Confederation of European Paper Industries
-A +A
Who is CEPI?

The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI)

is a Brussels-based non-profit-making organisation regrouping the European pulp and paper industry and championing this industry’s achievements and the benefits of its products. Its collective expertise provides a unique source of information both for and on the industry, coordinating essential exchanges of experience and knowledge among its members while providing technical assistance to legislators. Through its 18 member countries (17 EU members plus Norway) CEPI represents some 515 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 950 paper mills. Together they represent 23% of world production.

Highlights

European Paper Recycling Awards 2015

The call for candidates is open!

 

Who is who at CEPI

Detailed overview of the policy topics CEPI works on and the corresponding Directors/Managers who deal with them.

 

Circular economy video

Watch our new video on why the pulp and paper industry is at the DNA of the circular economy.

 

Adding ambition to the Circular Economy package - an infographic

The paper value chain's three key messages

 

 

Subscribe to RSS

Video
The circular economy and the pulp and paper industry

See more videos
news | 08 May.2015

Global Forest and Paper Industry Releases Policy Statement on Paper Recycling

The International Council of Forest and Paper Associations (ICFPA) released its policy statement on paper recycling. The statement was approved at the ICFPA’s annual meeting held on May 5th in Washington, D.C.

The full statement is available at http://www.icfpa.org/uploads/Modules/Publications/icfpa-statement-on-paper-recycling.pdf.

“Forest and paper associations around the world recognize the importance of paper recovery for recycling,” said outgoing ICFPA President Donna Harman. “With this policy statement, we are encouraging national governments to pursue best practices to enable recovered fiber to find its highest end-use.”

The global paper recycling rate stands at about 58%. Some developed countries have achieved as high as 70 to 75%. Many developing countries are establishing infrastructure to help improve paper recycling rates.

The statement calls for educating citizens on the importance of recycling, allowing the marketplace to determine recovered fiber’s best end-use, and ensuring functioning waste markets while respecting national contexts and systems. The ICFPA believes that extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems “should not be a preferred choice where existing markets for collections and reuse of recovered paper are efficient and effective.” Instead, improved sorting of waste should be prioritized to increase and ensure the quality of recovered fiber.

The ICFPA’s statement is the latest in a series of policy statements underwritten by its members associations. All ICFPA policy statements are available at icfpa.org/resource-centre/statements.

The ICFPA represents more than 30 national and regional forest and paper associations around the world. Together, ICFPA members represent over 90 percent of global paper production and half of global wood production.

For more information about the sustainability of the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.org.
 

Read more
news | 29 Apr.2015

Strategic choices for ETS Post-2020: Allow energy intensive industries to be competitive and grow in Europe

The Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries, representing over 30.000 European companies and 4 million jobs, wishes to be an active contributor in the upcoming revision of the EU ETS. This paper contains Alliance proposals on carbon leakage protection, free allocation principles and competitiveness under ETS Phase IV to ensure simple, fair, predictable and effective rules i.e.:
- Carbon leakage protection needs to be the first element of the ETS revision based on the same criteria and assumptions as under Phase III, as well as on technically and economically achievable benchmarks;
- An EU-wide harmonized system must be put in place, which fully off-sets direct and indirect costs at the level of the most efficient installations in all Member States; therefore, no cross-sectoral correction factor should be applied to free allocation;
- Allocation methodology must be closely aligned with real/recent production levels;
- Innovation support must be extended to industrial sectors;
These principles are fully compatible with the March and October 2014 European Council Conclusions and reflect the industry contribution to the Commission questionnaire, following the meeting with Commissioner Arias Cañete in February 2015. Those principles are further detailed below.


Best industrial performers must not be penalized by ETS allocation rules
The concept of declining free allocation for industry is in contrast to the need for full protection against carbon leakage and should not serve as a justification to reduce protection. The limit on the total issuance of allowances in ETS sectors defined by Heads of State and governments covers both free allocation and auctioning. They did not impose a decrease of free allocation as such. On the contrary carbon leakage provisions should be improved in order to encourage carbon-efficient production and growth in Europe, and allocation must be guaranteed at the level of realistic benchmarks. Only predictable and effective carbon leakage measures will enable companies to invest in innovative solutions in Europe.


Accordingly there should be no direct and indirect cost at the very least at the level of most efficient European installations in sectors at risk of carbon leakage.
The effect of the cross sectoral factor (CSCF) is that even the best performers cannot achieve these levels due to economic, technical or thermo-dynamical limits. Ignoring this turns the EU ETS into a penalty system rather than an incentivising system.
For that reason, all our sectors call for a deletion of the CSCF, in accordance with the European Council conclusions of 23-24 October 20141.


Current carbon leakage assessment methodology remains valid
The carbon leakage risk will not decrease and may well increase on the contrary:
- It can currently not be expected that there will be a large breakthrough in negotiations at international level that would lead to climate policies, imposing equivalent carbon costs for industries located in competing regions.
- Meanwhile, the GHG reduction target will be increased to 43% for EU ETS sectors compared to 2005 levels (meaning that the cap will be tightened)
- The Market Stability Reserve will result in rapid carbon price increases.
All Energy Intensive Industries should receive full protection at the level of the benchmark. Consequently, the quantitative and qualitative carbon leakage risk assessment criteria and assumptions as defined in 2008 remain fully valid and must remain unchanged. Energy Intensive Industries are characterised by long investment cycles. The carbon leakage list must only be updated at the beginning of each trading period.
Also, since the risk of carbon and investment leakage remains as acute as ever for EU industry, introducing differentiation in the level of protection will lead to unequal and incomplete protection for sectors at risk, and could have negative repercussions on EU industrial value/supply chains.


Establishing technically and economically achievable benchmarks
The benchmarks should be updated maximum once, ahead of each trading period to provide planning certainty for participants, decrease the administrative burdens and provide an appropriate reward for those that have invested in emissions efficiency.
The update of the benchmark values should be based on data collection from the EU companies. The process of establishing benchmarks must be as transparent as possible. If in a sector, no relevant changes in technology have taken place, such sector can request a simplified approach for data collection.
These benchmarks have to be representative for the sectors and based on representative technologies that have been adopted by the European market. Over-ambitious benchmarks artificially increase costs to industry overall and de facto undermine the effectiveness of the carbon leakage provisions. The current rules are already very stringent, as benchmarks are set according to the average of the top 10% most efficient installations in the sector; hence, even without the cross-sectoral correction factor, around 95% of the installations have to purchase allowances.


Indirect carbon costs need to be fully compensated throughout Europe
The current implementation of carbon leakage measures to deal with indirect carbon costs has resulted in a fragmented approach as eligible sectors exposed to electricity price increases due to carbon costs may only receive from few Member States a partial financial compensation. This creates an uneven playing field in the internal EU market, and creates a disadvantage for those installations that are not receiving any, or only partial, compensation, vis-à-vis extra-EU competitors.
While designing the new system, several measures/principles should apply:
- EU-wide harmonized system, which fully off-sets indirect costs (100% of the CO2 cost-pass through in electricity prices) at the level of the most efficient installations in all Member States and reflects most recent production levels. Sectors with a fall-back approach should also be properly treated.
- Cost compensation could be assured using different complementary mechanisms (free allocation and/or harmonised financial compensation).
- Mechanisms should ensure predictability over the entire trading period by being described in the revised directive. The current system is unpredictable, as it relies on a state aid compensation assessment, and is granted annually, digressive and uncertain for future years.
- The eligibility assessment for such an EU-wide scheme should be based on a consistent methodology that identifies qualified sectors on the basis of their exposure to indirect carbon costs or their total electro-intensity.
- As indirect costs arise from the price setting mechanism prevailing in the power sector (marginal price setting), an EU-wide compensation scheme should be in place without delay.
For the longer term, the Commission should also assess the possibility of redesigning the electricity market in a way that prevents carbon cost pass through in electricity prices to sectors at risk of carbon leakage.


System based on real/recent production must replace the ex-ante straightjacket approach
Moving to an allocation methodology closely aligned with real/recent production levels would provide the required allowances at the level of the benchmark to companies expanding or restarting production to avoid undue costs, help prevent over- or under-allocation, stop rewarding ETS participants for moving production overseas and ensure simplified and fairer rules as regards new entrants, capacity increases or decreases, plant rationalisation and partial cessation. For example, the reference period could be the rolling year n-2. The required production data are already available as verifiers have to ascertain the activity data needed for the allocation. The bureaucratic burden will be therefore minimal.
For installations covered by fall-back approaches as opposed to benchmarks, emission reductions resulting from efficiency measures should not result in a penalty.


Creating a reserve for growth
To ensure sufficient availability of allowances for free allocation for industry, a reserve for growth would be needed. This reserve for growth would act as a buffer to ensure predictable access to both free allocation and auctioned allowances.
There are several ways to operate this proposed reserve for growth:
- It can be filled with unused free allowances due to lower production in phase III, back-loaded allowances, un-allocated allowances from New Entrants Reserve. Then it can provide allowances for growth in case of higher production.
- In addition, the Market Stability Reserve could also be used as the source for granting such allowances, if it would be designed as a sink for unused allowances from which allowances could be released for said purpose.


Support to innovation
The extension of innovation support to industrial projects is welcome. However, it should not happen at the detriment of carbon leakage protection by reducing or limiting the amount of free allocation. Industry exposed to carbon leakage risk will struggle to invest or innovate without predictable efficient carbon leakage protection.
The revenues from auctioning should be reinvested for low carbon technology support, as foreseen in the ETS Directive, or energy efficiency, but more importantly they should be used by Member States to stimulate economic growth and relevant R&D investments. Innovation funding under EU ETS should be allocated to energy intensive sectors appointed in Annex I of the directive. The NER400 should be technology-neutral and refer instead to R&D and deployment of new technologies for those Annex I sectors.
In order to achieve a realistic policy and to allow for effective reduction of emissions, there is a need to identify the abatement possibilities in the industry (linked to technological, thermo-dynamic and physical/chemical limits that cannot be overcome due to feedstock, process emissions and lack of break-through technologies). Some sectors have already developed 2050 decarbonisation roadmaps, in which transformation technologies are mentioned. A dedicated fund taking into consideration these abatement possibilities will bring innovative technologies (e.g. industrial breakthrough technologies, including CCS and CCU for industry) forward and secure buy-in of industry sectors.


Industry needs an objective impact assessment for Phase IV ETS
In light of the better regulation policy of the new Commission, an objective impact assessment on the different European energy intensive industries is crucial, taking into account their ability to reduce emissions (low carbon roadmaps). Any flawed impact assessment could lead to wrong policy decisions for the energy intensive industries in Europe.

 

---------------------------------

1 See legal opinion on article 2.9 by Luther of April 2015

Read more
All news
What's new
Press Release | 29 Apr.2015

European paper industry welcomes Valmet as a new partner

The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) is happy to announce a new partnership with Valmet. CEPI and Valmet have already collaborated in the past, notably on the European Paper Week. The new status will deepen an established good relationship, to include areas of common interest.


More specifically, Valmet will gain a clear and in-depth insight of the issues the pulp and paper industry is facing, with the opportunity to be part of CEPI’s activities with its stakeholders. CEPI will gain knowledge and expertise, building on its ever-strong eco-system around industry suppliers with the ultimate goal of strenghtening its innovation agenda. “Valmet and CEPI have a lot to gain from this partnership. It is a priviledge to collaborate with such a highly-valued industry supplier and we are very excited to see where this partnership will lead us”, says Marco Mensink, CEPI’s Director General.


Valmet Corporation is the leading global developer and supplier of technologies, automation and services for the pulp, paper and energy industries. Valmet’s services cover everything from maintenance outsourcing to mill and plant improvements and spare parts. Their strong technology offering includes pulp mills, tissue, board and paper production lines, as well as power plants for bio-energy production.

This is the second new partnership for CEPI in 2015, with Pöyry having joined the programme in March. The partnership programme, launched in 2011, currently includes Buckman, Pöyry, Omya, Valmet and Voith. It is open to machine and chemical suppliers active in the pulp, paper or board industry with a direct link to paper manufacturing.


For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris at a.xystouris@cepi.org mobile phone: +32(0)486243642.
 

 

Read more
Press Release | 15 Apr.2015

CEPI announces new event partnership with PRIMA

Today the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) announced a new event partnership with PRIMA, the Paper & Related Industries Marketing Association. The partnership will translate into a mutual promotion of both the European Paper Week as well as the Annual PRIMA conference. In addition, CEPI members will benefit from a members participation fee to the PRIMA annual conference.


The two annual events not only take place within six months of each other, they also complement each other in terms of content. PRIMA conferences offer a professional forum to update existing knowledge and to broaden one’s horizon regarding the various sectors of the forest products network as well as an excellent networking opportunity. The European Paper Week primarily focuses on the hottest issues affecting the European pulp and paper industry on a European level. “This partnership will offer our members the possibility to view a complete spectrum of our industry’s current state, on all levels. This can only be beneficial for all”, says CEPI Director General Marco Mensink.


PRIMA's Annual Conference will take place in Graz, Austria on 18-19 May 2015 and the European Paper Week in Brussels on 17-19 November 2015. To find out more about both events, go to http://www.prima-beyond-information.org/ and http://www.cepi.org/epw respectively.


For more information, please contact Annie Xystouris at a.xystouris@cepi.org, or +32 4 862 43 642.


Note to the Editor

CEPI aisbl - The Confederation of European Paper Industries
The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) is a Brussels-based non-profit organisation regrouping the European pulp and paper industry and championing industry’s achievements and the benefits of its products. Through its 18 member countries (17 European Union members plus Norway) CEPI represents some 515 pulp, paper and board producing companies across Europe, ranging from small and medium sized companies to multi-nationals, and 940 paper mills. Together they represent 23% of world production.

PRIMA
PRIMA (Paper and Related Industries Marketing Association) is an independent non-profit organisation that has been promoting mutual understanding throughout the entire forest products value chain – from forestry, minerals and chemicals companies through pulp and paper makers to merchants, publishers, printers, packaging producers and consumers of paper and board products – for more than four decades. PRIMA provides the platform for spreading business understanding and competence and enabling first-rate networking by bringing together members of the value chain in a transparent, legal and honest way at industry and customer conferences with high repeat-attendance figures.
 

Read more
All press releases
Position paper | 19 Mar.2015

Consultation response on the revision of the EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS) Directive

Background: On 24 October 2014, the European Council agreed on the 2030 framework for climate and energy, including a binding domestic target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of at least 40% in 2030 as compared to 1990. To meet this target, the European Council agreed that the emissions in the EU Emission Trading System should be reduced, compared to 2005, by 43%. A reformed EU ETS remains the main instrument to achieve the emission reduction target. The cap will decline based on an annual linear reduction factor of 2.2% (instead of the current 1.74%) from 2021 onwards, to achieve the necessary emission reductions in the EU ETS. The European Council furthermore gave strategic guidance on several issues regarding the implementation of the emission reduction target, namely free allocation to industry, the establishment of a modernisation and an innovation fund, optional free allocation of allowances to modernise electricity generation in some Member States.

The strategic guidance given by European leaders on these elements will be translated into a legislative proposal to revise the EU ETS for the period post-2020. This constitutes an important part of the work on the achievement of a resilient Energy Union with a forward looking climate change policy, which has been identified as a key policy area in President Juncker's political guidelines for the new Commission.

The purpose of this stakeholder consultation was to gather stakeholders' views on these elements.

CEPI's Key messages :

- The ETS in general, and the benchmarks in particular, should reward installations and sectors reducing GHG emissions, without penalising early movers, new investment made, and low-carbon economic growth. Fiscal and legislative stability and predictability are needed to enable investments in low-carbon technologies.
- The pulp and paper industry cannot pass through carbon costs to its customers: the global market of export goods sets prices, not the production costs of the European industry. This can be easily verified by the lack of correlation between carbon prices and final product prices.
- For “direct carbon costs”, free allocation is a necessary condition but not sufficient to avoid carbon leakage: support mechanisms should be set up to help the EU industry improve its energy efficiency and reduce its GHG emissions.
- Concerning “indirect carbon costs”, it would be better for a mandatory and harmonised EU-wide compensation scheme to address the impact of rising electricity costs due to ETS in all Member States. Financing of compensation schemes should include also, but not be limited to, auctioning revenues from ETS.
- Support for innovation in industry should not come at the expenses of carbon leakage protection: funding for innovation will have to come on top of free allowances for industry. It should be directed to directly finance large-scale demo and pilot projects, as well projects close to commercialisation stage (TRL 6-8). These are high risk, high capital investments where the private sector would not be able to deliver without the backing of public financing.
- The role that European industry plays in the circular economy and in the bioeconomy is of strategic importance for Europe’s access to raw materials and reducing Europe’s carbon footprint. This should be acknowledged when reviewing the EU ETS, by addressing the ETS impact on prices and availability of raw material, such as wood.
 

Read the full reponse.

Read more
Position paper | 28 Nov.2014

CEPI welcomes Commission intentions for meaningful recycling in Europe and identifies enabling measures for meeting ambitious targets

UPDATE: The Commission has recently announced the withdrawal of the waste targets review and will publish a new proposal in the course of 2015.

Comments by CEPI on the European Commission proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment /* COM/2014/0397 final - 2014/0201 (COD)

Summary

• Recycling Targets must be ambitious but realistic to increase collection in an environment where some Member States have already reached high recycling rates. Member States should set their target for paper packaging recycling at a minimum of 80% by 2020.
• Packaging Recycling targets in Europe should not discriminate between the different consumer packaging materials
• The proposed methodology to calculate recycling rates can favour high quality recycling but it should refer to material specific standards or similar quality assurances. For paper, the input method should continue to apply under strict input quality criteria, including for exports
• Incineration restrictions and separate paper collection obligations are needed as complementary measures to ensure recyclable paper diverted from landfills gets actually recycled.
• Final recycling must be clearly defined to ensure targets are meaningful and can be compared between Member States.

Recycling Targets: Minimum targets for Paper Packaging Recycling Rates should be set at 80% by 2020 in all Member States


European Paper Industry is a world champion in recycling, but reaching new targets will be increasingly challenging as several Member States have already reached recycling rates close to the theoretical potential of paper recycling. The average European Paper Recycling rate was 71,7% in 2013 and the sector has set a target of 70% recycling rate by 2015. The recycling rate has increased significantly from levels around 40% in 1990 and 62% in 2005, but has started levelling up since the last five years. As we reach the absolute potentials of paper recycling in some Member States, setting ambitious targets in all Member States is crucial to further stipulate recycling in less than average performing countries. Too ambitious average targets alone will however not be sufficient to reach the objectives set out in the circular economy communication. Further improvement of the paper and board packaging recycling rate will largely depend on progress in less than average performing countries. CEPI therefore proposes that all Member States set their target for paper packaging recycling at a minimum of 80% by 2020. Concrete targets for 2025 and 2030 should be set once the performance based on the proposed methodology and progress towards 2020 targets is assessed, e.g. through the newly proposed early warning system.
Recycling targets in Europe should not discriminate between consumer packaging materials and one material should not compensate for others in a Member State’s calculation of all packaging waste prepared for re-use and recycled. Recyclability and the recycling performance have increasingly become key aspects in the competition between consumer packaging materials.


Calculation Methodology : for paper, the input method should continue to apply under strict input quality criteria
CEPI welcomes the Commission’s intention to set the focus on high quality recycling. The recycling process can only deliver efficiently produced high quality recycled products if the input to this final recycling process fulfills strict quality requirements, too. The Commission proposal rightly distinguishes between final recycling processes with « clean » input material, for which the input method would continue to be applied, and final recycling processes with lesser quality material, for which the output method would have to be applied. CEPI understands the proposed discarded materials as non-target material that is not part of the original product and can be separated in dry sorting.
In the production of recycled paper, the input material for the recycling process is covered by a European Standard (EN 643). This standard sets limits on the share of non-paper components generally not exceeding 1,5%. CEPI is therefore of the opinion that for paper, the input method should continue to apply. However, the Commission proposal leaves too much room for interpretation and should refer to European Standards or similar quality assurances.
Paper for Recycling exported outside the European Union should count towards the recycling rate provided it meets the EN 643 standard and is effectively recycled outside Europe at broadly equivalent environmental conditions as in the EU. This should be demonstrated by a certification scheme as it is being considered by the European Commission and which would include in its scope the reprocessing site in the destination country and ensure traceability through adequate documentation.
Furthermore, it is of great importance that the denominator for the calculation of the recycling rates is identical in all Member States to allow for comparison.

Complementary measures to reach recycling targets
To reach high recycling targets based on the proposed new methodology, complementary measures next to the introduction of a landfill ban are however essential:


Incineration restrictions
CEPI welcomes the introduction of a landfill ban for recyclable waste. However, CEPI thinks that formulating a landfill ban for recyclable material and high recycling targets is not sufficient to reach the objectives. CEPI therefore thinks it is needed to formulate incineration restrictions for recyclable material from the municipal waste stream. This is to avoid waste is only shifted one step up in the waste hierarchy. In the past, several Member States have set the focus on diversion from landfill. This has partly led to low quality collection systems, which would not be able to deliver the input quality to recycling processes according to the new methodology as suggested bythe Commission proposal.

Obligation to collect paper separately from other recyclables and residual waste
To ensure reaching the required quality input for paper recycling processes, paper should be collected separately from other recyclables such as plastics, metal and glass, and from residual waste. The Waste Directive of 2008 has formulated a separate collection target in 2008, however Member States have interpreted this requirement in different ways. CEPI therefore urges the Commission to reinforce the requirement on separate collection for paper. Separate collection is crucial to achieve the landfill restrictions proposed by the commission.


Current recycling definition is too vague
The current definition of recycling is too vague, as it includes next to “reprocessing” also “any other recovery operations”. This leads to a wide range of interpretations, including on the recycling rate, between countries and materials. The only way to ensure material that has been discarded is effectively back in the circular economy is to make sure it is not recognized recycled unless it is reprocessed in a production process into new products, materials or substances that have comparable properties to the corresponding virgin raw materials. The proposed methodology for high quality recycling cannot be reached without a precise recycling definition. Article 3 (17) of directive 2008/98/EC should be amended as follows :


• ‘recycling’ means any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations; ‘final recycling’ means reprocessing in a production process of waste or materials reclaimed from waste into products, materials or substances with similar properties as the equivalent virgin raw material based product, material or substance. It excludes pre-processing.


Next to these measures, CEPI has the following comments on the Commission proposal:
Extended Producer Responsibility : CEPI believes that the proposed provisions of Annex VII paragraph 6.1 and 6.4 place disproportionate financial burden on producers and cover aspects beyond the producers’ control. Putting the burden of « financial contributions to cover the entire cost of waste management… » would act as a disincentive for other actors with roles and responsibilities in the waste collection and sorting chain to focus on cost efficiency. Consequently the competitiveness of European economy would be harmed. CEPI believes that extended producer responsibility should not allow overlapping and duplicating payments: fees should only apply in absence of action when responsibility is delegated to compliance schemes, and fees should be charged on the basis of true cost after the deduction of all fees and revenues related to the waste generated. CEPI also believes Annex VII concerning minimum requirements for EPR should not be amended through the adoption of delegated acts since they are an essential part of the legislation.
Renewability : CEPI is concerned that the Commission published a proposal on the circular economy without mentioning renewability. CEPI believes that the contribution of renewable materials and products to the circular economy should be acknowledged, e.g. by adding renewability to the packaging eco-design options for Member States consideration. CEPI believes that such a non-binding list of ecodesign options is preferred over national packaging design requirements as proposed by the Commission as the latter would undermine the single market by producing barriers to trade.
Definition of Municipal Waste : The definition of municipal waste should not include material from the retail sector. The collection of waste from the retail sector is already well organised. Including the retail sector would divert the focus from the challenge of improving the waste collection from households and small shops.


For more information, please contact Mr. Ulrich Leberle at (u.leberle@cepi.org), mobile n°: +32 479 905 921

 

Read more
All position papers
publications | 08 May.2015

2015 ICFPA Sustainability Progress Report

The International Council of Forest and Paper Associations (ICFPA) has launched its 2015 Sustainability Progress Report, showing improvements on a range of sustainability indicators and focusing on the industry’s contributions toward a green economy.

The full report is also available on the ICFPA website at http://www.icfpa.org/uploads/Modules/Publications/2015-icfpa-sustainability-progress-report.pdf.

Read the press release on the topic here.

The global sustainability performance of the forest product industry is improving, with all aggregate indicators for reporting associations showing progress:

• Greenhouse gas emissions intensity was reduced by 17% between 2005 and 2013.
• The share of bio-energy in the industry’s fuel mix increased by 8 percentage points, to 61%, since 2005.
• The number of hectares certified to a third-party sustainable forest management certification system increased by 41 percentage points, to 52% of wood supply, since 2000.
• The global paper recycling rate increased by 11 percentage points, to 58%, between 2001 and 2013.
• Onsite energy intensity was reduced by 4.3% between 2005 and 2013.
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions decreased by 40% between 2005 and 2013.
• Employees’ recordable incident rate decreased by 9% between 2007 and 2013.

In addition to reporting on performance, the Sustainability Progress Report illustrates how the forest and paper industry is supporting a green economy through resource efficiency, carbon sequestration, innovative technologies, bio-based products, and benefiting communities.  Contributing to the 2015 report are forest and paper industry associations from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Europe, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States.

For more information about the sustainability of the global forest and paper industry, visit icfpa.org.
 

View Flipbook
Read more -
publications | 04 Mar.2015

Adding ambition to the Circular Economy package - an infographic

CEPI, together with FEFCO have produced this inforgraphic with three key messages and tasks, showing how to add ambition to the circular economy package.

View Flipbook
Read more -
All publications

Subscribe to our newsletter