A Report on the Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme - Rengah ...

CARs prevent the client from being certified, whereas minor CARs do not preclude the FMU from
being certified.
If a minor CAR is raised during an assessment or on a surveillance visit, the FMU or client has to
respond in writing to the assessor (with a copy to the MTCC) within three months detailing how the
problem has been rectified and the proposed action plan to prevent any future recurrence of the
problem. The effectiveness of any action taken by the FMU or client must be verified at the next
surveillance visit.
In the case of a major CAR, the client must respond in writing to both the assessor and the MTCC
within one month. Failure to respond will eventually lead to a complete reassessment. Any corrective
action notified by the FMU is verified by the assessor within two months of the letter to the MTCC.
Major CARs raised on surveillance visits or reassessment are regarded very serious. The FMU or
client has two weeks to notify the assessor and MTCC of the corrective action it has undertaken. This
action is then verified by the assessor within one month.
When corrective actions have been satisfactorily implemented the assessor will ‘close out’ the CAR.
If a major CAR raised on a surveillance visit or reassessment has not been dealt with satisfactorily
and so has not been closed out, the client is notified that the certificate is to be suspended.
The assessment report for forest management certification is evaluated by a peer review panel that
is appointed based on a criterion set up by the MTCC. The peer review panel normally consists of two
members, selected by the MTCC according to the Forest Management Unit (FMU) being assessed,
and will be given up to 10 working days from receipt of the assessment report to complete and submit
their findings.
Once the assessment report has been evaluated, the Certification Committee meets to decide the
application for forest management and/or chain-of-custody certification, based on the assessment
report submitted. This committee is established by the Board of Trustees of the MTCC and is composed
of four members from each of the interested groups on the Board – i.e. industry, research or
academic institutions, non-governmental organisations and government agencies.
For forest management certification, in cases where the peer reviewers agree with the recommendation
of the assessor, the Certification Committee makes the appropriate certification decision based
on the assessment report and peer review report. Should, however, the peer review panel disagree
with the assessment report, then the MTCC management contacts the peer reviewer/s concerned to
discuss their objections. All discussions are documented and reported to the Certification Committee,
which then makes the appropriate certification decision.
For COC certification, the Certification Committee makes the appropriate certification decision based
on the assessment report.
Where a decision has been taken by the Certification Committee to issue a forest management
certificate to the FMU, summarised information on the certified FMU is made available by the MTCC
to the general public for its information and comment.
(Information extracts from NTCC Malaysia 2000b)
Repeatability
The repeatability of the forest management certification process is doubtful. Sandom & Simula (2001:xii)
have pointed out that, under the MC&I, one has to extrapolate the principle or underlying rule from
one or more indicators and Standards of Performance. This means that the MC&I are subject to
interpretation and could therefore be a potential source of confusion and misunderstanding. The
same authors are also of the opinion that the consistency of an individual Standard of Performance is
not always clear. It is therefore unable to ensure individual criteria to be used to provide a means of