Conformity assessment of UFCS against PEFC (2010).pdf - ITS Global
Conformity assessment of UFCS against PEFC (2010).pdf - ITS Global
Conformity assessment of UFCS against PEFC (2010).pdf - ITS Global
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Evaluation and <strong>assessment</strong> <strong>of</strong> Uruguayan Forest Certification scheme <strong>against</strong> the requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>PEFC</strong> Council<br />
Documentation reference to any other type <strong>of</strong> communications. demonstrated communication to public.<br />
Are the ‘UNIT regulations’ in fact the operating procedures Comments noted. Text has been clarified to<br />
– see Q 6)?<br />
clearly state that UNIT processes require<br />
It is ISO/IEC not ISO/ICC.<br />
conformity with ISO/IEC Directive, Part 1.<br />
The name <strong>of</strong> the document should be included – it is<br />
‘Procedures for the technical work 2008’<br />
16 3.1.2 Participatory Process<br />
14)<br />
Documentation<br />
17 3.1.2 Participatory Process<br />
15)<br />
Documentation<br />
17 3.1.2 Participatory Process<br />
17)<br />
Practice<br />
… were arrived at after …<br />
p.18, 18<br />
18 3.1.2 Participatory Process<br />
18)<br />
Practice<br />
18 3.1.2 Participatory Process<br />
19)<br />
Documentation<br />
However documentation<br />
does state …<br />
18 3.1.2 Participatory Process<br />
19)<br />
Practice<br />
19 3.3 Pilot Testing 35)<br />
Documentation<br />
19 3.3 Pilot Testing 35)<br />
Practice<br />
From documentation<br />
presented … third pilot<br />
audit by consultant in<br />
UNIT 1152 was approved in march 2007 but UNIT 1151 was<br />
approved in May 2006 – need to have correct approval<br />
dates.<br />
As 2 documents ‘was’ should be ‘were made’<br />
How does (April/May 2009) fit in with the Practice <strong>of</strong> 1 April<br />
2009 to 28 June 2009?<br />
… were finalised after …<br />
It would be preferable to stick with standard as the correct<br />
terminology in this context rather than use ‘norms’.<br />
Does public availability on request (!) satisfy <strong>PEFC</strong>C? (see<br />
also p. 23, 4.1.2, 7)<br />
The (see below) is really 3.3, so why not indicate it<br />
specifically?<br />
However, documentation does state …<br />
- the documentation is GD 2 and SD08, so why not indicate<br />
it to assist others who want verification.<br />
The question posed here is did the STC-SFM start its work<br />
after May or after June – if it is June, the 60+ days would<br />
possibly be OK in intent.<br />
The 4 th sentence could reference back to Q 18).<br />
Based on documentation presented … third pilot audit by a<br />
consultant in March 2009 …<br />
Is the consultant known – it would lend weight to the pilot<br />
testing phase even if only the firm’s name was used.<br />
Dates are correct. Text modified to more<br />
clearly identify the final draft made available<br />
to interested parties.<br />
Comments were noted. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments noted. Wording <strong>of</strong> text has been<br />
clarified.<br />
Comments were noted. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments were valid. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments were noted. Additional text<br />
included.<br />
Comments were noted. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments were noted. Additional text has<br />
been added.<br />
www.itsglobal.net Page 77