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 training. 39 10) … (refer to SD04) … Incorrect reference … (refer to SD03, 5 p) … 39 11) Comment: As the UFCS uses Annex 4, it is not a scheme specific CoC Standard and the response only needs to address the FM Standard 8.2 / p.40 8.2 / p.40 Question 12: “…with requirements of ISO Guide 65 adjusted to the type, range and volume of work” Question 18: “…make available, at request, “summaries of the certification””. 40 12) … (refer to SD03, Section 5(n)) … 40 15) … (refer to SD03, Section 5(x)) … 40 18) … (refer to SD03, Section 9) … What in detail is meant with “adjusted to the type, range and volume of work”? And is this enough for conformity? Is “at request” enough to satisfy the requirements? Applicable reference … (refer to SD03, Section 3 & 5(n)) … Correct reference: check on 9e! … (refer to SD03, Section 9(g)) … 41 19) Comment: I would adjudge these as Partial Conformity based on matching the documented evidence against the requirement. Comment noted. Reference amended. Comment noted. Additional explanatory text added. Comment noted. The wording is assessed by the Consultants as being consistent with requirement of ISO Guide 65. Comments noted and text clarified. Response is assessed by Consultant as satisfying PEFCC’s requirements. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comment noted. Clarifying text added to support assessment. 41 21) Not referenced so lacks consistency – should be SD03, 3a! Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. 41 23) … (refer to SD03, Section 3) … … (refer to SD03, Section 3(a)) Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. 42 26) This is a non-conformity as there is no PEFC Notification document in the SD series. GZD2 doesn’t have ‘notified’ or ‘notification’ in the whole document. Maybe the reference is SD03, 3e? Comments were noted. Text clarified to support conformity assessment. www.itsglobal.net Page 84
Evaluation and assessment of Uruguayan Forest Certification scheme against the requirements of the PEFC Council 42 27) Impartial and non-discriminatory are not mentioned at all in the statutes – I would asses this as a non-conformity! 42 8.5 Overall Assessment I do not agree with the consultant’s assessment as it is a 3 rd para requirement of the PEFC for accredited certification of an organisation. The certificate must (shall) have the accreditation symbol, so it not in the UFCS, it is a nonconformity which requires corrective action by PEFC Uruguay Comments valid. Text has been amended accordingly. Comments noted. Text and recommendations have been modified. Annex 1, 2 and 3 44 Annex 2, 2) Correct spelling for UNIT – see Page 6 comment … individually targeted letters … vi) … individually target letters … 45 3 rd Para However none were However, none were received. received. 45 4) … Directory … … Director …! 46 6) iii) The statement needs to end with ‘based on … …’ to indicate the basis of the procedures. 46 7) iii) … successfully implement … successfully implement the UFCS. Scheme. 47-50 PART I I cannot locate any document labelled Annex 1 in 2.3. Nos. 1 -19 and 35 – 41 There is no Annex 1 to GD2 which is the implication of the response to the Process in No. 1 and wherever referenced in the PEFCC requirements. It is only by looking through the UFCS documentation that an Annex 1 can be found! Also, there seems to be no Annex 3! The only visible document with an Annex label is Annex 2 which is GD6. Having the name used as reference and having it visible in the report need matching if in fact Annexes 1 and 3 are Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Text changed. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments noted. Text amended accordingly. Comments were noted. Report has been amended accordingly. Comments noted. Additional text and table added to clarify the equivalence of documents cited by PEFC Uruguay as reference document, and document numbers used in Consultants’ assessment. www.itsglobal.net Page 85
- 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 and 80: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 81 and 82: Evaluation and assessment of Urugua
- Page 83: 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 />
42 27) Impartial and non-discriminatory are not mentioned at all in<br />
the statutes – I would asses this as a non-conformity!<br />
42 8.5 Overall Assessment I do not agree with the consultant’s <strong>assessment</strong> as it is a<br />
3 rd para<br />
requirement <strong>of</strong> the <strong>PEFC</strong> for accredited certification <strong>of</strong> an<br />
organisation. The certificate must (shall) have the<br />
accreditation symbol, so it not in the <strong>UFCS</strong>, it is a nonconformity<br />
which requires corrective action by <strong>PEFC</strong><br />
Uruguay<br />
Comments valid. Text has been amended<br />
accordingly.<br />
Comments noted. Text and recommendations<br />
have been modified.<br />
Annex 1, 2 and 3<br />
44 Annex 2, 2)<br />
Correct spelling for UNIT – see Page 6 comment<br />
… individually targeted letters …<br />
vi) … individually target<br />
letters …<br />
45 3 rd Para<br />
However none were However, none were received.<br />
received.<br />
45 4)<br />
… Directory …<br />
… Director …!<br />
46 6) iii) The statement needs to end with ‘based on … …’ to indicate<br />
the basis <strong>of</strong> the procedures.<br />
46 7) iii)<br />
… successfully implement … successfully implement the <strong>UFCS</strong>.<br />
Scheme.<br />
47-50 PART I<br />
I cannot locate any document labelled Annex 1 in 2.3.<br />
Nos. 1 -19 and 35 – 41 There is no Annex 1 to GD2 which is the implication <strong>of</strong> the<br />
response to the Process in No. 1 and wherever referenced in<br />
the <strong>PEFC</strong>C requirements.<br />
It is only by looking through the <strong>UFCS</strong> documentation that<br />
an Annex 1 can be found!<br />
Also, there seems to be no Annex 3!<br />
The only visible document with an Annex label is Annex 2<br />
which is GD6.<br />
Having the name used as reference and having it visible in<br />
the report need matching if in fact Annexes 1 and 3 are<br />
Comments were noted. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Text changed.<br />
Comments were noted. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments noted. Text amended accordingly.<br />
Comments were noted. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments noted. Additional text and table<br />
added to clarify the equivalence <strong>of</strong><br />
documents cited by <strong>PEFC</strong> Uruguay as<br />
reference document, and document numbers<br />
used in Consultants’ <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />
www.itsglobal.net Page 85
Change language