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
Annex 3,
Part I /
48
Question 12:
No, No, VER CON UNIT
contained in 2.3
The answers do not fit to main assessment report.
48 No. 12 Whilst the Consultant has indicated No, the response in the
text at Pg 16 is Conforms which to my understanding is a
Yes!
Annex 3,
Part I /
49
Annex 3,
Part I /
49
Annex 3,
Part II /
52
Question 16, 17:
No answers / “En proceso”
in columns 5, 6
Question 37:
Missing answer in column 5
Questions 1 –18, 46:
Columns 4 and 5 are not
completed
52-53 PART II
Nos. 1 - 34
Answers missing
The answer should be “yes”?
Anwers are missing. If the answers are not necessary this
should be mentioned somewhere.
The whole point of the Checklist is to indicate in a concise
manner the relevant documentation of the scheme which
the consultant has assessed as satisfying the PEFCC
requirement (or in the case of partial or non-conformity,
indicating that assessment). All the blank sections need to
be completed as the main document is also light on specific
references to documents especially to the relevant sections
of the documents.
57 No. 46 Surely GD2, 5.1 is the specific reference even noting the
PEFCC comment.
59 PART III
There are more than one Criterion for the Montreal Process
No. 3
Criteria!
59-60 PART III
No. 4 – 48
This is definitely not good enough fore an evaluation – see
my comment above for pages 52-53.
The FM standard is the essence of any forest certification
scheme and it must be well articulated in the checklist to
As noted in the report, boxes shaded in red
are answers provided by PEFC Uruguay. The
Consultant’s assessment is located in the final
column. The Consultants’ assessment
corresponds to discussion found in the body of
the report.
The appeal mechanisms for handling
complaints against STC-SFM are specified by
UNIT. Text has been revised to provide
further explanation.
PEFC Uruguay did not file answers for these
questions
Comments were noted. Report has been
amended accordingly.
PEFC Uruguay did not provide answers to
these questions in their application for
endorsement
As noted above, PEFC Uruguay did not provide
responses to these questions. Consequently
the column is blank.
Comment valid. PEFC Uruguay did not
document specific references.
Comment valid. Report has been amended
accordingly.
Comments noted. Consultants’ conformity
assessment has been added.
www.itsglobal.net Page 86