PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON COMPETITIVENESS AND CARBON LEAKAGE

The report analyzes the pulp, paper, and paperboard sectors, finding that while both are classified as at risk of carbon leakage under EU ETS criteria, the drivers of trade intensity are often related to biomass availability and market effects rather than carbon pricing. It highlights a trend of the EU importing raw pulp and low-quality paper while exporting high-quality products, and notes that the export of recovered paper to China may cause 'negative carbon leakage' by depriving EU producers of low-emission raw materials.

• Global production of pulp grew from 171 million tonnes in 2005 to 189 million tonnes in 2010, while paper and paperboard production increased from 364 million tonnes to 394 million tonnes in the same period.
• Production levels in the EU27 remained relatively stable between 2005 and 2010, whereas China experienced significant growth in both pulp and paper production.
• The EU27 is a net importer of pulp and recovered paper, with average annual imports valued at $6.2 billion and exports at $3 billion between 2005 and 2010. Kraft pulp represents 82% of the average trade value of these imports.
• The EU27 is a net exporter of paper and paperboard, with average annual exports of $17.9 billion compared to $6.2 billion in imports. The region maintains a comparative advantage in high-quality products like coated paper, which accounts for 35% of its exports.
• The export of recovered paper from the EU27 to China is identified as an example of 'negative carbon leakage', as it removes low-emission raw materials from the EU market, potentially increasing the carbon costs for European producers.
• Both the manufacture of pulp and the paper and paperboard sectors are officially classified as being at risk of carbon leakage under EU ETS criteria, with pulp showing a trade intensity of 46.1% and paper and paperboard showing 27.5%.
• Analysis at the product level shows that most pulp and paper products exceed the 30% absolute trade intensity threshold, but this is attributed to limited biomass availability in Europe and market effects rather than carbon pricing.
• EU ETS product benchmarks for pulp are near zero, while paper and paperboard benchmarks are around 0.3 t CO2 / t of product, suggesting that differences in trade intensity are not driven by differences in specific emissions.

APA

Healy, S., & Schumacher, K. (2011). PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON COMPETITIVENESS AND CARBON LEAKAGE. Climate Strategies. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pulp-paper-and-paperboard-report-cs-final-with-executive-summary.pdf

Chicago

Healy, Sean, and Katja Schumacher. PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON COMPETITIVENESS AND CARBON LEAKAGE. Climate Strategies, 2011. https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pulp-paper-and-paperboard-report-cs-final-with-executive-summary.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Healy |first1=Sean |last2=Schumacher |first2=Katja |title=PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON COMPETITIVENESS AND CARBON LEAKAGE |publisher=Climate Strategies |date=2011 |url=https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pulp-paper-and-paperboard-report-cs-final-with-executive-summary.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{healy2011product, author = {Healy, Sean and Schumacher, Katja}, title = {{PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION AND ITS IMPLICATION ON COMPETITIVENESS AND CARBON LEAKAGE}}, institution = {Climate Strategies}, year = {2011}, url = {https://climatestrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pulp-paper-and-paperboard-report-cs-final-with-executive-summary.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }