Customers regularly ask whether PaperWise is FSC or PEFC certified. In this article, we take a closer look at FSC, PEFC, and why PaperWise makes these certifications unnecessary. People, companies, and organizations that ask for FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) or PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) do so because of their desire to implement sustainability and to combat deforestation. They want to ensure that the trees harvested for their products come from sustainably managed forests. But to what extent do FSC and PEFC guarantee sustainability? And what are the pros and cons of FSC and PEFC compared to tree-free PaperWise paper?

INTRODUCTION

Sustainability and circularity are very important topics today. FSC and PEFC are often seen as certifications for sustainable paper, paperboard, packaging, and printed matter. But let’s look at some pros and cons of FSC and PEFC and compare them with PaperWise, paper that is not made from trees, but from agricultural waste.

The European market for paper and paperboard is 72.5 million tonnes. About 55% is recycled paper and 45% is made from trees (Source: CEPI 2023). Approximately 60-70% of this paper is FSC or PEFC certified. This means the vast majority of paper and paperboard comes from sustainably managed forests. However, trees, whether FSC or PEFC certified or not, are certainly not the most logical and sustainable choice for paper and paperboard.

ORIGIN OF FSC AND PEFC

Both certification systems were established in the 1990s with the same intention: promoting sustainable forest management. The founders were concerned about increasing deforestation and its negative impact on both the environment and local communities. FSC was founded by a broad coalition of environmental organizations, businesses, and social groups from North America and Canada with large industrial forests in mind. PEFC was founded by representatives from the European forestry sector. These were small and medium-sized forest owners who faced difficulties in meeting the strict standards of FSC.

GOAL OF FSC AND PEFC

FSC aims to protect forests, the workers employed in those forests, and indigenous peoples. PEFC focuses on supporting national and regional certification programs. It acts as an umbrella organization that approves the certification and traceability of wood products from different countries and regions. Unlike FSC, which uses a single global standard, PEFC allows more room for national and regional differences, provided they align with the basic principles of sustainable forest management. FSC is more centralized and global in its setup, while PEFC offers more flexibility to local and national initiatives.

ADVANTAGES: FSC AND PEFC CERTIFIED PAPER FROM TREES

We can state that FSC and PEFC offer demonstrable advantages, which are summarized below. More advantages are claimed; however, these are not irrefutably true and, in some cases, even false. Hence the following summary of demonstrable advantages:

Independent and periodic audits and certification by accredited third parties. This ensures reliability, credibility, and is free from conflicts of interest
Traceability throughout the entire chain, from forest to end product, which forms the basis for a guarantee.
Responsible forest management: every tree harvested for paper is replanted
Human rights of forest workers and indigenous peoples are respected
FSC and PEFC encourage the use of recycled paper, which results in less tree felling
FSC and PEFC give consumers confidence that they are making responsible choices
Paper producers that carry FSC or PEFC have strict quality standards, ensuring high-quality paper

DISADVANTAGES OF FSC AND PEFC PAPER FROM TREES

Before we delve deeper into the disadvantages of FSC and PEFC, let’s first go back to the origin of paper. Over 5,000 years ago, the Egyptians already used forms of paper made from the stems of the reed-like papyrus plant, to which we owe the word paper. Technically, this paper did not yet resemble modern paper as we know it today. For that, we go back 2,000 years in time to China, where a process was developed in which fibers from plant residues such as rice, straw, hemp, bamboo, and mulberry bark were soaked, finely ground, and then dried into thin sheets of paper.

In Europe, until the early 19th century, paper was mainly made from old textile fibers. Due to the growing demand for paper in the 19th century, textile fibers became scarce and expensive. This was the time when the paper machine and processes were invented to mechanically and chemically process wood fibers from trees into paper pulp. This made paper much cheaper and the demand for paper grew even more strongly. At that time, the choice of trees as a raw material for paper was logical, as they were abundant and any knowledge about the negative impact on the environment was completely lacking.

FSC and PEFC certifications are great systems for ensuring sustainability if we assume that trees are the most logical and sustainable raw material for paper and paperboard. But what if it turns out that trees are not so logical and sustainable for paper at all? Why would we use primary raw materials (trees) with growth times of 10 to 80 years to make paper? Paper and paperboard used for products such as packaging materials, printed matter, or copy paper with a lifespan of a few seconds, days, or weeks? This imbalance in time has many negative effects.

With today’s knowledge, we can establish that there are also quite a few disadvantages associated with FSC and PEFC certified trees, paper, and paperboard:

1. Loss of biodiversity
Trees for paper mainly come from plantation forests. These monocultures do not contribute to biodiversity; they do not provide a varied habitat for animal and plant species, and pesticides are used.

2. Ecosystems
Even if forests are sustainably managed, it takes at least 30-40 years before a harvested forest is ecologically fully restored. FSC and PEFC certifications ensure reforestation, but this does not guarantee that the original ecosystem will fully return. In fact, it primarily ensures that the original ecosystem does not return, due to the choice of plantation forests (monocultures).

3. CO2 emissions
The harvesting, transporting, and processing of trees for paper production remains an energy-intensive process that involves CO2 emissions. Primary raw materials such as trees cannot reduce this ecological footprint; even certified systems such as FSC and PEFC do not solve this problem.

4. Chemicals and water
Plantation forests, whether FSC or PEFC certified or not, depend on pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers to maintain the monocultures. These chemicals are harmful to the environment. Different tree species influence water consumption to varying degrees. Fast-growing tree species such as eucalyptus, poplar, and birch have a significant negative impact on local water management and ecosystems. The environment dries out. Look at a country like Portugal, where forestry for paper production causes great damage and danger to the environment.

5. Compliance risk
Although FSC and PEFC have strict rules, there are cases where certifications are misused or where supervision and compliance are insufficient. This means that not all certified forests actually meet the sustainability criteria.

6. Large-scale logging remains a problem
Certifications such as FSC and PEFC operate mainly on a concession basis and on a large scale. While this may be more efficient, it often means that large tracts of land are used for logging, which affects the integrity of forests and natural habitats, even when done in a “controlled” manner.

7. Recycling
According to the latest research, paper can be recycled more than 25 times; however, new virgin cellulose is always needed in the paper cycle. The recycling rate in Europe is 72%. Paper that comes into contact with food must be made from virgin cellulose for safety reasons anyway. This explains why 45% of paper in Europe is made from trees. This ratio is therefore unlikely to change. The question is, where should this virgin cellulose come from? Does this virgin cellulose necessarily have to come from trees? Or are there alternative, ecologically better raw materials available?

PAPERWISE PAPER FROM AGRICULTURAL WASTE MAKES FSC AND PEFC UNNECESSARY

The answer is YES! There are much better raw materials available. In ecological terms and in the ratio of growth time versus usage time. These are secondary raw materials that are released as soon as farmers harvest. These raw materials are available in abundance, become available worldwide annually, and no trees need to be harvested for them. They are plant residues such as stems and leaves that remain after the harvest of wheat, barley, rye, rice, hemp, or sugarcane. These residual streams—raw material for paper and paperboard—are what we call agricultural waste.

In short, trees, whether FSC or PEFC certified or not, are NOT the most logical and sustainable choice for paper. They are primary raw materials where the renewability in time is extremely longer than the usage time. So why harvest trees for paper when we can also extract virgin cellulose fibers from secondary raw materials… from agricultural waste?

If you truly value sustainability, choose PaperWise, paper made from agricultural waste. Agricultural waste accounts for 80% of the plant’s weight (yes, really that much!) and is packed with pure cellulose. Agricultural waste is a residual product generated by another industry. We refer to these as secondary raw materials. PaperWise paper and paperboard is tree-free, recyclable, compostable, food-safe, and its environmental impact is 47% lower than paper from trees and 29% lower than recycled paper. Furthermore, agricultural waste provides additional income for farmers in developing countries where PaperWise is produced. Win-win.