|
Dogwood Alliance’s Response to
International Paper’s Recent Forest Stewardship Council Certification Announcement
Recently International Paper (IP), the world’s largest paper
producer and the biggest paper producer in the Southern US, was tagged a
top ten corporate greenwasher by Wall
Street 24/7 a company providing analysis and commentary for US and global
equity investors. And indeed again and
again over the years we have seen and heard lots of promotional noise from the
company without true green progress to back it up.
Central to IP’s greenwashing push to present itself as a
sustainability leader is its decade long funding and promotion of the
highly-criticized,  industry-driven forest certification system, the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI) SFI is widely criticized by
the global environmental community as a greenwashing tool that allows companies
to slap a green label on products made from business-as-usual industrial
forestry practices like large-scale clearcutting, the conversion of natural
forests to monoculture tree plantations and the routine use of toxic fertilizers
and herbicides that are destroying important ecosystems in North America, including
in the Southern US, the largest paper producing region in the world.
This week, IP announced Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Chain of Custody certification at a number of its mills in the US claiming
“the largest FSC manufacturing platform across the globe.” Contrary to SFI, FSC is the only forest
products certification system in existence today that is supported by the
broader conservation community, including Dogwood Alliance. It is the only certification system that
provides meaningful protection for endangered forests and restrictions on the conversion
of natural forests to plantations, large-scale clearcutting and the use of
chemicals in plantations.
So, has IP seen the light or is this just another attempt at
greenwashing?
One thing is clear.
Over the past two years, IP has been feeling the pressure about forest
sustainability issues from all directions – environmental groups, its customers
and even its competitors. As a direct
result of Dogwood Alliance’s campaign targeting IP’s customers in the office
supply industry and, more recently large IP customers of paper packaging, many of IP’s largest customers including Staples,
OfficeMax, Universal Music Group, Tetra Pak ….and others) have been pushing the
company to produce FSC certified products.
In addition to market demand and direct pressure from large customers,
a major competitor– Domtar – has positioned itself as a market leader when it
comes to producing FSC certified paper in the office supply market. Two years ago, Domtar bought a number of
mills from Weyerhaeuser in the Southern US
that produce office paper, making it the largest manufacturer of office paper
in the world. Just last month, the Canadian
company announced that it achieved FSC Chain of Custody certification at four
of its five mills in the Southern US –IP’s
home turf.
So, IP is now vying for a leadership position and scrambling
to satisfy its customers who want FSC certified paper products. Through its announcement this week, IP
appears to concede that it has failed to convince the marketplace that SFI
certification is a credible measure of sustainability -- an interesting place
to be in light of its heavy investment in SFI certification. On the one hand, the announcement by IP
represents huge movement by the world’s largest paper company and on its
surface may suggest that perhaps IP has jumped ahead of Domtar as the FSC
market leader. On the other hand a
closer look at what FSC chain of custody certification really means (or doesn’t
mean) is important. Buyers beware.
The fact that IP now has FSC chain of custody certification
at some of its facilities means simply that it has the appropriate mechanisms
in place to be able to track FSC certified fiber from the forest, through the
mills and to an end product. It does not
mean that IP is actually moving FSC certified fiber through its mills or
producing any FSC certified products. Most importantly, it does not mean that
anything at all has changed in the forest.
Unlike Domtar, which recognizes FSC as a better certification
system than SFI, actually produces FSC certified products at its mills and
actively partners with conservation groups and others to work towards expanding
FSC on the ground in the forest where it matters most, IP continues to promote
SFI as equal, hasn’t produced one FSC certified product to date and refuses to
work with conservation groups on expanding FSC on the ground. So, while IP is moving in response to market
pressure, there is no tangible evidence yet that IP is in fact changing its
behavior. While IP now has the keys to
the Prius (FSC) it is still driving a Hummer (SFI).
IP must continue to be held accountable for the forest
destruction in the Southern US and around the
world that results from its production of paper. While IP may appear to be moving, it hasn’t
changed anything on the ground. Keeping the
market pressure on IP is critical to ensuring that this week’s big announcement
isn’t just another attempt at greenwashing.
IP must clearly understand that until it takes tangible action that results
in real improvements on the ground in the forests where it sources fiber it
will continue to be branded as the industry laggard when it comes to forest
sustainability.
Danna Smith
Cofounder and Acting Executive Director
Dogwood Alliance
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
1. both FSC and SFI are *expensive* systems to implement, and private landowners (who own 70% of the forestland in the South) are NOT interested in incurring significant additional costs ($5-10/acre)for certification. Large landowners with tens of thousands of acres can take advantage of economies of scale and reduce costs significantly; the regular landowner is unable to do so with either FSC or SFI. Can we agree on this?
2. SFI was endorsed as a valid certification system by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, a worldwide system designed to "certify the certifiers."
3. SFI has diverse representation on its External Review Panel (google it)
4. SFI has spent thousands of hours training loggers in my area (south Mississippi); FSC has trained zero, zip, nada.
5. FSC in my area is non-existent. We are a key timber-producing region, and a good friend of mine works for a company doing FSC certification work. They are not interested in small ownerships, as there is no money in it. Again, where does that leave most landowners? The American Tree Farm System is the logical fist step for most landowners interested in being certified.
6. Give the herbicide thing a rest. We have severe problems with cogongrass, tallowtree, Japanese climbing fern, privet, kudzu, and other invasive species. Groups such as The Nature Conservancy use herbicide regularly to gain control of their land. If you can figure how to kill the above species without using herbicides, please let us know. We'd love to use the money elsewhere.
A useful publication for private landowners and others interested in forest certification is at this link:
http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2447.pdf