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
Evaluation and assessment of Uruguayan Forest Certification scheme against the requirements of the PEFC Council Process … p.22, 4.1.1., 1 22 4.1.1 General Requirements 1) (refer to GD 13) “...relevant to all forests and management systems ...” (vice versa plantations)? The FM standard is applicable for forest plantations only! The consultant should identify the relevant section/chapter which indicates compliance – this is s general comment for much of the rest of the assessment ie refer to 1 of GD13 22 2) Clarification … by different auditors based on the justifications as the normative requirements. 22 3) (refer to 1, 4 of GD 13) (refer to GD 13) 23 7) I cannot confirm the consultant’s conclusion – GD13 provides for the FMP – there is no indication of availability 23 8) Clarification 5 of GD2 applies! 23 10) I cannot confirm the consultant’s conclusion – it isn’t explicit. There is basically an inference rather than evidence! 23 11) Comment – ratification implies application through national legislation 24 13) Query – was it sighted in the Field Visit i.e. confirmed in the minutes of meetings 24 14) The signing of this Protocol can’t be verified on bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties The Biosafety Protocol The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 25 17) Comment – can delete text after SD07 and GD2 as have already established text in 4.2.1! Agree for SD07 but it isn’t explicit in GD2 to indicate conformance Comments were noted. Text clarifying that criteria apply to plantations has been added. Refer to above comment. Comments are valid. Suggestion to identify relevant section/chapter has been implemented. Comments are valid. Additional text has been added. Additional text added. Comments are valid. Text has been modified to recognise that while the practice of forest companies is to make copies of FMP publicly available, this is not explicitly required by documentation. Comments valid. Additional reference added. Comments noted. Additional reference to GD02, Section 2 added. Comments noted. Confirmed in discussions with members of STC-SFM. Refer to Annex 1. Uruguay’s country profile indicates that the Protocol was signed on 1/2/2001 (cited in the conformity assessment). Profile accessible at: http://bch.cbd.int/about/countryprofile.sht ml?country=uy Comments valid. Additional reference to GD02, Section 5.1 added. www.itsglobal.net Page 80
Evaluation and assessment of Uruguayan Forest Certification scheme against the requirements of the PEFC Council 25 4.2.3 Group Certification This introduction relates in fact to the SFM system which relates to 5.3 of GD2 25 35) The criteria and requirements for group certification as set The criteria and out in SD07 comply with PEFCC requirements. requirements for group There is no need to repeat the PEFCC reference! certification within UFCS (SD07) comply with PEFCC requirements detailed in Annex 3, 4.1b. 26 43) Comment – Under 7, it is explicit for the member but it is implicit for the Group Administrator! ... forest area under his/her management should be added by PEFCC Comments noted. Text amended accordingly. Comments valid. Text amended accordingly Comments noted. p. 27, 4.2.4, 46 The consultants agree with the comment. The consultants used the exact wording of the PEFC Council Minimum Requirements Checklist (GL 2/2010), but would recommend that PEFCC considers amending the documentation so that it does not contain gender specific references. 27 45) The shading is missing for the Conforms Comments valid. Report has been amended 27 48) … on ad hoc basis … … on an ad hoc basis … 28 49) … on ad hoc basis … … on an ad hoc basis … 28 4.4 Overall Assessment Comment: I have a real concern on the assessment for 7), 10), 14), 17) and 43) – I would seek further evidence to justify the current assessment. 5. Assessment of UFCS Forest Management Standards against PEOLG accordingly. Comments valid. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments valid. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments noted. Assessment modified to recognise non-conformity associated with a lack of documentation requirements for making summary of FMP publicly available. 29 5.1 Assessment Framework, 1st Para UFCS utilizes Norm (Standard) 1152: 2009 … The UFCS utilizes Norm (Standard) UNIT 1152: 2009 … The conformity of the Criteria and Indicators of Standard … It is the C&I which provide the equivalence with the Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Text amended. www.itsglobal.net Page 81
- Page 29 and 30: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 31 and 32: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 33 and 34: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 35 and 36: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 37 and 38: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 39 and 40: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 41 and 42: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 43 and 44: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 45 and 46: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 47 and 48: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 49 and 50: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 51 and 52: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 53 and 54: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 55 and 56: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 57 and 58: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 59 and 60: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 61 and 62: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 63 and 64: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 65 and 66: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 67 and 68: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 69 and 70: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 71 and 72: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 73 and 74: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 75 and 76: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 77 and 78: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 79: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 83 and 84: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 85 and 86: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 87: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
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 />
Process …<br />
p.22,<br />
4.1.1., 1<br />
22 4.1.1 General Requirements<br />
1)<br />
(refer to GD 13)<br />
“...relevant to all forests and management systems ...”<br />
(vice versa plantations)?<br />
The FM standard is applicable for forest plantations only!<br />
The consultant should identify the relevant section/chapter<br />
which indicates compliance – this is s general comment for<br />
much <strong>of</strong> the rest <strong>of</strong> the <strong>assessment</strong> ie refer to 1 <strong>of</strong> GD13<br />
22 2) Clarification<br />
… by different auditors based on the justifications as the<br />
normative requirements.<br />
22 3)<br />
(refer to 1, 4 <strong>of</strong> GD 13)<br />
(refer to GD 13)<br />
23 7) I cannot confirm the consultant’s conclusion – GD13<br />
provides for the FMP – there is no indication <strong>of</strong> availability<br />
23 8) Clarification<br />
5 <strong>of</strong> GD2 applies!<br />
23 10) I cannot confirm the consultant’s conclusion – it isn’t<br />
explicit. There is basically an inference rather than<br />
evidence!<br />
23 11) Comment – ratification implies application through national<br />
legislation<br />
24 13) Query – was it sighted in the Field Visit i.e. confirmed in the<br />
minutes <strong>of</strong> meetings<br />
24 14)<br />
The signing <strong>of</strong> this Protocol can’t be verified on<br />
bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties<br />
The Biosafety Protocol The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety<br />
25 17) Comment – can delete text after SD07 and GD2 as have<br />
already established text in 4.2.1!<br />
Agree for SD07 but it isn’t explicit in GD2 to indicate<br />
conformance<br />
Comments were noted. Text clarifying that<br />
criteria apply to plantations has been added.<br />
Refer to above comment.<br />
Comments are valid. Suggestion to identify<br />
relevant section/chapter has been<br />
implemented.<br />
Comments are valid. Additional text has been<br />
added.<br />
Additional text added.<br />
Comments are valid. Text has been modified<br />
to recognise that while the practice <strong>of</strong> forest<br />
companies is to make copies <strong>of</strong> FMP publicly<br />
available, this is not explicitly required by<br />
documentation.<br />
Comments valid. Additional reference added.<br />
Comments noted. Additional reference to<br />
GD02, Section 2 added.<br />
Comments noted.<br />
Confirmed in discussions with members <strong>of</strong><br />
STC-SFM. Refer to Annex 1.<br />
Uruguay’s country pr<strong>of</strong>ile indicates that the<br />
Protocol was signed on 1/2/2001 (cited in the<br />
conformity <strong>assessment</strong>). Pr<strong>of</strong>ile accessible at:<br />
http://bch.cbd.int/about/countrypr<strong>of</strong>ile.sht<br />
ml?country=uy<br />
Comments valid. Additional reference to<br />
GD02, Section 5.1 added.<br />
www.itsglobal.net Page 80
Change language