Forest Management Certification Assessment Report for - Rainforest ...

Value Forest • HCV assessment process appears tohave been an effective andcollaborative process involvingnumerous interests and perspectives.P10 - Plantations • No plantation management regimesCAR 23/06).• Thus, the requirements to developmanagement strategies and amonitoring plan have also not yet beenmet. (CARs 24/06, 25/06 and 26/06).3.3. Identified non-conformances and corrective actionsA non-conformance is a discrepancy or gap identified during the assessment between someaspect of the forest management system and one or more of the requirements of the BC standard.Depending on the severity of the non-conformance the assessment team has determined whetherthe non-conformance is major or minor non-conformance. As defined by FSC and SmartWood:• Major non-conformance is a fundamental failure to achieve the objective of the relevantFSC criterion. A number of minor non-conformances against one requirement may beconsidered to have a cumulative effect, and therefore be considered a majornonconformance.• Minor non-conformance is a temporary, unusual or non-systematic non-conformance,for which the effects are limited.A major non-conformance results in a Pre-Condition that must be corrected before thecertificate can be issued. Minor non-conformance usually results in a Corrective ActionRequest (CAR). CARs are requirements that Tembec must agree to, and which must beaddressed, within the specified timeframe. Normally the timeframe is a maximum of one year,but in exceptional circumstances is extended to two years.If Tembec attains FSC/SmartWood certification, all CARs must be addressed and met within thetimeframe stipulated, and will be audited in annual audits following certification.The following is a summary of the 3 Pre-conditions and 23 CARs issued in this report.Pre-Conditions (Total of 3)Pre-condition #:1/06Non-conformance:Major MinorCorrective Action Request:Reference Standard #: 6.5.8Description of non-conformance: Tembec does not have a complete andup-to-date assessment of the Equivalent Clearcut Area in each watershed,and has not identified measures to be taken in watersheds where the ECAexceeds 25%. The team concluded that this is a significant piece ofinformation that is needed to ensure that Indicator 6.5.8 is met, especiallygiven the current situation in which logging is proceeding rapidly insome watersheds in response to the mountain pine beetle and is a majornon-conformance.Page 38 of 89