Plantations, poverty and power - Critical Information Collective

90
availability of wood,” Verkerk said, with a straight face.460 Conversely, if the forest is less well
protected, the industry would have a lot more wood available. Verkerk made no mention of what the
impact of this might be on the biodiversity of the forests.
CEPI has various sub-groups which focus on supporting the interests of specific types of paper
production. CEPIPRINT is the Association of European Publication Paper Producers. CEPIFINE
represents Europe’s fine paper producers. CEPI Eurokraft looks after the interests of Europe’s paper sack
manufacturers.
Each of these groups produces material supporting the consumption of ever more paper. CEPI Eurokraft,
for example, has produced a series of reports on the benefits of kraft paper packaging. A CEPI Eurokraft
report produced between 1998 and 2000, for example, looked at a life-cycle analysis of paper sacks. Not
surprisingly, CEPI Eurokraft concluded that paper sacks are more environmentally friendly that plastic
sacks:
“When comparing the paper sack and plastic sack systems with each other (and comparing all the waste
treatment scenarios) the paper sack systems use less primary energy and contribute less to depletion of
non-renewable resources and photochemical oxidant creation than the LDPE [low density polyethylene]
sack systems.”461
But CEPI Eurokraft could only come to this conclusion by ignoring the findings of the report that it
commissioned to compare the various options. CEPI Eurokraft commissioned Chalmers Industriteknik in
Sweden to compare four options for delivering animal feed: paper sacks; plastic sacks; semi-bulk plastic
sacks; and transporting in bulk. What Chalmers Industriteknik found in its study was that the best system
for transporting animal feed was the semi-bulk option, using large, reusable, woven polypropylene sacks:
“The results of the study indicate that semi-bulk system gives the lowest contribution to all of the studied
impact categories, at least in the base case where the big bags are assumed to be used on average three
times.”462
The Chalmers Industriteknik report notes that the more often the plastic sacks are reused, the better the
system is for the environment, compared to paper sacks. I am not recommending the use of more plastic
bags. I am simply pointing out that CEPI Eurokraft distorted the findings of the report that it
commissioned, in order to suit its own ends.
The report found that the impact of distributing the animal feed is far higher than the packaging used:
“When including the distribution of the filling goods, the largest environmental profits are probably
achieved through making the distribution as efficient as possible and through using the least harmful
transportation modes (e.g. train) and fuels rather than through the choice of packaging system.”463
460 The quotations of presenters at the side event are from my notes taken during the side event.
461 “LCA of Distribution in Paper Sacks. Executive Summary”, Eurosac and CEPI Eurokraft, 2000, page 11.
462 Anna Ryberg, Tomas Ekvall and Lisa Person (2000) ”Life Cycle Assessment of distribution in four different
distribution systems in Europe. Third party report”, Chalmers Industriteknik, October 2000, page 4.
463 Anna Ryberg, Tomas Ekvall and Lisa Person (2000) ”Life Cycle Assessment of distribution in four different
distribution systems in Europe. Third party report”, Chalmers Industriteknik, October 2000, page 4.