The WWF Paper Scorecard

Transcription

1 The WWF Paper Scorecard Questions & Answers for Companies in the Paper Industry Introductory Questions about the Scorecard What is the WWF Paper Scorecard? WWF s new Paper Scorecard has been designed to facilitate transparency on environmental performance in the paper industry. It assists paper purchasers in estimating the environmental footprint of the papers they buy and allows responsible paper producers to demonstrate what they are doing to minimise negative environmental impacts of the papers they sell. What is new / unique about the Paper Scorecard? Suitable for self-scoring by producers of all paper grades - from high-quality business paper to packaging paper - the Paper Scorecard is the fi rst user-friendly, holistic tool available to estimate the environmental impacts of paper production. The Scorecard has all of the following attributes: *Allows for comparison between papers: this tool can be used to estimate both the absolute and the relative impact of one paper product compared to another. Absolute because each paper is being assessed on the same set of criteria and against the same performance standards to provide an estimate of overall impact. Relative because similar paper grades can be compared with each other to see which scores best. *Is simple- one size fits all: This tool can be used to assess all papers, whether offi ce paper, tissue, cardboard or specialty paper. All papers are scored out of a maximum of 100 points. *Indicates an overall environmental footprint: The WWF Paper Scorecard gives an overall score across important environmental parameters that is easy to interpret. This is achieved through a relative, simple and transparent weighting of major environmental parameters. *Environmental threshold information: The Paper Scorecard may serve as a benchmarking tool. As its use becomes more widespread, the Paper Scorecard will reveal the best actually achieved performance levels in the industry. The tool has also inbuilt lower acceptable thresholds that were set by WWF after screening publicly available data from a large number of mills. *Dynamic: Mills can improve their scores as they address gaps and weaknesses. The Scorecard provides a framework for mills to make agreements with buyers on improving their environmental performance within specifi ed timeframes. *Fair: The scoring treats all companies equally and holds up a mirror to the industry on their environmental impacts. The WWF Paper Scorecard refl ects WWF s key values and WWF s expertise on biodiversity conservation. WWF has no fi nancial or commercial gain from the production and/or use of this tool. 1

2 Why has WWF developed the Scorecard? The need for a simple, effective tool to help identify responsible paper sources emerged though the WWF European Paper Group - a sponsored think tank with Canon, Ikea, Lafarge, McDonald s and Unilever. This think tank discussed different aspects of environmental impacts caused by paper production as well as how to minimize these impacts. To develop the Scorecard, WWF drew from the expertise gathered from the think tank along with its years of experience in developing responsible purchasing strategies for paper and wood products through the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN). Why does WWF work on paper purchasing and use? WWF recognises that paper is a valuable product that has been an integral part of our cultural development. Paper is made from mostly renewable resources and is an essential part of modern life, helping to increase levels of literacy and democracy worldwide. However, around the world we use around 1 million tonnes of paper every day. Meanwhile, the paper sector has a large forest footprint, as around 50% of the commercially harvested timber goes to paper. In addition, the pulp and paper industry is among the world s largest emitters of greenhouse gases, users of industrial process water, and users of energy. It produces signifi cant amounts of pollutants and waste to landfi ll. Since paper manufacture and use currently has such impacts on the environment, it is important to understand how best to act. Who is the Paper Scorecard for? a) Paper producers and suppliers: The Scorecard provides paper producers with a simple self-evaluation tool of their environmental risk profi le. Through the Scorecard they can demonstrate to their customers that their paper products are responsibly manufactured. For producers willing to improve their corporate social responsibility record, the Scorecard can also be used to measure environmental performance over time and show buyers that progress is being made. Although the ultimate goal is for producers to score well across all parameters, it is not only about coming out best in the Scorecard. A fundamental aspect is the transparency of producers. Web pages devoted to paper at will serve as a platform for responsible paper buyers and producers to meet. Producers are invited to post their third-party verifi ed scores, providing buyers with the opportunity to compare different papers of the same grade. The concept is based on positively highlighting responsible producers rather than naming and shaming weak performances. b) Paper buyers: By allowing buyers to estimate the environmental footprint of the papers they buy, the Paper Scorecard makes responsible purchasing easier. Paper buyers should ask their suppliers to rate themselves using the Scorecard and share the results. 6. How does the WWF Paper Scorecard apply to GFTN members? The WWF Global Forest & Trade Network promotes the responsible trade of forest products to producers and buyers in order to eliminate illegal logging and improve the management of valuable and threatened forests. By defi nition, GFTN member companies are committed to the responsible purchasing of forest products, including paper. They are invited to use the WWF Paper Scorecard and the upcoming WWF Guide to Buying Paper on a voluntary basis. About the Scoring Parameters 7. Does the WWF Paper Scorecard include all relevant environmental parameters? No. The WWF Paper Scorecard purposely focuses on a limited number of parameters that have major environmental impacts and that can be seen as umbrella parameters or signal indicators. However, many other aspects are indirectly covered by Parameter 7 Environmental Management Systems, which focuses on overall, continuous improvements made by the mill. The Scorecard is designed as a user-friendly tool to capture the main impacts of pulp and paper making and estimate the environmental footprint. Adding more parameters would likely not signifi cantly change the scoring of individual papers or provide much additional practical guidance for paper buyers. 2

3 8. How did WWF decide on which parameters to include in the Scorecard? WWF began the process by looking at over 20 parameters that are generally reported on by transparent paper companies. This set of parameters was then reduced to a more user-friendly subset by applying the following criteria: a) The importance of each parameter in terms of the environmental impact, i.e. threat to human and/or ecosystem health and vitality; b) The signifi cance of the paper industry s contribution to the global environmental footprint for each parameter; c) Status as a signal-parameter i.e. whether the performance of one parameter is usually linked with performance in other parameters. d) Availability of reliable data for WWF to establish credible threshold performance values for scoring. e) Parameters for which industry reduction is already driven by strong economic incentives were not selected. The resulting shortlist addresses the main elements requiring particular focus. A number of other issues are indirectly addressed by recognising mills that have adopted ISO certifi cation, part of Parameter 7 (Environmental Managements Systems and Transparency). The Parameters: Parameter 1: Preferred fi bre sources 9. Can you elaborate on Parameter 1? Both FSC-virgin fi bre and post-recycled fi bre are considered as preferred fi bre sources by WWF. WWF acknowledges that several certifi cation schemes have made contributions to improving forest management but currently recommends FSC over the others, as this system best meets WWF s values and key requirements of responsibility, transparency, international consistency and balanced multi-stakeholder governance. WWF seeks to encourage mills to make responsible use of natural resources. Wood fi bres from collected waste paper material can be used four or fi ve times before the fi bres become too worn out to bind together. Some examples of how different papers would score under Question 1 (fi bre sourcing): A. The paper is FSC-labelled based on the FSC credit based system: = 20 points B. The paper is FSC labelled as Recycled: = 20 points C. The paper is not FSC-labelled, but contains a certain average amount of CoC-verifi ed FSC-fi bres, all of which have been used to make credit-based claims for other papers from the mill: = 0 points D. A combination of 20% non-fsc certifi ed virgin fi bre, 40% pre-consumer recycled fi bre, and 40% post-consumer recycled fi bre: = 8 points (the 40% post-consumer recycled fi bre) E. Papers produced by a manufacturer that has FSC- CoC certifi cation for a certain amount of FSC fi bre input, but that does not label the product. A combination of 40% non-fsc certifi ed virgin fi bre, 12 % FSC-certifi ed virgin fi bre, 30% pre-consumer recycled fi bre and 18% post-consumer recycled fi bre: = 6 points (12% FSC virgin+18% post-consumer recycled, a total of 30% preferred sources) F. 100% recycled fi bre of an unknown combination of post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled fi bre: = 0 points (as the percentage of post-consumer recycled fi bre is unknown) Parameter 2: Avoiding potential inclusion of unwanted fi bre sources 10. What is the difference between Parameter 1 and 2? The first Parameter - preferred fibre source - and the second parameter - avoiding unwanted fibre sources - address related, but fundamentally different aspects of fi bre sourcing. The fi rst Parameter deals with the inclusion of preferred fi bres. The second Parameter addresses avoiding bad fi bres, i.e. the exclusion of potentially unwanted fi bres. As good fi bres by defi nition exclude bad fi bres, the fi bres scored under Parameter 1 will also score under Parameter 2. 3

4 Parameter 3: Fossil CO 2 emissions/energy 11. Why is recycled material regarded as a safe source when this material cannot be traced? The potential risk that recycled material stems from unwanted sources is small, and has to be balanced against the benefi ts gained by the effi cient use of resources Why is CO 2 from transport emissions not included? At the time of writing, the European paper industry had not yet defi ned a common environmental indicator with respect to transport. In a WWF study of the top 49 pulp and paper manufacturers in Europe (by sales revenue), very few reported on transport emissions. The lack of consistent data made it impossible to include emissions from transport as a parameter. As more data become available it may be possible to include emissions from transportation in future versions of the Scorecard. For the paper sector as a whole, fossil CO 2 emissions from transportation are still much lower than emissions from pulp and paper processing, even though there are examples of manufacturers that have had higher CO 2 emissions from transport than from production units. Doesn t the Scorecard put mills relying on fossil fuels and purchased power at a disadvantage? Mills relying on energy from fossil sources will score lower on this parameter than mills that use renewable resources. While we recognise that there are limitations to what individual mills can do to change the production of grid electricity, this doesn t change the fact that the Scorecard needs to estimate the footprint related to such an important parameter. In some countries it is possible to buy green electricity from the grid, that may be used to off-set emissions of fossil CO2 in calculating the score. Ultimately mills need to invest in technology and increase their own use of renewable sources of energy What about nuclear energy? It is not renewable but doesn t emit CO 2? Parameter 3 focuses on environmental impact related to climate change. From an emissions perspective, nuclear power is a clean source of energy. However, WWF and most other NGOs do not see nuclear power as a solution mainly due to the security risks of the plants and storage of waste. Why is energy efficiency not included as a parameter? While WWF welcomes efforts to increase energy effi ciency, the industry already has strong economic incentives to drive efficiency-related improvements. Energy efficiency was therefore not included as a Scorecard parameter. Instead, impact on climate change is addressed through the scoring of CO 2 emissions in Parameter 3. Why weren t other greenhouse gases like methane addressed? Methane emissions are indirectly included as they derive mainly from landfi ll addressed by Parameter 6. Parameter 4: AOX emissions Why is Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) processes not considered on par with Totally Chlorine Free (TCF)? AOX (Adsorbable Organic Halogens) are potentially hazardous compounds created during bleaching with chlorine based chemicals. The highest levels derive from the use of elemental chlorine. ECF processes are generally much better but differ widely in performance. The Scorecard therefore focuses at the real emission levels of AOX rather than the type of process involved. Parameter 5: COD emissions 18. Why measure COD and not BOD? COD is a more inclusive measurement than BOD as it addresses a wider range of polluting organic material than does BOD. There are no generally applicable conversion factors between COD and BOD. However, for those mills measuring BOD it should not be a problem to measure COD as well. 4

5 Parameter 6: Waste to landfi ll 19. Why is waste to landfill included as a parameter? Much of the organic materials directed to landfi ll decompose in the absence of oxygen, releasing large amounts of methane a very powerful greenhouse gas. Parameter 7: Environmental Management Systems and reporting 20. Why is Parameter 7 so important? An Environmental Management System is a well-established systematic approach to continuous improvement across all parameters. It acts as an umbrella parameter that addresses emissions of a number of compounds not specifi cally included elsewhere in the Scorecard. This Parameter also addresses the highly important issue of transparency. Questions related to Parameters that are not included in the Scorecard Why are SOX not included? a) SOX (mainly SO2) derives primarily from combustion of fossil fuels. Thus the measurement of CO 2 fossil fuel emissions is considered an umbrella-parameter (even though different fossil fuels contain different amounts of sulphur and combustion give different amounts of SOX). b) SOX are also indirectly included in Parameter 7, which addresses the EMS of a mill. Any EMS certifi ed mill will monitor SOX and must continuously improve their performance. c) To keep the Scorecard simple and user friendly WWF applied a range of criteria on all environmental parameters and SOX did not come out among the top environmental impact parameters (see selection criteria on page 3). Why are NOX not included? NOX contributes both to the formation of ground-level ozone (harmful in contrast to atmospheric ozone) and to acidifi cation. However, we decided against including NOX emission (at least for now) for the following main reasons: a) Although important, we didn t consider the environmental impacts of NOX on par with the other majors. Thus including NOX would have made it necessary to include another level of weighting, increasing the complexity (and subjectivity) of the tool and diluting the weight of the other parameters. b) While including NOX may have given a somewhat better estimate of the real, total impact, it would not really change the ranking between different papers very much, and thus hardly contribute to the Scorecard s usefulness as guidance. c) It would place more of what s estimated outside the immediate infl uence of the mills and weaken the instrument as a driver of change. Why are other commonly reported pollutants such as Phosphorous and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) not included? a) To keep the Scorecard simple and user friendly WWF applied a range of criteria on all environmental parameters and TSS did not come out among the top 7 parameters chosen by WWF (see selection criteria on page 3). Furthermore there is a very high correlation between TSS and COD, so the latter acts as an umbrella parameter in this case. b) These pollutants are indirectly addressed by Parameter 7, which addresses EMS. 5

6 Why is water consumption not included? a) WWF recognises that water use in paper mills is signifi cant and encourages efforts by mills to reduce consumption. However, the importance of water consumption varies much depending on the location of the mill, and water use per se is not a problem in many areas. Consequently, the Scorecard concentrates on pollutants in mill effl uents rather than on water consumption. b) There are already economically motivated efforts by mills to reduce water consumption. As a result of internal water recycling capabilities, CEPI notes that fi ne paper mills have been able to reduce water consumption required for manufacturing processes by a third between 1992 and Has the impact of fillers and coatings in the paper been included? WWF has not included the impact of fi llers and coatings in this version of the Scorecard, mainly due to lack of consistent data and impact assessments. This will mean that paper with high proportions of fi llers will get a proportionally better score in Parameters 3, 4 and 5. However, a heavily-coated paper can also result in a higher level of waste to landfi ll, covered in Parameter 6. As data become available it may be possible to address impacts related to fi llers and coatings in future versions of the Scorecard. About Scoring and Thresholds How was the weighting decided? The weighting was set after lengthy discussions within WWF, involving forest, freshwater, climate and toxic experts. The weighting also takes into account recommendations from other NGOs working on paper issues. 40 points is given to fi bre sourcing. The impact of using unsuitable fi bre sources has wide-ranging social, economic and environmental consequences; from illegal and unsafe logging to widespread deforestation. According to the Stern report 1, the loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector. Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions. 60 points is given to pollution factors ( from CO 2, COD, EMS and landfi ll respectively). What data was used to set the emission thresholds? WWF screened the web for environmental data of 694 major pulp and paper product lines from all over the world representing more than 600 pulp and paper mills and we found that most mills, particularly mills outside Europe, were not very transparent about their performance. We then used a subset of data from 50 to 63 mills (depending on parameter) taken from 2005 (in some cases 2004) environment or corporate responsibility reports to establish the thresholds. This subset represents over 25 million tonnes of paper production by mills from a wide range of integrated pulp, paper and board mills, predominantly in Europe. How were the target thresholds set on the emission parameters? For each parameter, the entrance thresholds to score any points was set to the average performance of only those mills that produce the paper grade with the highest impact related to that parameter. This approach made it possible to construct the Scorecard as a one-size-fi ts-all tool, usable across all paper grades, though the scores are only comparable within the individual paper grades. Best performance was set to zero emissions. The interval between zero and entrance value was then divided into 20 or 10 equal steps as per the WWF weighting of the parameter. Is zero a realistic goal for the emission parameters? Mills should strive for zero environmental impacts, just as they aim to achieve zero accidents and zero defects in quality. Ambitious targets are necessary both to improve performance and to differentiate performance between mills.moreover, the targets are not unrealistic as there are examples of top scoring producers for most or all parameters. Is it difficult for producers to fill out the Paper Scorecard? No. Responsible paper producers already monitor most or all performance parameters included in the Scorecard. Filling out the Scorecard should present no undue burden to a producer. 6

7 What scores are good enough? The Scorecard is designed as an integrated point system to give buyers more clarity about what they buy. The Scorecard has certain thresholds built in before any points can be gained at all. These thresholds are set so that also low scores on single parameters are likely to refl ect better than average global performance. Initially, few papers will score close to the maximum score of 100 points. There are also likely to be signifi cant variations in the average scores between different paper grades. Thus rather than pass or fail, the Scorecard is a tool to compare performances between papers with similar properties, allowing buyers and producers to set targets for improvement. Is there any case when a producer automatically scores 0 points in a given parameter? If more than 10% of the fi bre comes from unknown sources (5% in the second year) a producer will automatically score 0. Can companies increase their scores on CO 2 emissions by buying carbon credits? No - emissions are emissions. But, surplus energy derived from renewable sources (e.g. biofuels burnt at the pulpmill), as well as green electricity bought from the grid, may be used to offset fossil CO2 emissions from equal amounts of energy from fossil sources bought from the grid (mill averages!), e.g. by the paper maker. Miscellaneous Questions about the Scorecard Will providing data for the Scorecard be too expensive for mills? WWF has reviewed company reporting of environmental issues since The most responsible mills already publish their environmental performance at the mill level. There is already a clear trend for more extensive and open reporting from European manufacturers and over 60% of mills in Europe are ISO and/or EMAS certifi ed. In addition, those producers participating in the Paper Profi les scheme are already publishing data on their paper grades. Much of this published data is already third party verifi ed. Therefore, expense should not be a valid excuse for the mills. Why does WWF require 3rd-party verification? Purchasing decisions have major economic consequences and must therefore be based on high quality, reliable information. WWF will not post any score on unless the scoring is verifi ed by a nationally or internationally accredited certifi er. This will ensure credibility of the scores and reassure buyers who visit the site for information and guidance. WWF does not directly audit or verify the accuracy of the scores. However, if any party challenges the accuracy of a score, we will refer the challenge to the relevant auditor and reserve the right to remove the score from the website. For more information: Margareta Renstrom, WWF International margareta.renstrom@wwf.se phone: WWF International Avenue du Mont-Blanc 1196 Gland Switzerland 7