Conformity assessment of UFCS against PEFC (2010).pdf - ITS Global

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation and assessment of Uruguayan Forest Certification scheme against the requirements of the PEFC Council p.14 (bottom line) How many of the 36 organisations and individuals invite actually participated in the process? A list would clarify (physically present or by writing) 14 3.1.1 Independence, 5) Some documentation would be preferable e.g. a URL to back up the pers comm. 14 3.1.2 Participatory Process 6) Documentation … of letter of invitation and minutes … Practice 15 3.1.2 Participatory Process 7) 15 3.1.2 Participatory Process 8) Practice 15 3.1.2 Participatory Process 9) Clarification … of letter of invitation to participate on the STC-SFM and minutes … Do the 36 organisations cover the environmental, social and economic interests in Uruguay? This question is about representation – 9) is the question for consensus. It should relate back to 6) for representation. I am unsure as to the Conforms rating for this question in light of my comment. Are the ‘Project Meetings’ the committee meetings of the STC-SFM? Whether it is or is not, it needs to be explained. Are the ‘UNIT’s operating procedure’ in fact the ISO/IEC Directive Part 1? A review of Minutes of STC-SFM meetings maintained by UNIT indicates that majority of organisations were represented, although not consistently, over the 40 meetings held by STC-SFM to develop the Standards. Text modified to clarify the report. Unfortunately PEFC Uruguay could not locate original documentation. The list of organisations and persons invited to participate in STC-SFM (held by UNIT) was sighted during Field Visit and covers environmental, social and economic interests in Uruguay. Clarification text has been added. Text clarified to confirm that STC-SFM used consensus building procedures to provide balanced representation by diverse participants. Project meetings refer to STC-SFM. Wording of text has been clarified. UNIT’s operating requirements are consistent with ISO/IEC Directive, Part 1. 15 3.1.2 Participatory Process 10) Documentation 16 3.1.2 Participatory Process 12) Documentation … in relation to standard setting procedures. 16 3.1.2 Participatory Process 13) Is there a specific document(s) which is/are the ‘UNIT’s standard setting processes’? Are the ‘UNIT statutes’ part of the other documents at 2.3, 4 th Para? If so, they need to be mentioned Clarification … in relation to STC-SFM’s standard setting procedures. This is a very specific means of communication. The general public is a much wider reach and there is no Refer to www.iso.org for standard development processes used by UNIT. Text clarified. Comments noted. Reference to UNIT’s statutes incorporated in text. Consultants agree that this is restricted communication. Nonetheless it still www.itsglobal.net Page 76
Evaluation and assessment of Uruguayan Forest Certification scheme against the requirements of the PEFC Council Documentation reference to any other type of communications. demonstrated communication to public. Are the ‘UNIT regulations’ in fact the operating procedures Comments noted. Text has been clarified to – see Q 6)? clearly state that UNIT processes require It is ISO/IEC not ISO/ICC. conformity with ISO/IEC Directive, Part 1. The name of the document should be included – it is ‘Procedures for the technical work 2008’ 16 3.1.2 Participatory Process 14) Documentation 17 3.1.2 Participatory Process 15) Documentation 17 3.1.2 Participatory Process 17) Practice … were arrived at after … p.18, 18 18 3.1.2 Participatory Process 18) Practice 18 3.1.2 Participatory Process 19) Documentation However documentation does state … 18 3.1.2 Participatory Process 19) Practice 19 3.3 Pilot Testing 35) Documentation 19 3.3 Pilot Testing 35) Practice From documentation presented … third pilot audit by consultant in UNIT 1152 was approved in march 2007 but UNIT 1151 was approved in May 2006 – need to have correct approval dates. As 2 documents ‘was’ should be ‘were made’ How does (April/May 2009) fit in with the Practice of 1 April 2009 to 28 June 2009? … were finalised after … It would be preferable to stick with standard as the correct terminology in this context rather than use ‘norms’. Does public availability on request (!) satisfy PEFCC? (see also p. 23, 4.1.2, 7) The (see below) is really 3.3, so why not indicate it specifically? However, documentation does state … - the documentation is GD 2 and SD08, so why not indicate it to assist others who want verification. The question posed here is did the STC-SFM start its work after May or after June – if it is June, the 60+ days would possibly be OK in intent. The 4 th sentence could reference back to Q 18). Based on documentation presented … third pilot audit by a consultant in March 2009 … Is the consultant known – it would lend weight to the pilot testing phase even if only the firm’s name was used. Dates are correct. Text modified to more clearly identify the final draft made available to interested parties. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments noted. Wording of text has been clarified. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments were valid. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments were noted. Additional text included. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments were noted. Additional text has been added. www.itsglobal.net Page 77
Page 1 and 2:
Conformity assessment of the Urugua
Page 3 and 4:
Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
Page 75: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
Page 87: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
show all

Conformity assessment of UFCS against PEFC (2010).pdf - ITS Global

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?