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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
March 2009 …<br />
19 3.3 Pilot Testing 36)<br />
Documentation<br />
… <strong>of</strong> pilot testing in final<br />
approved …<br />
19 3.4.1 Periodic Review 37)<br />
Documentation<br />
… <strong>of</strong> pilot testing within the final approved …<br />
Comments were valid. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
It is SD08 not SG08.<br />
Comments valid. Text modified as suggested.<br />
Also, GD2 is applicable for documentation<br />
… <strong>PEFC</strong>C Annex 4 requirements and it will be <strong>PEFC</strong>C’s<br />
… <strong>PEFC</strong>C Annex 4<br />
responsibility to review this standard.<br />
requirements.<br />
20 3.3 Pilot Testing 38) Why not indicate the <strong>UFCS</strong> documentation – GD2 and GD8? The consultants did not asses GD8 as relevant<br />
in this context.<br />
20 3.5 Overall Assessment Comment: I have a real concern on the <strong>assessment</strong> for 3), 7)<br />
and 19) – I would seek further evidence to justify the<br />
current <strong>assessment</strong>.<br />
20 3.5 Overall Assessment, 1 st<br />
dot point<br />
Firstly the announced …<br />
20 3.5 Overall Assessment, 2 nd<br />
Para<br />
As noted in response to<br />
Question 19 the final draft<br />
<strong>of</strong> forest management<br />
standards was available …<br />
Further letters informing …<br />
21 3.5 Overall Assessment, 3 rd<br />
Para<br />
21 3.5 Overall Assessment, 4 th<br />
Para<br />
20 3.5 Overall Assessment, 2 nd<br />
dot point<br />
The first issue relates to the announced … - to be consistent<br />
with the 2 nd dot point<br />
As noted in the response to Question 19, the final drafts <strong>of</strong><br />
forest management standards were available …<br />
Furthermore, letters informing …<br />
It is assumed that ‘technical standards’ are the same as<br />
‘national standards’?<br />
This is only focussed on forest management – there is a need<br />
for a sentence to cover <strong>of</strong>f on CoC standard as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>UFCS</strong> package.<br />
It would be preferable to indicate that the invitation was<br />
sent to it (and to others) – dated letters sighted in Field<br />
Visit.<br />
Assessment modified to address nonconformities<br />
associated with:<br />
1. Lack <strong>of</strong> evidence to demonstrate<br />
environmental NGOs were invited to<br />
participate in deliberation <strong>of</strong> STC-SFM.<br />
2. Public consultation being less than 60 days.<br />
Comments were valid. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments were valid. Report has been<br />
amended accordingly.<br />
Comments noted. Additional text added to<br />
provide further clarification.<br />
Comments noted. Text has been amended<br />
accordingly.<br />
Comments valid. Additional text added.<br />
www.itsglobal.net Page 78
Change language