o n s ,in the form of 16 fully documented and externally re v i ewe dWhite Papers that cover functional, economic and enviro n m e n-tal aspects of each major issue examined by the Task Fo rc e .

Copies of the Task Fo rc es re p o rt can be ord e red using theform at the back of this synopsis. Or contact: Public Informa-tion, En v i ronmental Defense Fund, 257 Pa rk Avenue So u t h ,New Yo rk, NY 10010; (212) 505-2100; or use EDFs homepage on the World Wide Web: www.edf.org

2

A Preview of the TaskForces Report

A Preview of the TaskForces Report

3

12

APPENDIXPaper Task Force Recommendations

The Task Fo rce has developed recommendations in each of fourareas: Source Reduction Recycling and Buying Recycled Paper Forest Management Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

These recommendations are summarized below. The Ta s kFo rc es main re p o rt contains the full version of these re c o m m e n d a-tions, including important contextual information, the economic,p e rformance and environmental rationale for the re c o m m e n d a-tions and implementation options for purchasers. The full ve r s i o n sshould be re v i ewed as a basis for acting on the re c o m m e n d a t i o n s .

These recommendations we re developed and intended forimplementation primarily in the context of pulp and paper pro-duction and purchasing within No rth America, with a part i c u l a rfocus on the United States. While we examined technologies andp ractices used to produce pulp and paper in other areas of thew o rld, our recommendations are directed tow a rd purchasers ofpaper produced in the United St a t e s .

Source ReductionRecommendation. Systematically identify opportunities andtake action to reduce the use of paper, and the amount of fiberused in specific paper products, both within your organizationand in paper products related to your business, where consistentwith functional considerations.

Recycling and Buying Recycled PaperRecommendation 1. Paper users should actively expand andoptimize paper recycling collection programs. Paper users alsoshould promote recycling activities and assist efforts to developthe paper re c ycling infrastru c t u re in the following areas, asappropriate to the capabilities of your organization: within the premises of your business for the products distributed by your company or your industry

in the communities in which your business operates among the broader business community and general publicRecommendation 2. Paper purchasers should maximize theiroverall use of paper with postconsumer recycled content, con-sistent with functional and economic considerations.Recommendation 3. Paper users and purchasers shoulddesign or purchase paper products that can be recycled readilyafter their use.

Forest ManagementRecommendations to advance management of lands owned by for-est products companies in a manner that pre s e rves and enhancesthe full range of environmental values forestlands prov i d e .Recommendation 1. Pu rchasers should demonstrate a pre f e r-ence for paper made by suppliers who at a minimum operate in compliance with the principles and implementationguidelines for sustainable fore s t ry as published by the Ameri-can Fo rest & Paper Association (AF&PA), collectively know nas the Sustainable Fo re s t ry In i t i a t i ve (SFI), and should buyonly from suppliers in compliance with all applicable enviro n-mental laws and re g u l a t i o n s .Recommendation 2. Pu rchasers should demonstrate a pre f e re n c efor paper made by suppliers that manage their lands in a manner thatp rotects on- and off-site water quality and conserves soil pro d u c t i v i t y.Such management includes operating in full compliance with allapplicable mandatory or vo l u n t a ry Best Management Pr a c t i c e s( B M Ps) and other applicable laws and regulations related to waterq u a l i t y, as well as any additional steps needed to meet the objective .Recommendation 3. Pu rchasers should demonstrate a pre f e r-ence for paper made by suppliers who develop and implementan adaptive management approach, through actively engaging inand keeping abreast of re s e a rch on the environmental impacts off o rest management practices, coupled with a commitment tomodify their practices as needed in response to re s e a rch re s u l t s .Recommendation 4. Pu rchasers should demonstrate a pre f e r-ence for paper made by suppliers who actively seek outsideassistance, advice and perspective from the full range of otherstakeholders and interested parties in issues surrounding fore s tm a n a g e m e n t .

13

Recommendation 5. Purchasers should demonstrate a prefer-ence for paper made by suppliers who manage their lands in amanner that contributes to the conservation of biodiversity bymaintaining or enhancing habitat for a broad array of plantsand animals, with an emphasis on rare and endangered species.Recommendation 6. Purchasers should demonstrate a prefer-ence for paper made by suppliers who manage their lands in amanner that preserves ecologically important, rare or decliningnatural communities. In t e n s i ve management on lands re p re-senting such community types should be avoided; where neces-s a ry for pre s e rvation, management for wood production shouldnot take place. Intensive management should be concentratedon lands of lower ecological value.Recommendation 7. Purchasers should demonstrate a prefer-ence for paper made by suppliers who employ harvesting meth-ods that minimize the ecological impacts of harvesting, both atthe level of individual stands of trees and across the landscape.

Recommendation to extend environmentally sound manage-ment practices to non-industry lands from which forest pro d u c t scompanies buy wood for their products.Recommendation 8. Purchasers should demonstrate a prefer-ence for paper made by suppliers who use available means toensure that environmentally sound practices are applied to themanagement of all lands from which the supplier buys wood.These re q u i rements should extend to wood bought on the openmarket, commonly known as gatewood.

Recommendations to promote environmentally sound fore s tmanagement at a landscape level and across ownership bound-aries, including increased support for natural and less intensivemanagement on public and non-industry private lands.Recommendation 9. Pu rchasers should demonstrate a pre f e r-ence for paper made by suppliers who encourage and part i c i p a t ein the development of environmentally responsible