APRIL is focused on achieving a sound scientific basis for ongoing carbon monitoring and reporting. We are committed to tracking and reporting on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. We are making progress in our efforts to manage the reduction of green house gas (GHG) emissions.

Our focus on determining carbon emissions includes monitoring of our mill operations and of carbon emissions from our concessions including those located on peatland.

APRIL’s overall goals in regard to carbon emissions are to:

  • Establish a carbon emissions total from our current operations and activities combined, including all the land we are responsible for
  • Establish a verifiable baseline range of carbon emissions from the concessions awarded to APRIL at the point at which APRIL took them over (“Take Over Point”)
  • Determine our carbon footprint, i.e. the difference between our current total emissions and our baseline emissions before we took over those land areas
  • Measure the effectiveness of current initiatives to minimise carbon emissions from the mill and forest lands
  • Formulate plans and initiatives with a strong scientific basis to reduce carbon emissions in the future

Understanding peatlands and carbon is complex and the science is still evolving. Measurement technologies are at a point where measurement of carbon emissions from peat can only deliver a plus or minus range, often with many variables.

These variables include peat composition, condition and history; vegetation condition including canopy closure (exposure of peat surface to sunlight tends to raise emissions), weather including rainfall, humidity and air temperature, and ground water levels and flow rates.

APRIL has embarked on a comprehensive and long-range programme including work with a number of third-party experts to build knowledge about carbon emission factors to reduce the company’s overall carbon footprint.

Taking Action to Reduce Carbon Footprint

While research is ongoing, APRIL has designed and implemented a suite of initiatives in the management of its operations that, based on best currently available science, have the greatest potential to minimise carbon emissions from our operations.

It is APRIL’s firm view that carbon management strategies must be based on best available science, not hypotheses or vested-interest driven policy derived from limited data.

Most fossil fuel emissions in the production of pulp and paper occur at the mill manufacturing stage; smaller emissions arise from transport of raw materials to the mill and of pulp and paper products to the mill gate for export via our own port. Some fossil emissions also occur in the fiber supply chain, from nurseries to plantation management to harvesting.

APRIL complies fully with Indonesian legal requirements throughout the production process, from operating concession lands and sourcing fiber to manufacturing, disposal of mill wastes and export of product.

We have implemented a number of programs that have reduced the Kerinci mill’s reliance on fossil fuel. In particular, the increased use of biomass for energy generation means that only 7.4 per cent of the energy consumed by our mill now comes from coal. (See section 3.2 of this Report). This represents a significant reduction in coal consumption.

In the past the use of coal in our mill has been a major contributor to our fossil CO2 emissions per metric tonne of pulp and per metric tonne of paper, but a significant reduction in the use of coal has been achieved.

Other initiatives that have led to reduced GHG emissions include: methanol capture and re-use; capture and use of waste CO2 from lime kilns in our precipitated calcium carbonate plant and; reduced import and use of bleached softwood kraft. (See section 3.2 of this Report).

In the operation of plantation concessions on peatlands we comply fully with Indonesian legal and regulatory requirements and have played a lead role in having improved practices of peatland management recognized and adopted. Within Indonesia, we have been instrumental in creating awareness and solutions with respect to the need to protect critical headwaters of peat landscapes.

We have also implemented for several years measures designed to minimise carbon emissions from those of our concessions located on peatland. These initiatives include:

  • Protection of critical headwater peat areas to maintain the integrity and hydro function of peat domes
  • Water management practices that ensure water levels compared to At Take Over levels in conservation areas are maintained or improved over the long term
  • Plantations configured as a ring around conservation and natural forest areas to discourage encroachment, illegal logging, unmanaged drainage and entering of the core
  • Maintenance of tree canopied buffer zones between our plantation and areas of conservation natural forest
  • Applying best practice water management throughout peatlands, and for plantations working to maintain highest practical water tables and to avoid unnecessary discharge of water
  • Periodic review and adjustment of plantation rotation cycles to maximise the time plantations have a closed canopy protecting the peat

Carbon Footprint Study

Figure 40: CARBON FOOTPRINT OF APRIL PULP PRODUCTION: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS PER TON OF PULPcarbon-footprint-of-april-pulp-production

Figure 40: CARBON FOOTPRINT OF APRIL PULP PRODUCTION: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS PER TON OF PULPcarbon-footprint-of-april-pulp-production APRIL commissioned IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute to undertake a carbon footprint study of our operations in Riau, Indonesia. The initial work for the study was carried out during the second half of 2009 and this was updated with new emission factors during 2011 and finalised in January 2012. IVL is an independent, non-profit research institute, owned by a foundation jointly established by the Swedish Government and Swedish industry. This institute has been operating since 1966 and has extensive experience across the entire environmental field.

The IVL study included a full product life cycle analysis (LCA) for the period 2006 – 2009. This analysis covered plantations and forestry, production of other raw materials, pulp and paper production, transport and waste management. Our pulp and paper was assumed sold into markets in Europe, China, Japan and Korea. The methodology employed for the study was the Framework for Development of Carbon Footprint by the Confederation of European Paper Industries, (CEPI).

The resulting carbon footprint included greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels, calculated as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), and net removal of biogenic CO2 from the atmosphere (sequestration). To give a carbon footprint, current net emissions from managed land were compared to those before APRIL took over the concessions.

The fossil fuel part of the Carbon Footprint study for pulp and paper published in 2012 showed that fossil GHG emissions associated with APRIL pulp and paper production and transportation to the customer gate were 850 kg CO2e/tonne pulp (see Figure 40 opposite) and 1070 kg CO2e/tonne fine paper.

Figure 41 above is expanded from Figure 40. The fossil GHG emissions are divided by IVL into various production stages from “cradle to customer gate”.

GHG emissions are in units of Global Warming Potential (over 100 years): CO2e of net emissions per metric tonne of market pulp and per metric tonne of fine paper, including distribution to Europe and end of product life in Europe.

IVL similarly derived estimates of biogenic (forest biomass and soil) net CO2e emissions to the atmosphere per tonne of product, from comparing the situation before APRIL took over management of the concession lands, with APRIL’s current land management practices.

IVL found that net emissions for the period 2006-09 have in fact been negative. This reflects increases in forest biomass stocks resulting from APRIL management. Productive plantations and protected conservation areas have replaced what was degraded natural forest at the time APRIL first took over the land. This “At Take Over” situation is also referred to by IVL as a reference scenario – to give a comparison of net biogenic emissions today “with APRIL” with the emission level expected “without APRIL”, today.

Figure 42: FORECAST CO2e EMISSIONS FROM APRIL PLANTATIONS VERSUS UNMANAGED LAND.forecast-co2e-emissions-from-april-plantations-vs-unmanaged-landThe method used to generate these scenarios was based on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) “Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Managements in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry, default method”.

The forest and plantation carbon analysis undertaken was based on annual carbon stock changes of all forest areas under APRIL forest management control. The plantation component of carbon footprint, expressed as tonnes of biogenic CO2 per tonne of pulp, was determined by relating the total estimated annual forest carbon stock change to the annual production of pulp and paper.

The “At Take Over” scenario that served as a baseline for the comparison in carbon stock change between land under APRIL management and unmanaged land was based on calculations that reflected expert assessment of the status of unmanaged land.

It is important to note that when APRIL took over the concessions, the existing forests were not in pristine condition. They were affected by previous logging activity by other parties, particularly illegal loggers. Drainage canals, wildfire and agricultural encroachment had also impacted on these areas.

A clear finding of the IVL study was that the estimated CO2 emissions from forest land under APRIL management would likely be substantially higher or at least the same in the absence of APRIL management. A number of variables have created uncertainty over the magnitude of lowering and whether emissions are somewhat lower or substantially lower now, compared to before APRIL.

It was concluded that the impact of APRIL management in reducing the overall rates of carbon losses from APRIL forest lands has very likely, though not absolutely certainly, been a significant one.

Another key finding was that, despite this emission reduction compared to Take-Over, APRIL forest lands currently do act as a net source for CO2, emitting to the atmosphere in the range of five to nine million tonnes CO2e/year. IVL found it most likely that the size of present day (calculated over 2006-09) emission reduction was between three and ten million tonnes of CO2e/year. For the plantation areas, the emissions of CO2 decreased following APRIL take-over of this land.

It was also concluded that the process of conversion of degraded natural forest to plantations has resulted in considerable emissions of CO2 at time of conversion. IVL included these emissions in accounting for the net effect of APRIL land management on atmospheric emissions.

Figure 42 above shows future accumulated CO2 emissions from APRIL-managed forestland with emissions from unmanaged forestland. This data was derived from an extrapolation over time for identical forestland areas, with and in the absence of APRIL forest management. It can be seen that a considerable variation range has been included in extrapolated CO2 emission volume.

IVL have concluded that while unregulated degradation of remaining unoccupied state forests in Indonesia remains widespread, APRIL’s operations on peatland result in a comparative reduction in carbon emissions.

carbon-background