forest management and stump-to-forest gate chain-of-custody certification evaluation ... › sites...

SCS Global Services Report

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND

STUMP-TO-FOREST GATE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY CERTIFICATION EVALUATION REPORT

Forestry Tasmania Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

SCS-FM/COC-Pending

79 Melville Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7009 Australia

http://www.forestrytas.com.au/

CERTIFIED EXPIRATION Day Month Year Day Month Year

DATE OF FIELD AUDIT 4 – 9 December 2014

DATE OF LAST REPORT UPDATE December 31, 2015

SCS Contact: Brendan Grady | Director

Forest Management Certification +1.510.452.8000

[email protected]

2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510.452.8001 fax

www.SCSglobalServices.com

mailto:[email protected]

Forest Management & Stump-to-Forest Gate Chain-of-Custody Certification Evaluation Report | PUBLIC

Version 6-3 (April 2013) | © SCS Global Services of 151

Foreword

SCS Global Services (SCS) is a certification body accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council to conduct forest management and chain of custody evaluations. Under the FSC / SCS certification system, forest management enterprises (FMEs) meeting international standards of forest stewardship can be certified as “well managed,” thereby permitting the FME’s use of the FSC endorsement and logo in the marketplace subject to regular FSC / SCS oversight.

SCS deploys interdisciplinary teams of natural resource specialists and other experts in forested regions all over the world to conduct evaluations of forest management. SCS evaluation teams collect and analyze written materials, conduct interviews with FME staff and key stakeholders, and complete field and office audits of subject forest management units (FMUs) as part of certification evaluations. Upon completion of the fact-finding phase of all evaluations, SCS teams determine conformance to the FSC Principles and Criteria.

Organization of the Report

This report of the results of our evaluation is divided into two sections. Section A provides the public summary and background information that is required by the Forest Stewardship Council. This section is made available to the general public and is intended to provide an overview of the evaluation process, the management programs and policies applied to the forest, and the results of the evaluation. Section A will be posted on the FSC Certificate Database (http://info.fsc.org/) no less than 30 days after issue of the certificate. Section B contains more detailed results and information for the use of by the FME.

http://info.fsc.org/



Table of Contents SECTION A – PUBLIC SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 4

1. GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Certificate Registration Information ................................................................................................... 4

1.2 FSC Data Request ................................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Areas Outside of the Scope of Certification (Partial Certification and Excision) ................................ 8

1.4 Social Information ............................................................................................................................... 9

1.5 Pesticide and Other Chemical Use ...................................................................................................... 9

1.7 Conversion Table English Units to Metric Units ................................................................................ 11

2. DESCRIPTION OF FOREST MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 13 2.1 Management Context ....................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Forest Management Plan .................................................................................................................. 17

2.3 Monitoring System ............................................................................................................................ 19

3. CERTIFICATION EVALUATION PROCESS .................................................................................................. 21 3.1 Evaluation Schedule and Team ......................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Evaluation of Management System .................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Stakeholder Consultation Process .................................................................................................... 27

4. RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................................ 33 4.1 Notable Strengths and Weaknesses of the FME Relative to the FSC P&C. ....................................... 33

4.2 Process of Determining Conformance .............................................................................................. 41

5. CERTIFICATION DECISION ....................................................................................................................... 57

SECTION B – APPENDICES (CONFIDENTIAL) ................................................................................................ 57 Appendix 1 – Current and Projected Annual Harvest for Main Commercial Species ............................. 57

Appendix 2 – List of FMUs Selected for Evaluation ................................................................................ 59

Appendix 3 – List of Stakeholders Consulted .......................................................................................... 59

Appendix 4 – Additional Evaluation Techniques Employed ................................................................... 73

Appendix 5 – Certification Standard Conformance Table ...................................................................... 76

Appendix 6 – Tracking, Tracing and Identification of Certified Products ............................................. 140

Appendix 7 – Peer Review and SCS Evaluation Team Response to Peer Review ................................. 146



SECTION A – PUBLIC SUMMARY

1. General Information

1.1 Certificate Registration Information

1.1.1.a Name and Contact Information

Organization name Forestry Tasmania Contact person Address 79 Melville Street

Hobart, Tasmania 7009 Australia

Telephone Fax e-mail www.forestrytas.com.au Website

1.1.1.b FSC Sales Information

FSC Sales contact information same as above. FSC salesperson Address Telephone

Fax e-mail Website

1.1.2 Scope of Certificate

Certificate Type Single FMU Multiple FMU

Group SLIMF (if applicable) Small SLIMF

certificate Low intensity SLIMF

certificate

Group SLIMF certificate # Group Members (if applicable) N/A Number of FMUs in scope of certificate 1 Geographic location of non-SLIMF FMU(s) Latitude & Longitude: 42.000S 147.0000E Forest zone Boreal Temperate

Subtropical Tropical

Total forest area in scope of certificate which is: Units: ha or ac privately managed state managed 750,000 community managed

Number of FMUs in scope that are:

X

X

X

X



less than 100 ha in area 100 - 1000 ha in area 1000 - 10 000 ha in area more than 10 000 ha in area 1

Total forest area in scope of certificate which is included in FMUs that: Units: ha or ac are less than 100 ha in area are between 100 ha and 1000 ha in area meet the eligibility criteria as low intensity SLIMF FMUs Division of FMUs into manageable units:

1.2 FSC Data Request

1.2.1 Production Forests

1 There is an additional 203,000 ha that is classified as “non-productive” land and, as such, unlikely to be subject to commercial timber harvest, as explainted on pages 36-37 of the FT Forest Management Plan. These lands can and will provide other ecological services and, possibly, NTFPs.

Timber Forest Products Units: ha or ac Total area of production forest (i.e., forest from which timber may be harvested)

407,000

Area of production forest classified as 'plantation' 42,000 Area of production forest regenerated primarily by replanting or by a combination of replanting and coppicing of the planted stems

Plantation only <500 ha/year

Area of production forest regenerated primarily by natural regeneration, or by a combination of natural regeneration and coppicing of the naturally regenerated stems

Approximately 5,000 ha/year (380,000)

Silvicultural system(s) Area under type of management

Even-aged management Clearcut (clearcut size range: Up to approximately 80 ha) 157,000 Shelterwood 0 Other: 0

Uneven-aged management Approx. 40% production forest

Individual tree selection 0 Group selection 60,000 Other: Seed tree, potential sawlog retention, variable retention, 190,000

Other (e.g. nursery, recreation area, windbreak, bamboo, silvo-pastoral system, agro-forestry system, etc.)

The sustainable rate of harvest (usually Annual Allowable Harvest or AAH where available) of commercial timber (m3 of round wood)

137,000 of HQ sawlog 157,000 of peeler billets Approx. 1Mt arisings

Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs) Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for the production of NTFPs or services

120,0001

X



1.2.2 FSC Product Classification

Other areas managed for NTFPs or services Approximate annual commercial production of non-timber forest products included in the scope of the certificate, by product type

Approx. 40,000 tonnes firewood 400,000 kg honey

Explanation of the assumptions and reference to the data source upon which AAH and NTFP harvest rates estimates are based: Forestry Tasmania models the sustainable yield that can be derived from Permanent Timber Production Zone Land, and monitors actual production, to ensure that the harvesting of eucalypt native forests and eucalypt plantations is consistent with its statutory obligations and with its objectives for sustainable forest management. Forestry Tasmania carries out strategic planning with a 90-year sustainable yield estimate, followed by tactical planning using multiple 10-year scenarios; there is then a three-year harvest plan and annual harvest schedules. Species in scope of joint FM/COC certificate: (Scientific / Latin Name and Common / Trade Name) Eucalyptus sp. (multiple native forest species) Other genera produce high quality timbers. E.g. Celery Top pine (Phyllocladus aspleniifolius) Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon) Eucalyptus nitens (plantation) Eucalyptus globulus (plantation) Pinus radiata (plantation)

Timber products Product Level 1 Product Level 2 Species W1 Rough Wood W1.1 Roundwood (logs) Eucalyptus sp. (multiple native forest species)

Eucalyptus nitens (plantation) Eucalyptus globulus (plantation) Pinus radiata (plantation)

W1.2 Fuel Wood W1.3 Twigs W2 Wood charcoal W3 Wood in chips or particles

W3.1 Wood chips Eucalyptus sp. (multiple native forest species) Eucalyptus nitens (plantation) Eucalyptus globulus (plantation) Pinus radiata (plantation)

Non-Timber Forest Products Product Level 1 Product Level 2 Product Level 3 and Species N1 Bark N4 Straw, wicker, rattan and similar

N4.1 Rattan cane (rough form)

N4.2 Rattan taper (clean, peeled and spitted)

N4.3 Decorative objects and wickerwork



1.2.3 Conservation Areas

Total area of forest and non-forest land protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for conservation objectives 120,000 ha

High Conservation Value Forest / Areas

High Conservation Values present and respective areas: Units: ha or ac Code HCV Type Description & Location Area

HCV1 Forests or areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia).

7 sites containing concentrations of biodiversity values identified within the FMU.

Approx. 11,600ha

HCV2 Forests or areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

3 sites identified within the FMU.

Approx. 1,200ha

HCV3 Forests or areas that are in or contain Many small areas/sites across > 3,500ha

N4.4 Rattan furniture N4.5 Rattan furniture

components

N6 Plants and parts of plants

N6.1 Flowers

N6.2 Grasses, ferns, mosses and lichens

Manferns (Dicksonia antarctica)

N6.3 Whole trees or plants N6.3.1 Christmas trees N6.4 Pine cones N7 Natural gums, resins, oils and derivatives

N7.1 Rubber/latex

N7.2 Gum resin N7.3 Resin and

manufactured resin products

N7.4 Tannin N7.5 Essential oils N9 Food N9.1 Nuts N9.2 Tea N9.3 Palm-hearts N9.4 Mushrooms, truffles N9.5 Fruits Pepper berries N9.6 sap-based foods N9.7 Game Deer/Pet Meat N9.8 Honey Honey

X

X

X

X



rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems.

the FMU.

HCV4 Forests or areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).

HCV5 Forests or areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health).

HCV6 Forests or areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities).

Many sites across the FMU. >7,500ha

Total Area of forest classified as ‘High Conservation Value Forest / Area’ >23,800ha

1.3 Areas Outside of the Scope of Certification (Partial Certification and Excision)

N/A – All forestland owned or managed by the applicant is included in the scope.

The applicant owns and/or manages other FMUs not under evaluation.

Applicant wishes to excise portions of the FMU(s) under evaluation from the scope of certification. Explanation for exclusion of FMUs and/or excision:

Areas which are not within FTs long-term management control are excluded from the FMU. These include: Areas currently legislated as Future Reserve Land (tranche 1 and

2) as harvesting is not permitted within these areas and they will be progressively transferred out of FTs management control. (Note: subsequent to the field audit, the name of tranche 1 and 2 was revised to “future potential production forest,” and the management of these lands was transferred to a different government department; these lands are no longer part of the scope of this certificate evaluation.)

Areas where long-term forestry rights have been transferred to other forest managers – i.e., Norske Skog and Timberlands Pacific (who have FSC FM certification).

Areas where there are third-party property rights – leases, registered forestry rights – and FT does not have management control.

Wood production areas of the Buckland Military Training Area where FT does not have full forest management control.

Waterbodies where FT has salvage rights for native pines, but does not have full management control.

Control measures to prevent mixing of certified and non-certified product (C8.3):

These areas are clearly identified on maps and any product from these areas will be physically separated from certified product, were FT to achieve FM certification. FT’s sales system presently

X

X



manages chain of custody requirements. Description of FMUs excluded from or forested area excised from the scope of certification: Name of FMU or Stand Location (city, state, country) Size ( ha or ac) See above

1.4 Social Information Number of forest workers (including contractors) working in forest within scope of certificate (differentiated by gender): 233 full time male workers plus 470 contractor workers 85 full time female workers plus 20

contractor workers

1.5 Pesticide and Other Chemical Use

FME does not use pesticides Commercial name of pesticide / herbicide

Active ingredient Quantity applied annually (kg or lbs)

Size of area treated annually (Hectares)

Reason for use

Activator Non-ionic surfactant

15 litres 84 Pre or Post-Plant additive

Archer Clopyralid 23 ltrs 22 Pre or Post-Plant weed killer Associate Metsulfuron

Methyl 22 kg 560 Woody weed, blackberry

herbicide Astound Alpha-

cypermethrin 125 ltrs 502 Insecticide All insect pests (adult

and larval leaf beetles, weevils, moths)

Bond Synthetic Latex/Non-ionic Surfactant

43 ltrs 3526 Insect control surfactant additive

Clomac Forestry Clopyralid 93 kg 210 Pre or Post-Plant weed killer Dipel Bacillus

thuringiensis var. kurstaki

7 kg 27 Insecticide used on control of moth larvae

Dominex Alpha-cypermethrin

630 ltrs 2537 Insect control

Entrust Spinosad 2846 gms 185 Insect control-leaf beetles EucMix PP Terbacil +

Sulfometuron Methyl

20 kg 53 Pre plant grass control

Foam marker various 5 ltrs 45 Pre plant and fire break control weed additive

Garlon Triclopyr

141 ltrs 193 Herbicide for woody weeds, eg. wattle, blackberry, gorse and



broom Glymac Glyphosate

1007 kg 436 Herbicide for herbaceous and

woody weeds Grazon Extra

Triclopyr + Picloram + Aminopyralid

17 kg 27 Herbicide for broadleaf and woody weeds

Hot Up Mineral oil & ammonium sulphate & surfactants

5 ltrs 12 Pre plant spray additive

LI 700 Propionic acid/soyal phospholipids

64 ltrs 69 Post plant and pre burn spray additive

Lontrel 750 SG Clopyralid 1750 gms 3 Post plant herbicide-stem injection only

Mascot Duo Alpha-cypermethrin

455 ltrs 1919 Insecticide for adult and larval leaf beetles, weevils and moths

Metmac Metsulfuron Methyl

3 kg 50 Pre plant herbicide for blackberry, woody weeds and pine wildlings

Oust Sulfometuron Methyl

2 kg 45 Pre and post plant herbicide for blackberry, woody weeds and pine wildlings

Pulse Polydimethyl-siloxane

107 ltrs 554 Pre plant spray additive

Roundup 360 Glyphosate 4 ltrs 6 Herbicide for pre and post plant control of herbaceous and woody weeds

Roundup Attack Glyphosate 298 ltrs 88 Herbicide for pre plant control of herbaceous and woody weeds

Roundup Biactive Glyphosate 1 ltr 3 Herbicide for pre and post plant, pre burn and fire break control of herbaceous and woody weeds

Roundup Powermax

Glyphosate 330 ltrs 164 Herbicide for pre and post plant, pre burn and fire break control of herbaceous and woody weeds

Select Clethodim 20 ltrs 50 Pre plant herbicide Silva Shield Injectable

imidacloprid 4 ltrs 63 Insecticide for trunk or stem injection for control insect pests in trees

Spotlight Plus Carfentrazone-ethyl

9 ltrs 40 Pre and post plant herbicide for broadleaves, weeds and grasses

Uptake Parrafininc oil & non-ionic surfactant

102 ltrs 287 Pre and post plant, and also pre burn plant spray additive

Velmac G Hexazinone <1 kg Localised Localised spot plant weed control



spot application

Verdict Haloxyfop 23 ltrs 65 Post plant herbicide for grass control

Weedmaster Duo Glyphosate 1568 ltrs 340 Herbicide for pre and post plant, pre burn and fire break control of herbaceous and woody weeds

1.6.1 Applicable FSC-Accredited Standards

Title Version Date of Finalization FSC Controlled Wood Standard, FSC-STD-30-010 2-0 October 4th, 2006 All standards employed are available on the websites of FSC International (www.fsc.org), the FSC-US (www.fscus.org) or the SCS Standards page (www.scsglobalservices.com/certification-standards-and-program-documents). Standards are also available, upon request, from SCS Global Services (www.SCSglobalServices.com).

1.6.2 SCS Interim FSC Standards

Title Version Date of Finalization SCS Interim Standard For Natural Forest and Plantation Forest Management Certification in Australia

2.0 August 19th, 2014

This SCS Interim Standard was developed by modifying SCS’ Generic Interim Standard to reflect forest management in the region and by incorporating relevant components of the Draft Regional / National Standard and comments from stakeholders. More than one month prior to the start of the field evaluation, the SCS Draft Interim Standard for the country / region was sent out for comment to stakeholders identified by FSC International, SCS, the forest managers under evaluation, and the National Initiative. A copy of the standard is available at www.scsglobalservices.com/certification-standards-and-program-documents or upon request from SCS Global Services (www.SCSglobalServices.com).

1.7 Conversion Table English Units to Metric Units Length Conversion Factors To convert from To multiply by Mile (US Statute) Kilometer (km) 1.609347 Foot (ft) Meter (m) 0.3048 Yard (yd) Meter (m) 0.9144 Area Conversion Factors To convert from To multiply by Square foot (sq ft) Square meter (m2) 0.09290304 Acre (ac) Hectare (ha) 0.4047 Volume Conversion Factors To convert from To multiply by Cubic foot (cu ft) Cubic meter (m3) 0.02831685 Gallon (gal) Liter (l) 4.546 Quick reference 1 acre = 0.404686 ha 1,000 acres = 404.686 ha

http://www.fsc.org/

http://www.fscus.org/

http://www.scsglobalservices.com/certification-standards-and-program-documents


http://www.scsglobalservices.com/


http://www.scsglobalservices.com/



1 board foot = 0.00348 cubic meters 1,000 board feet = 3.48 cubic meters 1 cubic foot = 0.028317 cubic meters



2. Description of Forest Management

2.1 Management Context

2.1.1 Regulatory Context

Pertinent Regulations at the National Level

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 1997 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement 2005 National Forest Policy Statement 1992

Pertinent Regulations at the State / Local Level

Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of use) Act 1995 Boundary Fences Act 1908 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 Fire Service Act 1979 Forestry (Fair Contracts Codes) Act 2001 Forest Management Act 2013 Forest Practices Act 1985 Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry Act) 2014 Forestry Rights Registration Act 1990 Government Business Enterprise Act 1995 Historical Cultural Heritage Act 1995 Land Use Planning Approvals Act 1993 Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 Nature Conservation Act 2002 Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy 2011 Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 Water Management Act 1999 Weed Management Act 1999 Work Health and Safety Act 2012

Regulatory Context Description

In Tasmania there are strict and comprehensive legislation and policy frameworks that dictate all aspects of forest planning, forestry operations and forest maintenance. This is based around the Forest Practices Act (1985), Regional Forests Agreement (Land Classification) Act (1998) and the Forest Practices Code (2000). The other significant codes of practice covering forestry activities are the Forest Safety Code (2007) (Forest Safety Code (Tasmania), 2007). This is legislated under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 and covers all aspects of safety working in the forest. There are several other codes of practice that regulate forest activities including the COP Aerial Spraying 2000, COP Ground Spraying 2001, COP Quarry's, Tasmanian Heavy Vehicle Safety Code 2008 and Tasmanian Cable Harvesting Code 2006.

The development of all harvest planning, reforestation and management plans must comply with the above legislation and codes of practice. The legal and other requirements dictated in the above



documents are monitored though regular compliance audits undertaken on the standard operating procedures.

2.1.2 Environmental Context

Environmental safeguards: The Forest Practices Authority (FPA) is an independent statutory body with a legislative requirement to set minimum standards, and to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the forest practice system across all tenures, including Permanent Timber Production Zone land that is managed by Forestry Tasmania (FT). The standards for “best management practice” are contained within the Forest Practices Code which is well known and available to all forest workers. The Landscape Context Planning System has the capacity to ensure that FT meets or exceeds the duty of care requirements expected of it under the Code through the identification of areas of potential habitat connectivity and constraints affecting the spatial distribution of forest age classes. Forest Practices Officers, who are trained and certified by FPA, are responsible for the preparation and approval of all Forest Practices Plans which describe exactly how each coupe will be logged by contractors assigned to the task. FT assists this process by scheduling the order and location of coupes to be harvested, by applying the Landscape Context Planning System to consider the temporal and spatial context of harvesting in the landscape, by scheduling and implementing fire management, including post-log regeneration burns, and by maintaining a comprehensive program of ecological research to advise on improvements to ecological sustainability of management practices. Forestry Tasmania has recently prepared an extensive report describing and evaluating the distribution of High Conservation Values throughout the Forest Management Unit, although the methodology used to identify HCV1 areas and subsequent findings of this report are disputed by some stakeholders. The report sets out management prescriptions for areas identified as HCV ranging from full protection, to a combination of protection and wood production, to standard wood production management for vegetation communities that have already met JANIS* targets for reservation and for habitats of species considered to be tolerant of disturbance. Vegetation mapping is currently indicative for many HCV areas, especially HCV 3, requiring verification during harvest planning. Monitoring programs to report on the effectiveness of measures to maintain and/or enhance HCV forest attributes are yet to be fully implemented.

*JANIS: Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Subcommittee Management strategy for the identification and protection of rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species and their habitats: Forestry Tasmania works with the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE) and the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) to co-ordinate conservation and recovery efforts across land tenures for Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) species, including the Swift Parrot and Wedge-tailed Eagle. Forest Practices planning consistent with the forest practices systems identifies the known occurrences of all RTEs, potential RTE habitat, and other HCV attributes in or near the coupes to be harvested and specify the agreed buffers and other exclusions from disturbance that may be required to conserve these species. However, there are no routine pre-harvest surveys for wide-ranging RTE species, such as Swift Parrot, Masked Owl, Grey Goshawk, Tasmanian Devil and Spotted-tailed Quoll, so the important habitat requirements and presence of these species could be overlooked. The FPA has developed the Threatened Fauna Advisor, a web-tool to provide the planner with recommended management actions to use in the development of species management prescriptions in Forest Practices Plans. Until FT’s HCV assessment approach is reviewed following additional stakeholder input, the FPP operational plans may not identify, describe and implement the



precautionary measures necessary to ensure maintenance and/or enhancement of high conservation values present within the coupe. FT has not yet committed to a long-term program of monitoring of the continued presence of RTE species on PTPZ lands. More information on local RTE species can be found on FPA’s (http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au) and DPIPWE’s (http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au) websites.

2.1.3 Socioeconomic Context

Forestry Tasmania plays a significant role in the forest economy of Tasmania, and the social and economic impacts of its operations reach widely into the community.

Tasmania has a small population of about half a million people. The Tasmanian community as a whole has a strong sense of its island identity, somewhat separate from mainland Australia, and this together with its political and economic context provides a somewhat unique context within which social impacts need to be understood. While nearly half of the population is found in the Hobart greater area, Tasmania has a lower level of urban concentration than the other States, with strong regional identification and concern for local community development. Tasmania suffers from a range of persistent adverse socio-economic attributes relative to the averages for mainland States, including high levels of unemployment, particularly among youth, low income and high poverty levels, low educational achievement, and low workforce participation rates. This has led to a high level of economic and social dependency on government funding whether through age pension, unemployment relief or other social welfare programs. It also means that in Tasmania, government agencies and business enterprises (such as Forestry Tasmania) play a more central role in employment and hence socio-economic activity compared to the mainland states.

Forestry Tasmania manages an estate of around 750,000 ha of native forest and plantations for the prime purpose of timber production. These forests encompass a wide range of additional products and services and forest uses that are valued by a wide range of stakeholders.

Forestry makes an important contribution to the Tasmanian economy, despite recent changes that have reduced that contribution by about two thirds. The forest sectors’ annual contribution to Tasmania’s Gross State Product is estimated to be $400-450 million, and it employs more than 2700 people. Forestry Tasmania and its products support approximately half of that total economic activity. Indirect effects on other sectors of the economy providing inputs or using outputs from the sector increase that contribution, probably by a factor of around two.

The forestry sector continues to be particularly important in a number of regional communities where employment remains relatively high. Dramatic structural changes in the industry in recent years have led to a degree of fragility amongst the businesses and employees in the forestry sector. This shift combined with the on-average lower socio-demographic characteristics of the sector suggests additional care and consideration is required to manage the social impacts of changes in the industry driven by political and economic factors.

In addition to industry and customer stakeholders, other significant stakeholder groups include the Indigenous community, local regional communities and local governments, environmental groups, rural neighbours and forest users such as those using the forests for recreational pursuits, apiary, woodcrafts and firewood collection.

2.1.4 Land use, Ownership, and Land Tenure

From Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Plan:

http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/

http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/



“Forestry Tasmania is a statutory authority established under the Government Business Enterprises Act. Forestry Tasmania’s principal purpose as identified in the Forest Management Act 2013 (Tas) is to manage and control all Permanent Timber Production Zone land (PTPZ land) and to undertake forest operations on PTPZ land for the purpose of selling forest products. This Act specifies that Forestry Tasmania is required to make available at least 137,000 cubic metres of high-quality eucalypt saw log each year. In accordance with the Government Business Enterprises Act, a Ministerial Charter that describes the operational scope and Government’s broad expectations of Forestry Tasmania is in place. The charter identifies Forestry Tasmania’s core commercial activities as land and forest management, harvesting and sales of forest products, fire management, roading, and other activities as agreed. The charter also allows for Forestry Tasmania to efficiently undertake identified and agreed non-commercial activities. In carrying out the activities that Forestry Tasmania is authorized to undertake, Government expects Forestry Tasmania to:

• Manage wood production forests based on sustainable forest management principles, while maximizing the recovery, utilization and value of harvested products.

• Provide input to forest policy development and implementation. • Retain Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) and achieve Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

independent third party certification. • Work with the Department of State Growth to encourage economic forest industry

development in the State. • Facilitate a successful Tasmanian forest industry. • Manage existing tourism activities on PTPZ land. • Continually improve business operations, systems and processes • Be socially responsible and take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of adverse environmental

effects from Forestry Tasmania activities. • Operate in accordance with sound commercial practice and as efficiently as possible. • Comply with Government policies The Forest Management Plan applies to the area of land managed by Forestry Tasmania. This area is primarily comprised of PTPZ land. The recently released Forest Management Act identifies Forestry Tasmania as the manager of PTPZ land. Significant policy and legislative changes over the last two years have changed the tenure and management responsibility for almost half of the land Forestry Tasmania previously managed. These changes commenced with the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Act (now repealed) and the Forest Management Act, and were further changed by the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014 (Tas). The legislative changes have had significant implications for the management of the area included within the scope of this forest management plan. The approximately 800,000 hectares of PTPZ land represents 12 per cent of Tasmania’s total land area and contains 17 per cent of Tasmania’s native forested land area. The land is distributed across Tasmania. The PTPZ land is predominantly comprised of natural vegetation. Of this natural vegetation, approximately 365, 000 hectares are presently allocated for wood production. There is also an unreserved ‘non-productive’ area of approximately 200,000 hectares, the majority of which is unlikely to ever be harvested due to operational constraints.



About 120,000 hectares of PTPZ land is in informal reserve and is not available for timber production. This does not include any of the previous informal reserve that is now included in future potential production forest land, which has been transferred to the Crown Lands Service. The PTPZ land also features a substantial plantation area (108,000 hectares) comprising both hardwood eucalypts and softwoods. Forestry Tasmania manages 41,000 hectares of this plantation area, which is predominantly comprised of hardwoods. About 67,000 hectares of land associated with the plantation estate is managed by external parties under lease and forestry rights agreements with Forestry Tasmania and is not subject to this plan. The PTPZ land adjoins land managed by other landowners and managers, including other government authorities and private landowners. Areas adjoining PTPZ land are managed for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to private residential areas, reserves (including national parks and World Heritage Areas), a variety of agricultural uses, other forestry operations, and mining operations. In addition to PTPZ land, Forestry Tasmania has partial management responsibility for forests on other land that are owned or managed by other agencies or individuals. This includes the Buckland Military Training Area (approximately 19,000 hectares) and approximately 1,000 hectares of plantations on private property. Forestry Tasmania’s activities on these lands are temporary and are authorized by the issue of leases, agreements, contracts, or registered forestry rights under the Forestry Rights Registration Act 1990 (Tas).”

2.2 Forest Management Plan Management Objectives: Forestry Tasmania has six strategic objectives. These were developed taking into account good business practice, legislative requirements, stakeholder feedback and expectations, and Forestry Tasmania forest certification commitments.

The six strategic objectives are:

1. Provide the foundation for a strong and sustainable Tasmanian forestry industry by harvesting and regrowing forests to meet current and future customer needs and by contributing to forest industry strategy.

2. Maximise the commercial recovery, utilisation and value of harvested wood and facilitate the development of value added downstream processing.

3. Sustainably manage the forests to maintain or enhance significant natural, cultural and economic values, informed by science and in accordance with accredited third party certification and relevant legislation.

4. Actively engage with stakeholders to improve Forestry Tasmania planning and decision making processes and to build and maintain stakeholder trust.

5. Achieve positive financial and economic outcomes through sound, responsible and ethical business practice.

6. Provide a safe, healthy and productive workplace.

Forest Composition and Rationale for Species Selection:



Forestry Tasmania’s forest management is primarily based on native forest, which forms approximately 86 per cent of the existing PTPZ land. Tasmania’s vegetation communities, including those on PTPZ land, have been extensively mapped into 156 identified vegetation types. Forest types can be considered a very broad classification of the forested vegetation communities located on PTPZ land. The native forest area on PTPZ land used for commercial wood production can broadly be separated into wet eucalypt forests, dry eucalypt forests, rainforests, and blackwood forests. Wet eucalypt forests are forests with a tall open canopy over a dense, closed understory. The forests are typically greater than 40 metres tall, but can be much taller. Wet eucalypt forests generally comprise one or more age-class cohorts of over-story eucalypts. The dominant eucalypt species in these forests generally rely on significant bushfire events to regenerate. Dry eucalypt forests have open canopies with short, open under-stories. Dry eucalypt forests are typically less than 40 metres tall and usually have a multi-aged structure, resulting from ‘gap-phase recruitment’ to the canopy. This means that seedlings may establish continuously in gaps, with additional regeneration arising from disturbances such as bushfire. Rainforest can regenerate naturally without major disturbance. Seedlings and saplings are often already present in undisturbed rainforest. Seedlings are also readily able to colonize gaps created by the death of mature trees. Blackwood forests are managed for timber in two different forest types: wet eucalypt forests rich in blackwood, and blackwood swamps. Blackwood seedlings regenerate naturally following major disturbance, usually fire, from abundant supplies of long-lived, ground-stored seed. Blackwood seedlings are very palatable and native mammals eat many. In natural systems, the seedlings are protected from browsing by dense understory species or hidden amongst the heads of downed trees. The two eucalyptus species planted by Forestry Tasmania are Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum) and E. nitens (shining gum). Approximately 73 per cent of the total hardwood estate is E. nitens, 22 per cent is E. globulus, and six per cent is other eucalypt species that were largely planted as growth trials. Decades of local and international research have shown that both E. nitens and E. globulus are suitable for growing high-quality logs, as they are fast growing and are suited to most Tasmanian conditions. However, E. globulus timber exhibits superior density, strength and pulp yield to E. nitens. Research is continuing into the development of efficient processing technologies, and the identification of high-value applications for plantation timber from both species. The existing high proportion of established E. nitens sites is a result of its superior frost and disease resistance. Successful growth of E. globulus is generally limited to lower-altitude sites where the risk of exposure to cold and frost is lower than on higher-altitude sites. The Mycosphaerella leaf fungal disease also significantly affected earlier plantings of E. globulus. However, recent research has shown that over the course of a rotation, productivity losses in E. globulus caused by Mycosphaerella are manageable, and are negated by the increased value of the final crop. There is a significant area of established E. nitens plantation that, following eventual harvest, may be suitable for future E. globulus plantings. Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan Page 28 of 100 states that Forestry Tasmania now aims to extend plantings of E. globulus into these areas where appropriate. E. nitens will continue to be the preferred species on higher altitude, frost-prone sites that are not suited to E. globulus. Harvest Methods and Equipment Used: Harvest methods are evaluated for each coupe, with cable logging being commonly used in Tasmania for harvesting on rolling to steep hill country (generally slopes greater than 20 degrees).



Most hardwood plantations that are grown for high-quality products will be of sufficient size to harvest around age 25. Stands managed on pulpwood-only regimes are usually harvested earlier, at approximately 15 years. Plantations are harvested by clearfelling, and the products produced include pruned and unpruned logs for sawing and peeling, pulpwood for paper, and posts and poles. Clear felling operations in plantations are invariably machine based, featuring various combinations of processors, skidders and excavators. Explanation of the Management Structure: Forestry Tasmania is a statutory authority established under the Government Business Enterprises Act. Forestry Tasmania’s principal purpose as identified in the Forest Management Act 2013 (Tas.) is to manage and control all Permanent Timber Production Zone land (PTPZ land) and to undertake forest operations on PTPZ land for the purpose of selling forest products.

As a fully State-owned Government Business Enterprise, the Board of Directors is directly responsible to the Minister for Energy and Resources and the Treasurer for its operations.

In accordance with the Government Business Enterprises Act, a Ministerial Charter that describes the operational scope and Government’s broad expectations of Forestry Tasmania is in place. The charter identifies Forestry Tasmania’s core commercial activities as land and forest management, harvesting and sales of forest products, fire management, roading, and other activities as agreed. The charter also allows for Forestry Tasmania to efficiently undertake identified and agreed non-commercial activities.

The Board of Directors of Forestry Tasmania is comprised of independent non-executive directors. The Board is responsible for the overall corporate governance of the organisation. This includes setting strategic direction, overseeing financial performance and business affairs, setting management goals, and monitoring management’s performance – as detailed in Forestry Tasmania’s Statement of Corporate Intent.

The Chief Executive Officer is accountable to the Forestry Tasmania Board of Directors. Forestry Tasmania employees are distributed across offices or depots strategically located around the state. Administratively, Forestry Tasmania divides its operations into Northern and Southern Regions, which are further separated into districts (Derwent and Huon in the south and Murchison and Bass in the north). Regional operations are directed and supported by a Head Office in Hobart. This structure enables Forestry Tasmania to effectively manage the area under its control, and to support regional areas through provision of local employment and economic opportunities.

Forestry Tasmania also engages a diverse contractor base to provide a wide range of services including harvest and haulage services, forest establishment and maintenance, fire protection, road construction and maintenance, aviation services, stevedoring and shipping services, and building management services.

2.3 Monitoring System Growth and Yield of all Forest Products Harvested: Forestry Tasmania uses forest estate models to calculate sustainable yield, which is primarily based on the yield of high-quality eucalypt sawlogs from both native forest and plantations. These models are based on a 90-year period and have the following elements:

A network of forest inventory and growth plot measurements.

A computer-based modelling and growth projection system.



Incorporation of environmental constraints.

Estimations of both eucalypt native forest and eucalypt plantation yields, incorpo calibrations of predicted versus actual harvest volumes.

External independent audits.

Yields of high-quality eucalypt sawlogs are reviewed and the results published every five years, as required by the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, to determine if these yields are sustainable. Yield predictions are generated from biologically based forest estate modelling of productive capacity, and do not imply supply based on economic criteria.

Forestry Tasmania monitors its compliance with the determined sustainable yield and reports its actual harvesting volumes in the Annual Report.

Forestry Tasmania carries out three types of forest inventory, reflecting the differing uses to which the results are applied:

Permanent growth plots. This network of plots is re-measured regularly in order to accurately measure forest growth over time. This inventory provides data that are used to develop growth models. These growth models are used in the calculation of sustainable yield and to simulate the impacts of prospective, alternative silvicultural regimes.

Strategic inventory. These inventories are based on a network of single measurement plots, and are used to obtain unbiased estate-level estimates of present forest conditions. Inventory results from these plots are ‘grown on’ using growth models in order to gain an understanding of future forest conditions, and to inform sustainable yield calculations.

Operational inventory. These inventories are used to obtain coupe-level estimates of product yields. Coupes can be inventoried either before harvest as part of the operational planning process, or after a stand treatment such as thinning, to determine the remaining growing stock. Due to their intense sampling requirement and subsequent cost, operational inventories are not conducted on a routine basis prior to all operations. Operational inventory is mandatory following plantation pruning and thinning operations, where it is combined with quality standards assessments. The results of this monitoring are used to improve estate planning and to drive continual improvement in silvicultural programs that support the production of high-quality sawlogs.

Forest Dynamics and Changes in Composition of Flora and Fauna: A basic understanding of patterns of distribution and abundance of forest fauna and flora, and their responses to forest management practices, has been established over several decades of ecological research that has been strongly supported by Forestry Tasmania, the Forest Practices Authority, the Tasmanian Department of the Environment (DPIPWE) and the University of Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania publishes a Stewardship Report annually to document the significant contribution that FT makes to Statewide protection and conservation of biodiversity on lands that it manages. Additional detail can be found on page 46 of the FT Forest Management Plan. However, there is much less understanding of the effectiveness of particular management prescriptions for protecting fauna and flora species, particularly for wide-ranging RTE species. Monitoring programs to report on the effectiveness of measures to conserve HCV forest attributes are yet to be fully implemented, and there are no comprehensive, systematic biodiversity monitoring programs in place.



Environmental Impacts: The Forest Practices Plan is the principal device for ensuring that negative environmental impacts are reduced or mitigated. All forest management operations are monitored regularly in the field to ensure that operational objectives are being met, that work is undertaken safely, and that environmental prescriptions are implemented. This includes assessing silvicultural and road construction outcomes against standard benchmarks. The impacts of forest management operations on biodiversity and HCV forest attributes, at multiple scales, is much less understood and needs to be addressed. Social Impacts: FT has conducted a social impact evaluation that is documented in the document, ‘Social Impact Evaluation of Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Activities 2014,’ that was reviewed by the audit team. FT will periodically conduct such social impact evaluations. The protocols for these monitoring regimes are contained within the appropriate management plan sections.

Costs, Productivity, and Efficiency:

Forestry Tasmania reports against a number of economic indicators in its annual Stewardship Report – the primary vehicle for public reporting of outcomes of its activities.

Forestry Tasmania engages an independent company to establish a valuation for its entire forest estate, inclusive of land, roads and obligations.

Forestry Tasmania manages liquidity risk by maintaining adequate reserves, banking facilities and continuously monitoring forecast and actual cash flows against the operational activities planned to be undertaken.

In addition to regular Board meetings, the Board of Directors has six sub- committees. Individual charters govern board sub-committees and membership is based on expertise. Relevant to monitoring of costs, productivity and efficiency are:

Finance, Audit and Risk Management Committee: This committee monitors Forestry Tasmania’s overall control procedures, external financial reporting and business risks. The committee meets the independent auditors privately at least once a year to review the performance of the organisation and obtain assurances on the adequacy of financial and accounting controls.

Major Projects and Investments Committee: This committee provides guidance to the Board on the establishment of major strategic projects of ongoing commercial significance; and the ongoing monitoring and reporting on such projects.

3. Certification Evaluation Process

3.1 Evaluation Schedule and Team

3.1.1 Evaluation Itinerary and Activities

Date: December 4th, 2014 FMU / Location / sites visited Activities /Notes Southern region, Huon – ‘AR016B’, native forest

Planning and monitoring of clear fall operation Interview harvesting contractor Interview Forestry Tasmania district field staff

Southern region, Huon – ‘AR048H’, native forest

Regeneration monitoring on clear fall coupe Interview Forestry Tasmania district field staff



Southern region, Huon – Warra flux tower

Inspect long-term ecological research site Silvicultural systems trial researching alternatives to clear falling in wet eucalypt forests Interview Forestry Tasmania research staff

Date: December 5th, 2014 FMU / Location / Sites visited Activities /Notes Southern region, Huon – ‘DN014A’, native forest

Road construction to access clear fall coupe Interview Forestry Tasmania district field staff

Southern region, Huon – ‘FN027B’, native forest

Tracking of coupe in preparation for regeneration burning Interview Forestry Tasmania district field staff Interview contractor

Southern region, Huon – ‘FN023B’, native forest

Planning and monitoring of clear fall operation Interview harvesting contractor Interview Forestry Tasmania district field staff

Southern region, Huon – ‘HP002E/F’, Eucalyptus globulus plantation

Planning and monitoring of production thinning operation Interview harvesting contractor Interview Forestry Tasmania district field staff

Southern region, Huon – ‘KD019D’, native forest

Aggregated retention method of harvesting Recognition and management of HCVs Inspect with a group of stakeholders Interview stakeholders

Southern region, Huon – ‘KD022E’, native forest

Cable logging planning and operation Recognition and management of HCVs (e.g. Swift Parrot) and other environmental values. Inspect with a group of stakeholders Interview stakeholders

Southern region, Huon – ‘KD040D’, native forest

Harvest planning Recognition and management of HCVs, particularly old growth and other environmental values. Inspect with a group of stakeholders Interview stakeholders

Southern region, Huon – ‘KD018A’, native forest

Planning and monitoring of native forest clearfall operation Recognition, management and monitoring of HCVs Inspect with a group of stakeholders Interview stakeholders Interview harvesting contractor

Southern region, Huon – Forestry Tasmania Geeveston Office

Management of apiary sites Interview Forestry Tasmania district field staff

Southern region, Derwent 'E036B', native forest

Interview harvesting contractor Review partial harvest site and log landing Visit buffer zone areas Discuss harvest methods and tree selection process

Southern region, Derwent 'F0002D, native forest

Clear fall operation of regrowth forest from previously logged area Interview harvesting contractor 'bush boss' Review Forest Practices Plan (FPP) and interview FT Forest officer Visit class 4 stream alongside harvest area



Visit log landing and 'fallout' landing sites Discuss harvest methods, yields and log utilization with harvesting contractor

Southern region, Derwent, 'WW013E', native forest

Interview harvest contractor Review FPP with contractor Reviewed operational mapping showing an eagle nest approximately 1 kilometer outside the harvest area, discuss HCV practices in relation to this with the contractor. Review buffer zones and wildlife habitat strips also shown on operational maps.

Southern region, Derwent, RP022D, native forest

This area harvested in 2012 and logging debris burnt in April 2014. Aerially re-sown with E. delegatensis and E. regnans species seed in April 2014. Pest control undertaken since that time Interviewed pest control operator Reviewed Forest Operational Plan (FOP) for mammal browsing Visited buffer zone alongside cultural heritage area (convict track).

Southern region, Derwent, 'TY020E' plantation forest

Visit waste thinning using stem injection Interviewed contractor regarding HS&E processes and training. Reviewed coupe documentation and FPP

Southern region, Derwent, 'TY034A' Road construction

Interviewed machine operator contractor Inspected buffer zones and documentation used by contractors

Date: December 6th, 2014 FMU / Location / sites visited Activities /Notes Forestry Tasmania Office, Hobart All audit team attended various staff presentations and carried out

documentation reviews Interview Forestry Tasmania staff from Hobart office

Date: December 7th, 2014 FMU / Location / sites visited Activities /Notes Forestry Tasmania Office, Hobart Staff presentations and documentation reviews

Interview Forestry Tasmania staff from Hobart office Northern region, Bass – ‘SA124C’, native forest

Cable logging operation Recognition and management of HCVs Inspect with a group of stakeholders Interview stakeholders

Northern region, Bass –

Interview stakeholder

Northern region, Travel to Smithton (NW Tasmania) Date: December 8th, 2014 FMU / Location / sites visited Activities /Notes Forestry Tasmania Perth Office, Northern region

Interview Forestry Tasmania staff from Northern region Meet with groups of stakeholders Interview stakeholders

Forestry Tasmania office Smithton, Northern region

Meet FT staff from Northern region, Smithton office

Northern region, Murchison, 'SR028C' native forest

Visit clear fall in mature age re growth native forest Interview harvesting contractor principal Review FPP and associated documentation



Inspect buffer zones and log landing. Interview FT Forest Officer responsible for this harvest operation.

Northern region, Murchison, 'SR026C' native forest

Visit clear fall harvest area Interview harvesting contractor principal in relation to company processes in place for heritage site and HCV identification and protection

Northern region, Murchison,SR027H' plantation forest

Visit silviculture contractor crew carrying out 3rd lift pruning operation Interview contractor principal and also the operational crew boss. Visit pruning area with crew boss.

Northern region, Murchison, 'SE024E' native forest

Inspect browsing monitoring indicator plot located in harvested, burnt and re sown coupe Interviewed FT staff in relation to monthly height assessment monitoring carried out in this coupe

Northern region, Murchison, 'SR036A' Swamp blackwood coupe

Inspect fenced and protected Swamp Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon) trees. Interview fencing and pest control contractors responsible for regular monitoring. Inspect stream crossing point and animal escape points in fenced area Interview FT staff responsible for management of this coupe.

Northern region, Murchison, 'DP031A' native forest

Visit harvested area being prepared for burning of harvest debris Interview machine contractor operator in relation to his role in land preparation Inspect buffer zones being established prior to controlled burn being carried out Verified machinery exclusion zone around mineral slurry supply pipeline that crosses this coupe.

Northern region, Murchison, 'NH001B' plantation forest

Visit silvicultural contractor carrying out waste thinning by applying stem injection. Interview contractor principal in relation to HS&E procedures, chemical handling procedures, container disposal, and worker qualifications used on site Review FPP and associated documentation including Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) chemical being used

Return to Launceston and meet audit team Date: December 9th, 2014 FMU / Location / sites visited Activities/Notes Forestry Tasmania Office, Hobart Further staff presentations and documentation reviews

Interview stakeholders Interview Forestry Tasmania staff from Hobart offices Audit team sequesters to compile audit findings

CLOSING MEETING Auditors depart



3.1.2 Total Time Spent on Evaluation

A. Number of audit team days spent on-site assessing the applicant: 6 B. Number of auditors participating in on-site assessment: 4 C. Additional days spent on report preparation, stakeholder consultation, and post-site

follow-up: 20

D. Total number of person days expended in evaluation: 44

3.1.3 Evaluation Team

Auditor Name: Robert J. Hrubes, PhD. Auditor role: Lead Auditor Qualifications: Dr. Hrubes is a California registered professional forester (#2228) and forest

economist with over 35 years of professional experience in both private and public forest management issues. He is presently Executive Vice-President of SCS Global Services. Dr. Hrubes has previously led numerous audits under the SCS Forest Conservation Program of North American public forest, industrial forest ownerships and non-industrial forests, as well as operations in Scandinavia, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. Dr. Hrubes holds graduate degrees in forest economics (Ph.D.), economics (M.A.) and resource systems management (M.S.) from the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Michigan. His professional forestry degree (B.S.F. with double major in Outdoor Recreation) was awarded from Iowa State University. He was employed for 14 years, in a variety of positions ranging from research forester to operations research analyst to planning team leader, by the USDA Forest Service. Upon leaving federal service, he entered private consulting from 1988 to 2000. He has been Executive V.P. at SCS since February, 2000.

Auditor Name: Graeme Lea Auditor role: Team Auditor, Forester Qualifications: Graeme is a Lead Auditor for FSC FM and a Senior Lead Auditor for CoC/CW and has

30 years’ experience in forestry in New Zealand and Australia, is qualified as a Forest Service Woodsman and has been involved in many aspects of forestry, including establishment, silviculture, harvesting, sawmilling, processing, exporting and bio-security. Graeme gained a NZQA National certificate in Forest Product Inspection while working in New Zealand, and has been a qualified Quality Management auditor for approximately ten years. In addition Graeme has also undertaken ISO 14001 training. Graeme moved to Adelaide South Australia four years ago and since that time has taken part in Forest Management, Controlled Wood and Chain of Custody audits and assessments, but has also undertaken Controlled Wood auditing in Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand. Graeme has been part of more than twenty five teams for Forest Management audits in both exotic and indigenous forests and has also carried out in excess of 100 Chain of Custody audits.

Auditor Name: Hugh T.L. Stewart, PhD. Auditor role: Auditor, Social Scientist Qualifications: Dr. Hugh Thomas Lindsay Stewart, PhD, MSc Forestry, BSc Forestry, Diploma of

Forestry. Hugh has over 40 years of professional experience in both the public and private forestry sectors. He has worked for the Forests Service of the Victorian Government for 18 years, as a Forestry Research Scientist in Zimbabwe, with the Victorian Plantations Corporation, and with the Treecorp Group as a Forest Resources Manager. He is a distinguished social scientist having key areas of expertise in



plantation development and management, forestry due diligence and auditing, the planning, management, and conduct of research and development as well as the social dimensions of private forestry and stakeholder engagement in natural resource management. As the principal of Hugh Stewart Consulting, he has combined commercial expertise with substantial knowledge of forest science to focus on providing services to improve management and financial outcomes for forest resources and the socio-economic outcomes for dependent communities.

Auditor Name: Rod Kavanagh, PhD. Auditor role: Auditor, Ecologist Qualifications: Dr Kavanagh is an ecological consultant with 35 years professional experience as a

senior wildlife research scientist working in a State Government forestry agency (State Forests of NSW). He is currently Principal Research Ecologist with Niche Environment and Heritage Pty Ltd where he has been for the past three years. Dr Kavanagh’s expertise is in assessments of the impacts of forest management practices (fire and logging) on fauna and flora, ecology of forest-dependent fauna, species distribution-habitat modelling, development of landscape-scale management prescriptions for threatened fauna, development of landscape-scale procedures for biodiversity monitoring, development of methods for sampling cryptic fauna and for detecting pest and prey responses to predator control, and assessments of the role of eucalypt plantings and nest boxes in restoring habitat for wildlife. He has undertaken research fellowships in Sweden, Finland, Canada and USA investigating forest biodiversity monitoring programs in those countries. He was a member and chair of the national forest wildlife research working group which included wildlife scientists from each of the Australian state forest management agencies. From 2009-2011 he was a member of the NSW Scientific Committee responsible for assessing and listing the status of threatened species under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Dr Kavanagh holds diplomas and degrees in agricultural science, natural resources (wildlife management), MSc (forest ecology) and PhD (conservation biology) from Hawkesbury Agricultural College, University of New England, Australian National University and the University of Sydney. He has published more than 80 papers in refereed Australian and international scientific journals.

3.2 Evaluation of Management System

3.2.1 Methodology and Strategies Employed

SCS deploys interdisciplinary teams with expertise in forestry, social sciences, natural resource economics, and other relevant fields to assess an FME’s conformance to FSC standards and policies. Evaluation methods include document and record review, implementing sampling strategies to visit a broad number of forest cover and harvest prescription types, observation of implementation of management plans and policies in the field, and stakeholder analysis. When there is more than one team member, team members may review parts of the standards based on their background and expertise. On the final day of an evaluation, team members convene to deliberate the findings of the assessment jointly. This involves an analysis of all relevant field observations, stakeholder comments, and reviewed documents and records. Where consensus between team members cannot be achieved due to lack of evidence, conflicting evidence or differences of interpretation of the standards, the team is instructed to report these in the certification decision section and/or in observations.



3.2.2 Pre-evaluation

A pre-evaluation of the FME was not required by FSC norms.

A pre-evaluation of the FME was conducted as required by and in accordance with FSC norms.

3.3 Stakeholder Consultation Process

In accordance with SCS protocols, consultation with key stakeholders is an integral component of the evaluation process. Stakeholder consultation takes place prior to, concurrent with, and following field evaluations. Distinct purposes of such consultation include:

To solicit input from affected parties as to the strengths and weaknesses of the FME’s management, relative to the standard, and the nature of the interaction between the company and the surrounding communities.

To solicit input on whether the forest management operation has consulted with stakeholders regarding identifying any high conservation value forests (HCVFs).

Principal stakeholder groups are identified based upon results from the pre-evaluation (if one was conducted), lists of stakeholders from the FME under evaluation, and additional stakeholder contacts from other sources (e.g., chair of the regional FSC working group). The following types of groups and individuals were determined to be principal stakeholders in this evaluation:

3.3.1 Stakeholder Groups Consulted During Evaluation for Certification

FME Management and staff Pertinent Tribal members and/or representatives Consulting foresters Members of the FSC National Initiative Contractors FSC International Lease holders Unions of Forestry sector workers Adjacent property owners Local and regionally-based environmental

organizations and conservationists Local and regionally-based social interest and civic organizations

Forest industry groups and organizations

Purchasers of logs harvested on FME forestlands Local, state, and federal regulatory agency personnel

Recreational user groups Other relevant groups

Stakeholder consultation activities are organized to give participants the opportunity to provide comments according to general categories of interest based on the three FSC chambers, as well as the SCS Interim Standard. A public notice was sent to stakeholders at least 6 weeks prior to the audit notifying them of the audit and soliciting comments. The table below summarizes the major comments received from stakeholders and the assessment team’s response. Where a stakeholder comment has triggered a subsequent investigation during the evaluation, the corresponding follow-up action and conclusions from SCS are noted below.

X



3.3.2 Summary of Stakeholder Comments and Responses from the Team, Where Applicable

Stakeholder Comments SCS Response Economic Concerns Forest management operations are not economically viable.

The forest management enterprise must have sufficient financial capital and human resources to implement the management plan, over the long run. Commercial timber management operations must be financially viable, given short and medium-term market conditions and costs. External funds can be used to maintain financial viability. The assessment team observed that further staff reductions could jeopardize the ability of FT to operate in conformance with the FSC forest stewardship standard (OBS 2014.4). The assessment team also observed that further reductions in staff could jeopardize FT’s efforts to restore and/or maintain the ecological integrity of the FMU and to maintain the socio-economic profile of the forest management operation (OBS 2014.5). The assessment team observed that in the absence of shorter haul distances, some chipping operations constituted a drag on the financial viability of the overall forest management operations (OBS 2014.6).

The loss of leatherwood resources on PTPZ land negatively impacts the apiary industry.

The assessment team observed from interviews that FT and the Tasmanian Beekeepers Association are in dialogue to resolve the issue. The assessment team noted that the apiary industry is seeking an amendment to the Forest Practices Code to incorporate prescriptions for leatherwood management on PTPZ land, to enable FT to adequately deal with beekeeping issues such as leatherwood retention when preparing plans for timber production.

Supplies of logs of special species timbers from forests managed by FT have dwindled.

Special species timbers are highly prized by the domestic furniture, boat building and craft wood industries. The assessment team noted that the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014 required the Minister for Resources to cause a special species management plan to be made before October 2017. This plan would inform FT’s future management of special species timbers from PTPZ land.

There is a lack of completeness in the chain of custody system relative to FSC CoC requirements.

FT has an existing and functioning traceability scheme to demonstrate compliance with its Australian Forestry Standard chain of custody certification. FT’s “stump to gate” chain of custody system was found to be lacking in content and detail sufficient to trace each forest product from its origin. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must elaborate its documented chain of custody control system (CAR



2014.16).

Social Concerns Smoke from regeneration burns conducted by FT has deleterious impacts on the amenity and health of the community.

Regeneration burns are mostly carried out in the second half of autumn (April and May) when the weather is normally calm and cool. FT recognizes that smoke from prescribed forest fires is a community issue. In response to complaints from the public, FT has operated since 2009 under a smoke management system coordinated by the Forest Practices Authority, to minimize adverse effects from prescribed forest fires. The assessment team confirmed from interviews that this system is working to the benefit of the wider community.

Forest management operations conducted by FT have negative impacts on potable water supplies

The assessment team was satisfied from interviews that FT in its planning and conduct of forestry operations takes reasonable care in protecting potable water supplies.

Areas and access for recreational hunting on PTPZ land have been reduced.

The assessment team noted that FT’s PTPZ land provides for a broad range of recreational opportunities including four wheel driving, fishing and hunting. While permission is generally not required to use this land for such activities, public safety, environmental and other forest management issues might result in roads and tracks being closed to the general public, either on a temporary or permanent basis. The assessment team also noted that FT might issue game management leases or licences with hunting groups or other organisations to provide access to popular hunting locations.

FT does not make available to the public sufficient information about the results of monitoring of the impacts of forest operations.

The stewardship report, released annually by FT, provides a summary of the results of periodic monitoring of the subject areas listed in Criterion 8.2.

Environmental Concerns Forest management operations conducted by FT negatively impact the values of forest resources.

The management plan and appurtenant documents must specify measures effectively ensuring that forest services and resources are maintained and/or enhanced. The assessment team observed that FT could improve the efficacy of measures for old growth management, landscape-scale management, and woody debris/standing dead tree retention (OBS 2014.7). Coupe-level environmental impact assessment processes were found to not adequately result in consistent avoidance of adverse impacts to RTE (rare, threatened & endangered) species and other high conservation values



The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must modify and enhance coupe-level environmental impact assessment and planning procedures so that RTE species, particularly wide-ranging landscape species, and other high conservation values are being consistently identified and appropriately protected (CAR 2014.8). FT’s approach for landscape context planning was found not to adequately identify and consider landscape-scale cumulative effects of forest operations. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must modify or replace its current approach to landscape-scale planning in order to more effectively identify and consider (i.e., reduce and/or mitigate) cumulative effects of coupe-level forest operations (CAR 2014.9). FT’s procedures were found not to adequately identify the potential presence of RTE species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must develop and implement a systematic procedure, at the coupe level, for identifying nesting habitat for swift parrot and masked owls (CAR 2014.10). Conservation zones and/or other protection measures for key RTE species, such as the swift parrot, were found not to be appropriate to the scale and intensity of FT’s forest operations. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that, commensurate with the large scale and intensive nature of its forest management operations, FT must modify and then evaluate the effectiveness of conservation zones and/or other protection measures employed for RTE species and their habitats. The management plan must be updated to accurately describe the modified protection measures (CAR 2014.11). Delineations of conservation zones, particularly for swift parrot, were found not to maximize their contribution to biodiversity. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that the size, location and configuration of conservation zones, particularly for swift parrot, must be reassessed and modified to maximize their contribution to biodiversity objectives (CAR 2014.11). The size and location of conservation zones were found not to be



sufficient to ensure the continuing presence of RTE species, particularly swift parrot, in occupied areas within FT’s forest estate. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must reassess and modify the size, location and configuration of conservation zones for RTE species, particularly swift parrot, so as to ensure the species’ continuing presence in occupied areas of the FMU (CAR 2014.11). FT’s monitoring procedures were found not to be adequate with regard to RTE species.

Regeneration burning conducted by FT negatively impact the values of forest resources.

The practice of clear fell, burn and sow in mapped old growth areas was found not to be appropriate with respect to maintenance of ecological function, structure and diversity. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that in harvest coupes located in or containing mapped old growth, FT must develop and utilize alternatives to its current practice of clear fell, burn and sow (CAR 2014.12).

Forest structure is not being maintained.

With respect to old growth still present on its forest estate, FT’s practices were found not to constitute adequate conformance with the requirement that it maintain and/or restore forest structure and under-represented successional stages. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must take actions to reduce the rate and extent to which it is harvesting old growth and mature forest structural components, including hollow trees (CAR 2014.12). Standing and fallen dead wood habitats should be retained within the FMU. The assessment team observed that FT should continue to explore opportunities for enhanced retention of standing and fallen dead trees while maintaining safe working conditions (OBS 2014.13).

The HCV assessment process is inadequate.

There was insufficient evidence that FT has designed and undertaken a HCV assessment that has effectively identified areas on its forest estate that possess high conservation values. It was found that FT has not engaged in adequate consultation with external experts with regard to proposed locations and attributes of areas possessing high conservation values to assure that areas and their attributes have been accurately identified. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must



engage in additional external expert consultation, as well as with the FSC-Australia Policy & Standards Committee, to confirm whether or not its approach to identification and management of HCV was consistent with the FSC-Australia HCV Evaluation Framework (CAR 2014.17). In this same CAR, the assessment team requested that FT engage in additional consultation with external experts to assure that it has accurately identified the locations and attributes of areas possessing high conservation values (CAR 2014.17). Stakeholder consultation is a core element of the HCV assessment process required of FSC-certified forest managers. The assessment team observed that an additional round of stakeholder consultation would enhance stakeholder confidence in the results of FT’s HCV assessment (OBS 2014.18). FT’s current approach to the identification and maintenance/ enhancement of high conservation values, and how those values limit site disturbing management activities, cannot at present be considered to be adequately precautionary. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must revise its approach to HCV identification and management such that all management activities carried out on the FMU are consistent with a precautionary approach to maintaining and enhancing the extent and attributes of areas possessing high conservation values (CAR 2014.20). Due to limitations in FT’s HCV assessment approach, the coupe-level Forest Practices Plans for forest operations do not adequately identify, describe and implement the precautionary measures necessary to ensure maintenance and/or enhancement of all high conservation values present within a coupe. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must modify its operational planning process for Forest Practices Plans to ensure that high conservation values were maintained and/or enhanced at the coupe level (CAR 2014.19). FT’s system for monitoring the status of specific HCV attributes was found to be not adequately elaborated. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT, as part of an annual HCV monitoring program, must develop, document and implement procedures for assessing the effectiveness of the measures employed for the maintenance or enhancement of identified HCV attributes (CAR 2014.21).



Riparian zones are not being sufficiently protected.

Management needs to maintain, enhance and/or restore the plant and wildlife habitat in Riparian Management Zones. The assessment team observed that riparian zone management could be enhanced if FT strengthened protection/retention measures in Class 4 Riparian Management Zones (OBS 2014.14).

Pesticide use is seen as deleterious to the environment including impacts on native birds.

Pesticides can be used only when non-chemical approaches are not available, prohibitively expensive, ineffective or result in greater environmental impacts. The assessment team observed that FT should continue to explore and implement alternatives to pesticide use, including selection of silvicultural (e.g., harvesting and site preparation) prescriptions (OBS 2014.15).

The management of biodiversity of plantations is inadequate.

For the portion of its estate classified as plantations per the FSC definition, FT has not articulated, documented and implemented biodiversity objectives, policies and guidelines. The assessment team issued a corrective action request that FT must incorporate into its management plan biodiversity objectives, policies and guidelines for those areas classified as plantations per the FSC definition (CAR 2014.22).

4. Results of the Evaluation

Table 4.1 below, contains the evaluation team’s findings as to the strengths and weaknesses of the subject forest management operation relative to the FSC Principles of forest stewardship. Weaknesses are noted as Corrective Action Requests (CARs) related to each principle.

4.1 Notable Strengths and Weaknesses of the FME Relative to the FSC P&C. Principle / Subject Area Strengths Relative to the Standard Weaknesses Relative to the

Standard P1: FSC Commitment and Legal Compliance

The policies, procedures and practices of Forestry Tasmania are grounded on a well-established and robust yet evolving management system reflecting a strong foundation of scientific forest management. Forestry Tasmania’s personnel at all levels of the organization express and demonstrate a commitment to incorporate further changes in their

Observation 2014.1: FT has orally conveyed to its contractors that the FSC stewardship standard applies to their activities on the FMU.



management systems and practices so as to bring its operations fully in line with FSC certification requirements. Forestry Tasmania’s operations are carried out under a legislated code of practice, augmented by the Tasmania RFA and the Threatened Species Protection Act. Forestry Tasmania has a positive and collaborative working relationship with Forest Practices Authority personnel. The “duty of care” principle that is incorporated into the forest practice code and in workplace safety regulations appears to be genuinely embraced by Forestry Tasmania’s leadership and staff. Illegal activities on the FMU are very limited and Forestry Tasmania’s field staff actively endeavor to minimize and address illegal and/or unauthorized activities.

P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Responsibilities

Forestry Tasmania can demonstrate clearly established and documented rights as the forest manager of the lands for which FSC certification is being sought. Forestry Tasmania’s policies and practices reflect that the forest estate is publicly-owned land to which access is widely available. There is no observed evidence that Forestry Tasmania fails to accommodate local communities with established legal or customary rights (as distinct from interests, concerns or desires) from exercising their rights. Forestry Tasmania’s Forest

None detected.



Management System (FMS) contains a dispute resolution mechanism through which conflicts over land tenure and use rights can be resolved.

P3: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

Forestry Tasmania has committed to enhancing its relationships with aboriginal stakeholders. By policy, Forestry Tasmania is committed to honouring traditional uses and rights. Forestry Tasmania planners make use of the DPIPWE database containing aboriginal heritage sites.

Observation 2014.2: FT is actively pursuing but has not yet completed development of a mechanism for assuring opportunities for Indigenous People to participate in management planning and decision-making. Nonetheless, such opportunities are available on an informal basis. Minor CAR 2014.3: Field workers (staff and personnel of contractors) must receive appropriate training in procedures for identifying and protecting sites of special significance to Indigenous Peoples. As of the time of the field audit, FT had not yet completed and made fully operational a training program for both employees and contract workers. That is, not all FT employees and contractors have received the necessary training.

P4: Community Relations & Workers’ Rights

Indications are that Forestry Tasmania respects worker rights and that employee compensation packages are competitive with other forestry sector employers. Forestry Tasmania has a well-developed and fully integrated OH&S management system. Forestry Tasmania has a demonstrated commitment to providing a safe working environment for its employees and contractors; records are extensively maintained. Forestry Tasmania’s workforce is notably more gender balanced than many forestry operations.

None detected.



Forestry Tasmania appears to have good relationships with three unions that represent over half of the workforce. Forestry Tasmania has, on occasion, deferred and/or modified harvesting of certain coupes in response to local stakeholder concerns. Within the framework of an established Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, Forestry Tasmania is actively working to upgrade/enhance its stakeholder interaction and consultation mechanisms, incorporating both affected and interested stakeholders.

P5: Benefits from the Forest

Forestry Tasmania has the full backing and fiscal support of the Tasmania Government. Relative to most private industrial forest management operations of similar land area size, Forestry Tasmania has a robust, diverse and highly qualified/credentialed professional staff. Forestry Tasmania’s staff members, both as part of their job duties and on personal time, are actively engaged in community and natural resource/environment organizations. A portion of the harvested wood coming from Forestry Tasmania is available to and purchased by local processing operations. Forestry Tasmania forestry field crews are skilled at utilizing multiple sorts at log landings in order to direct harvested products to the highest and best uses. Forestry Tasmania has a robust,

Observation 2014.4: Further staff reductions could jeopardize the ability of FT to operate in conformance with the FSC forest stewardship standard. Observation 2014.5: Further reductions in staff could jeopardize FT’s efforts to restore and/or maintain the ecological integrity of the FMU and to maintain the socio-economic profile of the forest management operation. Observation 2014.6: In the absence of shorter haul distances, chipping operations do not contribute to the financial viability of overall forest management operations. Observation 2014.7: Conformity to Indicator 5.5.2 would be enhanced if the management plan and appurtenant documents specified measures effectively ensuring that forest services and resources such as watersheds and fisheries are maintained and/or enhanced.



documented and data-rich harvest planning process for determining the annual allowable harvest. Forestry Tasmania demonstrated environmental sensitivity by being able to harvest in harmony with water production from designated catchments.

P6: Environmental Impact

Forestry Tasmania manages approximately 800,000 ha of Permanent Timber Production Zone (PTPZ) land for wood production (approx. 12% of Tasmania’s total land area and 17% of the area of native forest in the State). Forest operations conducted by, or on behalf of, Forestry Tasmania are regulated by the forest practices system which is administered by the Forest Practices Authority, an independent statutory body established under the Forest Practices Act 1985. All forest practices are carried out in accordance with legally binding Forest Practices Plans (FPP). The FPP is the principal device for ensuring that negative environmental impacts are reduced or mitigated. These plans must comply with the Forest Practices Code and be certified by accredited forest practices officers who undertake specific on-site assessments prior to harvesting. The Forest Practices Code requires that special provisions are made within FPPs to manage identified biodiversity and other forest values. On average, 20-30% of each coupe is reserved from harvesting during the planning process. Forestry Tasmania’s Landscape Context Planning System (LCPS) has

Major CAR 2014.8: Coupe-level environmental impact assessment and monitoring processes do not adequately result in consistent avoidance of adverse impacts to RTE (rare, threatened & endangered) species and other high conservation values. Major CAR 2014.9: FT’s landscape context planning approach, as presently configured, does not adequately identify and consider landscape-scale cumulative effects of forest operations. Major CAR 2014.10: FT’s current procedures do not adequately identify the potential presence of RTE species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). Major CAR 2014.11: Conservation zones and/or other protection measures for key RTE species, such as the swift parrot, are not appropriate to the scale and intensity of FT’s forest operations and, as such, do not maximize their contribution to biodiversity. The size and location of conservation zones are not sufficient to ensure the continuing presence of wide-ranging RTE species, particularly swift parrot, in occupied areas within FT’s forest estate. Major CAR 2014.12: With respect to old growth still present on its forest



the potential to assess the cumulative effects of forest operations across a range of environmental values, including landscape-scale RTE fauna species habitats and HCV forest values, once these forest values are fully recognized and understood. Harvest planning systems, including the development and certification of FPPs and the application of LCPS, have the capacity to maintain ecological functions and values, provided they are better informed by relevant ecological data. Forestry Tasmania has a demonstrated track record of effective and timely regeneration of native forests and plantations after harvesting operations. Forestry Tasmania has a long history of supporting comprehensive forest ecology research programs, including those assessing a range of environmental impacts of its operations on fauna and flora. There have been no conversions of natural forest to plantations on Forestry Tasmania’s forest estate since 2006.

estate, FT practices do not constitute conformance with the requirement that it maintain and/or restore forest structure and under-represented successional stages. The practice of clear fell, burn and sow in mapped old growth areas is not appropriate with respect to maintenance of ecological function, structure and diversity. Observation 2014.13: Conformity to indicator 6.3.5 can be enhanced by continuing to explore opportunities for enhanced retention of standing and fallen dead trees while maintaining safe working conditions. Observation 2014.14: Conformity to this Indicator can be enhanced by strengthening protection/retention measures in Class 4 Riparian Management Zones. Observation 2014.15: FT should continue to explore and implement alternatives to pesticide use, including selection of silvicultural prescriptions as well as employing ecological solutions.

P7: Management Plan Forestry Tasmania has cutting-edge and multi-layered management planning processes spanning multiple spatial and temporal scales; e.g., the landscape context planning system. Forestry Tasmania’s planners benefit from robust database management systems including GIS. A landscape context planning strategy, in which coupe-level

None detected.



decisions are influenced by conditions outside of the coupe at a larger spatial scale, is under development. Forestry Tasmania is ISO 14001 certified and, as such, has a robust FMS (Forest Management System). Forestry Tasmania’s management planning and monitoring systems demonstrate a core capacity for adaptive management. Forestry Tasmania has operated under a legislated code for practice for over 20 years.

P8: Monitoring & Assessment

Forestry Tasmania maintains active internal auditing/monitoring procedures; an incident reporting and corrective action system is in place and is utilized. Forestry Tasmania has a strong management capability for wood supply modelling.

Major CAR 2014.8: Coupe-level environmental impact assessment and monitoring processes do not adequately result in consistent avoidance of adverse impacts to RTE (rare, threatened & endangered) species and other high conservation values. Major CAR 2014.16: FT’s “stump to gate” chain of custody system is presently lacking in content and detail sufficient to constitute conformance to Criterion 8.3.

P9: High Conservation Value Forests

Forestry Tasmania prepared a document in November 2014 entitled “High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan”. This document summarizes the occurrences of forest areas within the FMU which contain a) “globally, nationally or regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity values” (HCV 1); b) “regionally significant large landscape level forests where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution or abundance” (HCV 2); c) “rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems” (HCV 3); “areas which provide basic services of nature in

Major CAR 2014.17: There is insufficient evidence indicating that FT has designed and undertaken a HCV assessment that has effectively identified areas on its forest estate that possess one or more of the six categories of high conservation values set forth in the FSC standard, and that are further elaborated by the FSC Australia evaluation framework. OBS 2014.18: Stakeholder confidence in the results of FT’s HCV assessment would be enhanced by an additional round of stakeholder consultation. Major CAR 2014.19: In areas known



critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)” (HCV 4); “areas which meet basic needs of local communities (e.g., subsistence, health)” (HCV 5); and, “areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity” (HCV 6).

by FT to possess attributes qualifying or potentially qualifying as high conservation value, such as mature forests with hollow-bearing trees and areas of potential habitat for RTE species, Forest Practices Plans for forest operations do not consistently and adequately identify, describe and implement management measures for the purpose of ensuring maintenance and/or enhancement of all qualifying or potentially qualifying high conservation values present in the coupe, and in a manner that can be reasonably considered precautionary. Major CAR 2014.20: FT’s current approach to the identification and maintenance/enhancement of high conservation values, and how those values limit site disturbing management activities, cannot be considered to be precautionary. Major CAR 2014.21: FT’s HCV effectiveness monitoring system is not adequately elaborated.

P10: Plantations At the FMU level, the extent of plantation forest relative to native forest is quite limited. Forestry Tasmania’s management of its plantations and native forests is highly integrated. Forestry Tasmania’s personnel regularly monitor pest and pathogen activity on the plantation forest estate. Forestry Tasmania has accurate records on which of its plantations were established after 1994 and, as such, will not qualify for FSC-FM certification; Forestry Tasmania is seeking FSC-Controlled Wood certification for those plantations.

Minor CAR 2014.22: For the portion of its estate classified as plantations per the FSC definition, FT has not yet articulated, documented and implemented biodiversity objectives, policies and guidelines.



Chain of Custody Major CAR 2014.16: At the time of the field audit, FT supplied to SCS an insufficient set of Chain of Custody procedures to ensure products can be adequately tracked to the forest gate. Subsequently, FT submitted written procedures that enabled many of the non-conformities to be closed, though some remain. Major CAR 2014.23: FT Chain of Custody procedures do not include all requirements of the SCS FSC Custody Chain of Custody Indicators for Forest Management Enterprises, Version 5-1.

Group Management N/A

4.2 Process of Determining Conformance

4.2.1 Structure of Standard and Degrees of Non-Conformance

FSC-accredited forest stewardship standards consist of a three-level hierarchy: principle, the criteria that correspond to that principle, and the performance indicators that elaborate each criterion. Consistent with SCS Forest Conservation Program evaluation protocols, the team collectively determines whether or not the subject forest management operation is in conformance with every applicable indicator of the relevant forest stewardship standard. Each non-conformance must be evaluated to determine whether it constitutes a major or minor non-conformance at the level of the associated criterion or sub-criterion. Not all indicators are equally important, and there is no simple numerical formula to determine whether an operation is in non-conformance. The team therefore must use their collective judgment to assess each criterion and determine if the FME is in conformance. If the FME is determined to be in non-conformance at the criterion level, then at least one of the applicable indicators must be in major non-conformance.

Corrective action requests (CARs) are issued for every instance of a non-conformance. Major non-conformances trigger Major CARs and minor non-conformances trigger Minor CARs.

4.2.1 Interpretations of Major CARs, Minor CARs and Observations

Major CARs: Major non-conformances, either alone or in combination with non-conformances of all other applicable indicators, result (or are likely to result) in a fundamental failure to achieve the objectives of the relevant FSC Criterion given the uniqueness and fragility of each forest resource. These are corrective actions that must be resolved or closed out before a certificate can be awarded. If Major CARs arise after an operation is certified, the timeframe for correcting these non-conformances is typically shorter than for Minor CARs. Certification is contingent on the certified FME’s response to the CAR within the stipulated time frame.



Minor CARs: These are corrective action requests in response to minor non-conformances, which are typically limited in scale or can be characterized as an unusual lapse in the system. Most Minor CARs are the result of non-conformance at the indicator-level. Corrective actions must be closed out within a specified time period of award of the certificate.

Observations: These are subject areas where the audit team concludes that there is conformance, but either future non-conformance may result due to inaction or the FME could achieve exemplary status through further refinement. Action on observations is voluntary and does not affect the maintenance of the certificate. However, observations can become CARs if performance with respect to the indicator(s) triggering the observation falls into non-conformance.

4.2.2 Major Non-Conformances

No Major CARs were issued to the FME during the evaluation. Any Minor CARs from previous surveillance audits have been reviewed and closed prior to the issuance of a certificate.

Major CARs were issued to the FME during the evaluation, which have all been closed to the satisfaction of the audit team and meet the requirements of the standards. Any Minor CARs from previous surveillance audits have been reviewed and closed prior to the issuance of a certificate.

Major CARs were issued to the FME during the evaluation and the FME has not yet satisfactorily closed all Major CARs.

4.2.3 Corrective Action Requests and Observations

Finding Number: OBS 2014.1

Select one: Major CAR Minor CAR Observation FMU CAR/OBS issued to (when more than one FMU): Deadline Pre-condition to certification

3 months from Issuance of Final Report Next audit (surveillance or re-evaluation) Other deadline (specify): N/A

FSC Indicator: 1.6.1 Issue: FT has orally conveyed to its contractors that the FSC stewardship standard applies to their activities on the FMU. Observation: Conformity to Indicator 1.6.1 could be enhanced by incorporating in written contracts with entities working on the FMU a clause regarding the need to conform to applicable elements of the FSC forest stewardship standard. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)

SCS Review Status of CAR: Closed

Upgraded to Major Other decision (refer to description above)

X

X

X






FSC Indicator: 3.2.3 Issue: FT is actively pursuing but has not yet completed development of a mechanism for assuring opportunities for Indigenous People to participate in management planning and decision-making. Nonetheless, such opportunities are available on an informal basis. Observation: Conformity to this Indicator will be enhanced when FT completes and executes an agreed upon mechanism for Indigenous People to participate in management planning and decision-making. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)



Finding Number: CAR 2014.3


3 months from Issuance of Final Report Next audit (surveillance or re-evaluation) Other deadline (specify):

FSC Indicator: 3.3.3 Non-Conformity: Field workers (staff and personnel of contractors) must receive appropriate training in procedures for identifying and protecting sites of special significance to Indigenous Peoples. As of the time of the field audit, FT had not yet completed and made fully operational a training program for both employees and contract workers. That is, not all FT employees and contractors have received the necessary training. Corrective Action Request: FT must complete and make fully operational a training program for all forest workers on procedures for identifying and protecting sites of special significance to Indigenous People. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)

X

X

X

X








FSC Indicator: 5.1.1 Issue: The forest management enterprise must have sufficient financial capital and human resources to implement the management plan, over the long run. Observation: Further staff reductions could jeopardize the ability of FT to operate in conformance with the FSC forest stewardship standard. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 5.1.2 Issue: Adequate investments of capital, machinery and human resources to maintain and/or restore the ecological integrity of the FMU and the socio-economic profile of the forest management operation. Observation: Further reductions in staff could jeopardize FT’s efforts to restore and/or maintain the ecological integrity of the FMU and to maintain the socio-economic profile of the forest management operation.

X

X

X

X



FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 5.1.3 Issue: Commercial timber management operations must be financially viable. Observation: In the absence of shorter haul distances, chipping operations do not contribute to the financial viability of overall forest management operations. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 5.5.2 Issue: Conformity to Indicator 5.5.2 would be enhanced if the management plan and appurtenant documents specified measures effectively ensuring that forest services and resources such as watersheds and fisheries are maintained and/or enhanced.

X

X

X

X



Observation: Conformity to this Indicator could be enhanced by improving the efficacy of measures for old growth management, landscape-scale management, course woody debris and standing dead tree retention. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicators: 6.1.1, 8.2.5 Non-Conformity: Coupe-level environmental impact assessment and monitoring processes do not adequately result in consistent avoidance of adverse impacts to RTE (rare, threatened & endangered) species and other high conservation values. Corrective Action Request: FT must modify and enhance coupe-level environmental planning, assessment and monitoring procedures so that RTE species, particularly wide-ranging landscape species, and other high conservation values are being consistently identified and appropriately protected. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)



X

X






FSC Indicator: 6.1.2 Non-Conformity: FT’s landscape context planning approach, as presently configured, does not adequately identify and consider landscape-scale cumulative effects of forest operations. Corrective Action Request: FT must modify or replace its current approach to landscape-scale planning in order to more effectively identify and consider (i.e., reduce and/or mitigate) cumulative effects of coupe-level forest operations. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 6.2.2 Non-Conformity: FT’s current procedures do not adequately identify the potential presence of RTE species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). Corrective Action Request: FT must develop and implement a systematic procedure, at the coupe level, for identifying nesting habitat for swift parrot and masked owls. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)



X

X

X

X






FSC Indicator: 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 Non-Conformity: Conservation zones and/or other protection measures for key RTE species, such as the swift parrot, are not appropriate to the scale and intensity of FT’s forest operations and, as such, do not maximize their contribution to biodiversity. The size and location of conservation zones are not sufficient to ensure the continuing presence of wide-ranging RTE species, particularly swift parrot, in occupied areas within FT’s forest estate. Corrective Action Request: Commensurate with the large scale and intensive nature of its forest management operations:

a) FT must reassess, modify (e.g., the number, size, location and configuration) and then evaluate the effectiveness of conservation zones and other protection measures for maximizing protection of RTE species and their habitats, particularly swift parrot, as well as the contribution of these protection measures to broader biodiversity objectives.

b) The management plan must be updated to accurately describe the modified protection measures and how these measures will assure the continuing presence of RTE species, such as swift parrot, in occupied areas of the FMU.

FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 6.3.2, 6.3.3

X

X

X

X



Non-Conformity: With respect to old growth still present on its forest estate, FT practices do not constitute conformance with the requirement that it maintain and/or restore forest structure and under-represented successional stages. The practice of clear fell, burn and sow in mapped old growth areas is not appropriate with respect to maintenance of ecological function, structure and diversity. Corrective Action Request: FT must take actions to reduce the rate and extent to which it is harvesting old growth and mature forest structural components, including hollow trees. In harvest coupes located in or containing mapped old growth, FT must develop and utilize alternatives to its current practice of clear fell, burn and sow. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 6.3.5 Issue: Standing and fallen dead wood habitats should be retained within the FMU. Observation: Conformity to this Indicator can be enhanced by continuing to explore opportunities for enhanced retention of standing and fallen dead trees while maintaining safe working conditions. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)



X

X






FSC Indicator: 6.3.11 Issue: Management needs to maintain, enhance and/or restore the plant and wildlife habitat in Riparian Management Zones (RMZs). Observation: Conformity to this Indicator can be enhanced by strengthening protection/retention measures in Class 4 Riparian Management Zones. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 6.6.1 Issue: Pesticides can be used only when non-chemical approaches are not available, prohibitively expensive, ineffective or result in greater environmental impacts. Observation: FT should continue to explore and implement alternatives to pesticide use, including selection of silvicultural prescriptions as well as employing ecological solutions. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)



X

X

X

X






FSC Indicator: 8.3.1-3 Non-Conformity: FT’s “stump to gate” chain of custody system is presently lacking in content and detail sufficient to constitute conformance to Criterion 8.3. Corrective Action Request: FT must further elaborate its documented CoC control system so as to demonstrably conform to Criterion 8.3. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)

The following documents were included In the additional evidence provided by FT: • Chain of Custody procedures (dated November 2014) • Coupe start up with docket use • Delivery arrangement 140291 stating AFS claim • Examples of log dockets and invoices

SCS Review Prior to the report being finalized FT provided the above documentation which was reviewed by the auditor and provides sufficient evidence to ensure FT has procedures for the tracking of certified products to the forest gate. The CoC procedures combined with the documents listed above are considered sufficient to comply with the requirements of FSC indicator 8.3.1

Status of CAR: Closed Upgraded to Major Other decision (refer to description above)




FSC Indicator: 9.1.1, 9.2.2 Non-Conformity: There is insufficient evidence indicating that FT has designed and undertaken a HCV assessment that has effectively identified areas on its forest estate that possess one or more of the six categories of high conservation values set forth in the FSC standard, and that are further elaborated by the FSC Australia evaluation framework.

X

X

X

X

X



Corrective Action Request: FT must engage in additional external expert consultation, as well as with the FSC Australia Policy & Standards Committee, to confirm whether or not its approach to identification and management of areas possessing high conservation values is consistent with the FSC-Australia HCV Evaluation Framework and current best practice. Consultation must also seek expert and stakeholder input on the results (i.e., identified locations and attributes) of applying FT’s HCV approach. Results of this consultation and resulting changes to FT’s HCVF approach must be documented. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 9.2.1 Issue: Stakeholder consultation is a core element of the HCV assessment process required of FSC-certified forest managers. Observation: Stakeholder confidence in the results of FT’s HCV assessment would be enhanced by an additional round of stakeholder consultation. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)



X

X






FSC Indicator: 9.3.1 Non-Conformity: In areas known by FT to possess attributes qualifying or potentially qualifying as high conservation value, such as mature forests with hollow-bearing trees and areas of potential habitat for RTE species, Forest Practices Plans for forest operations do not consistently and adequately identify, describe and implement management measures for the purpose of ensuring maintenance and/or enhancement of all qualifying or potentially qualifying high conservation values present in the coupe, and in a manner that can be reasonably considered precautionary. Corrective Action Request: FT must modify its operational planning process for Forest Practices Plans to ensure that high conservation values are identified, maintained and/or enhanced at the coupe level. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 9.3.2 Non-Conformity: FT’s current approach to the identification and maintenance/enhancement of high conservation values, and how those values limit site disturbing management activities, cannot be considered to be precautionary. Corrective Action Request: FT must revise its approach to HCV identification and management such that all management activities carried out on the FMU are consistent with a precautionary approach to maintaining and enhancing the extent and attributes of areas possessing high conservation values. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)

X

X

X

X








FSC Indicator: 9.4.1 Non-Conformity: FT’s HCV effectiveness monitoring system is not adequately elaborated. Corrective Action Request: As part of an annual HCV monitoring program, FT must develop, document and implement procedures for assessing the effectiveness of the measures employed for the maintenance or enhancement of identified HCV attributes. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)






FSC Indicator: 10.3.3 Non-Conformity: For the portion of its estate classified as plantations per the FSC definition, FT has not yet articulated, documented and implemented biodiversity objectives, policies and guidelines. Corrective Action Request: FT must incorporate biodiversity objectives into its management plan, policies and guidelines for those areas classified as plantations per the FSC definition. FME Response (including any evidence submitted)

X

X

X

X








FSC/SCS Indicator: See Appendix 6 of this report. Non-Conformity: FT Chain of Custody procedures do not include all requirements of the SCS FSC Custody Chain of Custody Indicators for Forest Management Enterprises, Version 5-1. Corrective Action Request: FT must develop procedures to meet all requirements of the chain of custody indicators (see Appendix 6 of this report). FME Response (including any evidence submitted)

The following documents were included In the additional evidence provided by FT: • Chain of Custody procedures (dated November 2014) • Coupe start up with docket use • Delivery arrangement 140291 stating AFS claim • Examples of log dockets and invoices

SCS Review Prior to the report being finalized FT provided the above documentation which was reviewed by the auditor and provides sufficient evidence to ensure FT has procedures for the tracking of certified products to the forest gate. The CoC procedures combined with the documents listed above are considered sufficient to comply with the requirements FSC/SCS chain of custody requirements found in Appendix 6 of this report.

Status of CAR: Closed Upgraded to Major Other decision (refer to description above)

5. Certification Decision Certification Recommendation FME be awarded FSC certification as a “Well-Managed Forest” subject to the minor corrective action requests stated in Section 4.2.

Yes No

The SCS evaluation team makes the above recommendation for certification based on the full and proper execution of the SCS Forest Conservation Program evaluation protocols. If certification is recommended, the FME has satisfactorily demonstrated the following without exception: FME has addressed any Major CAR(s) raised during the evaluation. Yes No

X

X

X

X

X



FME has demonstrated that their system of management is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements of the applicable standards (see Section 1.6 of this report) are met over the forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation.

Yes No

FME has demonstrated that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the forest area covered by the scope of the certificate.

Yes No

Comments: Upon closure of the Major CARs that were raised by the audit team following the certification evaluation, the audit team recommends that FSC forest management certification be awarded to Forestry Tasmania.

X

X

Forest Management & Stump-to-Forest Gate Chain-of-Custody Certification Evaluation Report | CONFIDENTIAL


SECTION B – APPENDICES (CONFIDENTIAL)

Appendix 1 – Current and Projected Annual Harvest for Main Commercial Species



Appendix 2 – List of FMUs Selected for Evaluation

FME consists of a single FMU

FME consists of multiple FMUs or is a Group

Appendix 3 – List of Stakeholders Consulted

List of FME Staff Consulted

Name Title Contact Information (note: contact information maintained in the project file at SCS Headquarters)

Consultation Method

X



List of other Stakeholders Consulted

Name Organization Contact Information (note: contact information maintained in the project file at SCS Headquarters)

Consultation Method

Requests Cert. Notf.



Appendix 4 – Additional Evaluation Techniques Employed

No additional evaluation techniques were employed during this evaluation.



Appendix 5 – Certification Standard Conformance Table C= Conformance to an Indicator NC= Nonconformance to an Indicator N/A= Not Applicable

REQUIREMENT C/NC COMMENT/CAR

Principle #1: Compliance with laws and FSC Principles Forest management shall respect all applicable laws of the country in which they occur, and international treaties and agreements to which the country is a signatory, and comply with all FSC Principles and Criteria. 1.1 Forest management shall respect all national and local laws and administrative requirements.

C

1.1.1 The FME has an up- to-date printed listing of all the relevant Commonwealth, State or Territory laws and statutory requirements relevant to forest management and with which the FME is required to comply (see Annex 1 for reference).

C A list of all relevant laws and statutory requirements has been compiled and made available to the audit team.

1.1.2 If any non-compliances with legal or regulatory requirements have been identified by the FME or by third parties in the previous five years, they have been documented by the FME, were promptly corrected, and effective action has been taken to prevent their recurrence.

C FT effectively maintains administrative records of any regulatory issues that arise during the course of managing its forest estate. The company maintains a positive working relationship with regulatory personnel, in part attributable to a track record of cooperation and prompt resolution of any issues that arise.

1.1.3 The FME has access to copies (physical or electronic) of the texts of the applicable Commonwealth, State or Territory laws listed in Annex 1. (Applies only to Non-SLIMF FMUs)

C Both physical and electronic copies of applicable laws are readily available to FT personnel.

1.2 All applicable and legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges shall be paid.

C

1.2.2 There is no evidence of chronic non-payment; rather, payments are regularly made in a timely manner.

C Aging of accounts payable is appropriately managed and payments are made in a timely manner.

1.2.3 Up-to-date records are kept of all payments and are available to the SCS auditor(s).

C FT has a fully staffed and professionally competent accounting department. Full records are maintained of all financial transactions including payments of fees, invoices and other charges.

1.3 In signatory countries, the provisions of all C



binding international agreements such as CITES, ILO Conventions, ITTA, and Convention on Biological Diversity, shall be respected. 1.3.1 The FME is aware of which binding international agreements apply to the nation in which their forest operations reside.

C A spreadsheet of all binding international agreements applicable to forest management in Tasmania has been compiled by FT personnel.

1.3.2 The FME demonstrates sensitivity to all binding international agreements and endeavor to respect their requirements, at a level of effort scaled to the size and intensity of the forest operation. Verifiers: • FME has a compendium of applicable

international agreements that summarizes how the FME respects these.

• FME has a list of all locally occurring species that are listed under CITES.

• Said compendium is available in offices and field sites or camps

• Said compendium is available in offices and field sites or camps.

C FT has compiled a reference list of all applicable international agreements. The audit team is satisfied that personnel throughout the organization are committed to avoiding any violations of binding international agreements.

1.4 Conflicts between laws, regulations and the FSC Principles and Criteria shall be evaluated for the purposes of certification, on a case by case basis, by the certifiers and the involved or affected parties.

C

1.4.1 The FME shall conduct an analysis to identify potential conflicts between applicable national/local laws, the FSC P&C, and international agreements and inform SCS auditors of any such conflicts.

C FT personnel have completed the analysis required by this Indicator and the results have been shared with the SCS audit team.

1.4.2 The FME is willing to participate in appropriate processes for resolving conflicts, at the request of SCS and/or the FSC.

C The audit team is fully satisfied that FT stands ready to participate in conflict resolution process, if requested by SCS or FSC.

1.5 Forest management areas should be protected from illegal harvesting, settlement and other unauthorized activities.

C

1.5.1 The location of legal boundaries of the forest unit are clearly identified on publicly available maps, and are identified through signage or other physical identification at roads and major trails crossing the boundary.

C Legal boundaries of the FMU are clearly identified on publicly available maps; FT personnel periodically update maps with respect to property boundaries. There is signage employed in the field, though not at the point of every road crossing into the FT forest estate. The audit team received no stakeholder input suggesting confusion



or uncertainty over the locations of FT-managed property.

1.5.2 Managers shall take measures to prevent illegal harvesting, settlement and other unauthorized activities within the management area. Depending on the size of the forest area and on the risk of illegal activity occurring, such measures may include: • Forest roads have gates and/or have

controlled access to areas of high risk; • Forest roads are physically closed off after

harvesting; • Forest roads are patrolled to detect and

prevent illegal access to the forest.

C FT actively undertakes measures to prevent/minimize illegal and/or unauthorized activities on their forest estate. Where needed, gates are installed. Roads are closed off, as needed, during active harvesting operations. FT personnel regularly patrol/travel forest system roads and, where detected, illegal activities are reported. While it is impossible on a very large forest estate, such as that managed by FT, to completely prevent illegal and unauthorized activities, the audit team concludes that FT is engaged in an appropriate level of effort to detect and contain such activities.

1.5.3 Any evidence of illegal activity within the forest management unit identified by the FME has been recorded and has been reported to the appropriate authority.

C FT personnel regularly patrol/travel forest system roads and, where detected, illegal activities are reported.

1.6 Forest managers shall demonstrate a long-term commitment to adhere to the FSC Principles and Criteria.

C

1.6.1 In the management plan, or another appropriate document of broad public availability, there is an express statement of commitment to the FSC Principles and Criteria. When the FME uses contractors, it shall require its contractors to comply with the FSC P&C. Verifiers: • Contracts contain clear and appropriate

language that requires contractors to comply with the FSC P&C.

C The audit team confirmed that a statement in conformance with this Indicator has been incorporated into the Forest Management Plan. FT’s General Manager Forest Management has met with all contractors and verbally briefed them on their role in demonstrating the company’s commitment to operate in conformance to the FSC Principles and Criteria. Conformity to Indicator 1.6.1 could be enhanced by incorporating in written contracts with entities working on the FMU a clause regarding the need to conform to applicable elements of the FSC forest stewardship standard. OBS 2014.1: Conformity to Indicator 1.6.1 could be enhanced by incorporating in



written contracts with entities working on the FMU a clause regarding the need to conform to applicable elements of the FSC forest stewardship standard.

1.6.2 Written or electronic copies of the FSC Principles and Criteria are available to all management and field personnel; the FME demonstrates a general conversancy with the P&C.

C The FSC P&C as well as the FSC/SCS Interim Standard for Australia have been posted on the FT intranet site and are readily available to all staff. Key FT staff demonstrated, during interactions with the audit team, a general conversancy with the P&C.

1.6.3 If the defined forest area for which certification is being sought does not constitute the entire ownership, management activities on the portions of the ownership not undergoing certification evaluation are generally compatible with the P&C and conform to the current FSC requirements on partial estate certification requirements (FSC-POL-20-002) and FSC-POL-01-004 V1-0 Policy for Association with FSC.

C Management activities on FT-managed lands that do not fall within the scope of the certification initiative are not incompatible with the requirements of the FSC Policy for Association. FT adopted a policy of not converting natural forests to plantations on FT managed lands in 2006. This policy is now fully implemented. Areas which are not within FTs long-term management control are excluded from the FMU that is being considered for certification. These include:

Areas currently legislated as Future Reserve Land (tranche 1 and 2) as harvesting is not permitted within these areas and they will be progressively transferred out of FTs management control. (Note: subsequent to the field audit, the name of tranche 1 and 2 was revised to “future potential production forest,” and the management of these lands was transferred to a different government department; these lands are no longer part of the scope of this certificate evaluation.)

Areas where long-term forestry rights have been transferred to other forest managers – i.e., Norske Skog and Timberlands Pacific (who have FSC FM certification).

Areas where there are third-party property rights – leases, registered forestry rights – and FT does not have management control.



Wood production areas of the Buckland Military Training Area where FT does not have full forest management control.

Water bodies where FT has salvage rights for native pines, but does not have full management control.

These areas are clearly identified on maps and any product from these areas will be physically separated from certified product, were FT to achieve FM certification. FT’s sales system presently manages CoC requirements.

Principle #2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities Long-term tenure and use rights to the land and forest resources shall be clearly defined, documented and legally established. 2.1 Clear evidence of long-term forest use rights to the land (e.g. land title, customary rights, or lease agreements) shall be demonstrated.

C

2.1.1 The FME shall demonstrate that land tenure and rights to the forest resource are clear, legally secure and documented. Legal use rights may be associated with: - fee-simple ownership; - long-term or renewable lease rights; - long-term or renewable exclusive management agreements; - other mechanisms allocating long-term or renewable management rights and responsibilities to the FME

C FT has clear rights to manage the forest resource. The sighted document ‘Forestry Tasmania’s Legislative and Regulatory Framework 2014’ provided the details including the key legislation (Forest Management Act 2013, Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014, other relevant legislation and the Ministerial Charter.

2.1.2 The entity seeking certification for the forest can demonstrate that it has all the use rights and/or permissions needed to implement forest management which is compatible with long-term compliance with the requirements of the FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship.

C Relevant documentation exists and was observed in FT’s offices.

2.2 Local communities with legal or customary tenure or use rights shall maintain control, to the extent necessary to protect their rights or resources, over forest operations unless they delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies.

C

2.2.1 Local communities, and/or other stakeholders with duly recognized legal or

C The Forest Management Act 2013 provided that so long as it does not impact FT’s



customary tenure or use rights within the defined forest area have been identified and the nature of these rights are described and documented. Examples of legal or customary tenure or use-rights may include: -public rights of way; -established easements; -collection of non-timber forest products; -hiking, fishing, hunting, or other recreation; -firewood collection; -visitation of culturally significant sites.

capacity to produce timber; FT is required to provide reasonable access for other uses. FT has consulted with stakeholders and local communities and identified legal and customary tenure or use rights. Documentation in which these were described existed (e.g., ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’, ‘Property Rights database’, ‘Property Lease Procedures 2008’) and was sighted in FT’s offices.

2.2.2 When communities have delegated control of their legal rights or customary tenure or use in whole or in part, this must be confirmed by documented agreements and / or interviews with representatives of local communities.

C FT has not delegated control to communities of any legal rights or customary tenure or use in whole or in part.

2.2.3 There is no substantive evidence that the FME obstructs or prevents local communities with legal tenure or use rights from exercising such rights, other than to the extent that the communities have freely agreed not to exercise such rights (see 2.2.2, above).

C Systems were established and documented by which local communities with legal tenure or use rights were able to exercise such rights. These were summarized in the ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’, S. 4.6. Relevant documentation existed and was observed in FT’s offices (e.g., for apiary sites). The assessment team noted that FT’s PTPZ land provides for a broad range of recreational opportunities including four wheel driving, fishing and hunting. While permission is generally not required to use this land for such activities, public safety, environmental and other forest management issues might result in roads and tracks being closed to the general public, either on a temporary or permanent basis. The assessment team also noted that FT might issue game management leases or licences with hunting groups or other organisations to provide access to popular hunting locations.

2.3 Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed to resolve disputes over tenure claims and use rights. The circumstances and status of any outstanding disputes will be explicitly considered in the certification evaluation. Disputes of substantial magnitude involving a

C



significant number of interests will normally disqualify an operation from being certified. 2.3.1 Conflicts over land tenure and use rights shall be resolved or discussed in a systematic and legal manner. Verifiers: • Records or other relevant documents that

detail past and current disputes over tenure claims and use rights are maintained and made available to SCS auditors;

• Agreements and / or mechanisms to resolve disputes over tenure claims and use rights are documented.

C The sighted ‘Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 2014’ provided details of what FT did when stakeholders did not agree with an outcome. This included a sighted ‘Complaints Policy 2014’ and ‘Dispute Resolution Process 2014’.

2.3.2 The magnitude and severity of unresolved tenure claims and use rights disputes are minor, relative to the scale of forest management operations.

C The observed ‘Forest Management System’ had a formal mechanism for dealing with any type of dispute. Policies and procedures were in place (refer 2.3.1). A sighted ‘Litigation Status Update 20/11/2014’ indicated that disputes across the business were minor relative to the scale of FT’s forest management operations.

2.3.3 In the case of any outstanding dispute relating to tenure claims or forest use rights which are of a substantial magnitude and involve a significant number of interests the main parties to the dispute accept that forest management operations may continue whilst processes to resolve the dispute are implemented.

C There was no evidence of any outstanding disputes relating to tenure claims or forest use rights that were of a substantial magnitude and involved a significant number of interests.

2.3.4 Notwithstanding an outstanding dispute relating to tenure claims or forest use rights which are of a substantial magnitude and involve a significant number of interests, there are exceptional reasons that justify forest management operations continuing whilst processes to resolve the dispute continue to be implemented. Exceptional reasons might include that in the view of the certification body there is no legal or legitimate basis for the dispute.

C Refer to Indicator 2.3.3.

Principle #3: Indigenous peoples' rights The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected. 3.1 Indigenous peoples shall control forest management on their lands and territories

C



unless they delegate control with free and informed consent to other agencies. 3.1.1 The FME seeks to determine if there are existing indigenous peoples with customary or traditional use rights to forest resources associated with the defined forest area that is the focus of the certification evaluation. Specific areas identified as tied to such rights shall be mapped.

C While the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth) provides a mechanism by which native title rights can be negotiated and recognised under Australian law, there are presently no native title right holders in Tasmania. Nevertheless, the sighted ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’ and ‘Aboriginal Heritage Policy 2014’ of FT recognised the Tasmanian indigenous people as traditional owners of the land, and the significance of heritage, including places, objects and stories, for maintaining continuous links with the land.

3.1.2 No forest management operations shall take place in areas identified under 3.1.1 above, without clear evidence of free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples claiming such land, territories or customary rights.

N/A Not applicable – refer to Indicator 3.1.1.

3.1.3 There has been consultation with a local/regional Aboriginal Land Council of the existing legal rights or traditional Indigenous uses of the forest, and the results of the consultation incorporated into management plans.

C FT has consulted with local/regional Aboriginal organizations. The results of the consultation were that traditional indigenous uses of the forest are incorporated into management plans, as evidenced by the sighted ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’, S. 4.6.2.7 and ‘Aboriginal Access to Traditional Materials Policy 2014’.

3.1.4 Forest management planning recognizes aboriginal customary/traditional rights to own, manage or use forest resources, and has incorporated such rights into management plans. Note 1 For consent to be informed requires that the peoples concerned were fully and accurately informed of the implications of any agreements and were consulted through appropriate procedures and through their representative institutions (Ref, ILO Convention 169, Article 6(1)). Note 2 For consent to be free requires that it was given

C Forest management planning has recognized aboriginal customary/traditional rights to use forest resources and has incorporated such rights into management plans as described in the sighted ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’.



by the Indigenous Peoples through their representative institutions and was freely expressed without coercion or duress. (Ref: ILO Convention 169 Article 7(1)). 3.1.5 Where rights and use issues involving indigenous peoples are in dispute, an appropriate process for addressing and resolving grievances is in place and being actively utilized by the FME (see Criterion 2.3 for processes to resolve disputes).

C There is no evidence of such disputes. If there are disputes, there is an appropriate process in place (refer to Indicator 2.3.1).

3.2 Forest management shall not threaten or diminish, either directly or indirectly, the resources or tenure rights of indigenous peoples.

C

3.2.1 Forest management activities within the management unit are planned and implemented in such a way as to maintain the resources and tenure rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

C There was no evidence that the forest management activities of FT were impacting on the resources and tenure rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

3.2.2 All potential and realized adverse impacts of forest management on indigenous communities’ resources or tenure rights are identified and documented, and actions taken to mitigate such impacts.

C The sighted ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’ and ‘Aboriginal Heritage Policy 2014’ of FT indicated that FT had procedures to identify all potential and realized adverse impacts of forest management on indigenous communities’ resources or tenure rights, and procedures to mitigate any such impacts.

3.2.3 There exist agreed upon mechanisms to ensure that the Indigenous People have the opportunity to participate on an informed basis in management planning and decision-making on forest areas associated with indigenous resources and tenure rights.

C FT is actively pursuing but has not yet completed development of a mechanism for assuring opportunities for Indigenous People to participate in management planning and decision-making. Nonetheless, such opportunities are available on an informal basis. Conformity to this Indicator will be enhanced when FT completes and executes an agreed upon mechanism for Indigenous People to participate in management planning and decision-making. Observation 2014.2: Conformity to this Indicator will be enhanced when FT completes and executes an agreed upon



mechanism for Indigenous People to participate in management planning and decision-making.

3.2.4 The FME solicits—through effective consultative mechanisms—the concerns and perspectives of potentially affected indigenous peoples; the results of such consultation are documented, including the actions taken to reasonably accommodate concerns and perspectives that have been received. Verifiers: Communications between the FME and indigenous representatives are documented.

C The documented ‘Aboriginal Heritage Policy 2014’ of FT provides a clear strategy of involving indigenous people in planning and decision-making in relation to the potential impacts of forest management operations on indigenous peoples’ heritage. Evidence was provided in FT’s offices of documentation of communications between FT and indigenous peoples’ representatives.

3.3 Sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples shall be clearly identified in cooperation with such peoples, and recognized and protected by forest managers.

C

3.3.1 The FME, with the participation of indigenous communities, shall define the sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance. Processes for identifying such sites are documented. Examples of sites may include: -ceremonial, burial, or village sites; -areas used for hunting, fishing, or trapping; -areas used for gathering of sustenance and culturally important materials.

C The Forest Practices Act 1985 provides that the legally binding Forest Practices Code shall prescribe the manner in which forest practices are to be conducted so as to provide reasonable protection to the environment. The ‘environment’ includes both Aboriginal and historic heritage values. The ‘Aboriginal Heritage Policy 2014’ of FT requires FT to identify, protect and manage places of Aboriginal cultural significance in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, Forest Practices Code, and the Australian ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013. The documented Standard Operating Procedure of FT requires FT planners during the coupe planning process to access a database of known aboriginal heritage sites managed by DIPWE.

3.3.2 Special sites are mapped and otherwise identified in management/operational plans, and protected during forest operations.

C Aboriginal heritage sites cannot be publicly identified. A procedure was explained to the audit team for mapping such sites for operational purposes while retaining the necessary confidentiality of site details.

3.3.3 Field workers are appropriately trained in the procedures employed for identifying and

NC Field workers (staff and personnel of contractors) must receive appropriate



protecting sites of special significance to indigenous peoples.

training in procedures for identifying and protecting sites of special significance to Indigenous Peoples. As of the time of the field audit, FT had not yet completed and made fully operational a training program for both employees and contract workers. That is, not all FT employees and contractors have received the necessary training. CAR 2014.3: FT must complete and make fully operational a training program for all forest workers on procedures for identifying and protecting sites of special significance to Indigenous People.

3.3.4 When special sites are discovered during operations, forest management operations cease immediately, management personnel are notified, and consultation with relevant indigenous groups or authorities is conducted for the long term protection of such sites. Operations shall resume only after approval has been given.

C The procedures for such an occurrence were covered under the legally binding Forest Practices Code. There is no evidence by way of prosecutions by the Forest Practices Authority (that administers the Forest Practices Code) that this indicator had been breached.

3.4 Indigenous peoples shall be compensated for the application of their traditional knowledge regarding the use of forest species or management systems in forest operations. This compensation shall be formally agreed upon with their free and informed consent before forest operations commence.

N/A There was no evidence of indigenous peoples’ knowledge being used by FT regarding the use of forest species or management systems in forest operations. This criterion was deemed not to be applicable.

3.4.1 If Indigenous People’s knowledge is used by the FME, the use is explicitly recognized and documented.

N/A

3.4.2 If commercial utility is created through application of traditional knowledge, the FME seeks to compensate, through appropriate mechanisms, those indigenous peoples with whom the traditional knowledge is associated.

N/A

3.4.3 Where indigenous intellectual property or forest products are used commercially, compensation for individuals and/or tribes is agreed upon in writing, with their free and informed consent, prior to commercialization.

N/A

Principle #4: Community relations and worker's rights Forest management operations shall maintain or enhance the long-term social and economic well-being of forest workers and local communities 4.1 The communities within, or adjacent to, the C



forest management area should be given opportunities for employment, training, and other services. 4.1.1 FME policies and practices shall ensure equal treatment of employees in terms of hiring, advancement, dismissal, remuneration and employment related social security.

C The documented ‘Recruitment & Selection Policy 2014’ of FT lays down policies for equal treatment of employees in terms of hiring. Interviews with staff indicate that FT treats employees equally with respect to advancement, dismissal, remuneration and employment related social security.

4.1.2 Qualified people in local communities are given preferential opportunities in employment and contracting; the forest management operation actively targets the local workforce. Examples may include: -employment and contractual opportunities offered locally before they are offered outside the region

C Interviews with staff indicate that FT has preferentially employed people in local communities. Interviews with contractors indicate that FT contractors are regionally based and in most cases have a long history of working with FT.

4.1.3 The FME contributes to or directly develop training programs designed to enhance the capabilities and qualifications of local workers.

C FT has a dedicated Training and Development Unit to provide for the development of skills in the organization. The sighted ‘Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 2014’ of FT provides a commitment to review staff training requirements, leadership development and succession planning. Interviews with regional staff provided evidence that this policy is being implemented.

4.1.4 The FME gives preference to local vendors of equipment and miscellaneous services, subject to cost considerations. Examples may include: -timber being offered to local processors before being sold out of the region; -utilization of local banks, insurance companies, etc.

C There is extensive local and regional processing of forest products from forests managed by FT. There is clear evidence that FT is utilizing the services of local businesses.

4.2 Forest management should meet or exceed all applicable laws and/or regulations covering health and safety of employees and their families.

C

4.2.1 The forest management operation demonstrates a priority towards worker safety; there is an actively implemented worker safety program, appropriate to the scale of operations that complies with national minimum requirements.

C The documented ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’ and ‘Work Health and Safety Policy 2014’ of FT state that the health and safety of employees and contractors is of the highest priority. Statistics sighted in FT’s offices and interviews with employees and contractors provided strong evidence that



this policy is being implemented. 4.2.2 Written guidelines and policies, appropriate to the scale of operations, exist for workplace health and safety.

C FT has a comprehensive program of worker safety. Appropriate written guidelines and policies were sighted in FT’s offices.

4.2.3 Workers shall be provided with safety equipment in good working order, appropriate to the tasks of workers and the equipment used, including personal protective equipment, and prohibited from working without the safety equipment that has been provided.

C Site visits and interviews with employees and contractors indicated that workers are provided with appropriate safety equipment and are prohibited from working without such equipment.

4.2.4 All equipment is periodically inspected and tested for safety performance.

C Interviews with employees and contractors indicated that equipment is periodically inspected and tested for safety performance.

4.2.5 The FME maintains up-to-date information on pertinent health and safety laws and regulations and appropriately disseminates this information to forest workers

C Interviews with employees, including the Health and Safety Officer, and with contractors indicated that information is up-to-date and is disseminated on at least a monthly basis.

4.2.6 The FME maintains up-to-date safety records; such records indicate at least average performance relative to industrial norms.

C The written minutes of Forest Management System meeting (held 16/6/14) show lost-time statistics that are within the norms of industry benchmarks.

4.2.7 No work likely to jeopardize health, safety or morals shall be carried out by anyone under the age of 18 (unless there is special provision for safety, training or traditional community circumstances).

C An interview with a contractor worker who was 17 years of age revealed that the worker is undertaking a three-year apprenticeship and under this program is not undertaking any work likely to jeopardize health, safety or morals.

4.2.8 All workers have had relevant training in safe working practice and where required or appropriate hold the necessary skills certificates.

C Interviews with employees and contractors indicated that workers have relevant training in safe working practices and hold appropriate certificates.

4.3 The rights of workers to organize and voluntarily negotiate with their employers shall be guaranteed as outlined in Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

C

4.3.1 The FME, by its actions and policies, respects the rights of workers to organize or join trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining.

C Conditions of employment of most employees are covered by an enterprise agreement. The agreement was created in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cwth), is renewed regularly in consultation with staff and unions, and is voted on by all staff covered under the agreement.

4.3.2 Issues and grievances raised by workers and/or their organizations are investigated fairly

C Interviews with employees, contractors and union organizers indicated that issues and



and objectively. grievances brought forward by workers and/or their organizations are investigated fairly and objectively.

4.3.3 There are documented procedures for conflict resolution.

C The documented ‘Complaints Policy 2014’ and ‘Dispute Resolution Process 2014’ provide established procedures for conflict resolution.

4.3.4 FME shall not use forced labor (ILO Conventions 29 and 105).

C There was no evidence that FT or its contractors used forced labor.

4.3.5 FME shall provide equal remuneration (pay and benefits) to workers for work of equal value (ILO Convention 100), regardless of gender.

C The ‘Forest Management Plan 2014’ of FT states that FT’s human resources management is based on the principles of fairness and equity. Interviews indicated that FT provides equal remuneration to workers for work of equal value, regardless of gender.

4.4 Management planning and operations shall incorporate the results of evaluations of social impact. Consultations shall be maintained with people and groups (both men and women) directly affected by management operations1.

C

4.4.1 The FME shall conduct a social impact evaluation related to forest management activities, appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations.

C FT has conducted a social impact evaluation that is documented in the sighted ‘Social Impact Evaluation of Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Activities 2014’. It is the audit team’s understanding that FT will periodically conduct such social impact evaluations, which is consistent with the large scale of this operation.

4.4.2 The FME shall document in writing the processes that it will use to interact with and consult stakeholders, local communities, and neighboring properties that could be affected during the planning and implementation of forest management activities.

C The documented ‘Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 2014’ provides details of the processes FT is using to interact with and consult stakeholders.

4.4.3 The FME maintains regular and ongoing consultation with all stakeholders and local communities affected by its operations in order to identify social impacts and the potential to avoid or reduce such impacts on an ongoing basis.

C FT illustrated regular and ongoing consultation with stakeholders by way of its ‘Consultation Manager’ web-based system. FT provides, via its website, free public access to Forest Practices Plans.

4.4.4 The FME shall demonstrate that the information derived from social impact evaluations and/or consultation processes with stakeholders has been considered and/or addressed in the planning and implementation

C Interviews with employees and other stakeholders indicate that FT has used information from stakeholders in the planning and implementation of forest management activities. Evidence was



of forest management activities. provided in relation to the viticulture industry, apiary industry, neighbours, local communities drawing potable water potentially impacted by forest operations, and the Asthma Foundation.

4.4.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: The FME engages in regular communications with neighbors and other stakeholders within the local communities; to the extent practicable, management policies and activities are sensitive to stakeholder concerns and expectations.

N/A FT’s estate does not meet the FSC definition of “small or low intensity managed forest.”

4.4.6 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: The FME shall maintain an up-to-date list of representatives of neighboring properties or communities that could be affected during and after the implementation of forest management activities.

N/A

4.5 Appropriate mechanisms shall be employed for resolving grievances and for providing fair compensation in the case of loss or damage affecting the legal or customary rights, property, resources, or livelihoods of local peoples. Measures shall be taken to avoid such loss or damage.

C

4.5.1 The FME endeavors, through actions and policies, to avoid adverse impacts to the property, resources and/or livelihoods of local peoples.

C The documented ‘Complaints Policy 2014’ and ‘Dispute Resolution Process 2014’ provide procedures for conflict resolution. Also, refer to 4.4.4 that lists stakeholders that FT has engaged with in order to minimize adverse impacts of forest activities.

4.5.2 Procedures shall be implemented for the fair and effective resolution of disputes and for the determination of compensation for loss or damage, when necessary. These procedures shall be agreed upon with the parties involved. At a minimum, these procedures shall comply with the following steps: a) Maintain records of all claims or disputes that

C The documented ‘Complaints Policy 2014’ and ‘Dispute Resolution Process 2014’ provides procedures for conflict resolution. A documented ‘Litigation Status Update 20/11/2014’ indicates that procedures are being implemented. The Board of FT reviews complaints from stakeholders every two months.



affect compliance to certification requirements; b) Make these records available to SCS or FSC upon request; c) Conduct an investigation on any claims or disputes; d) Take appropriate action with respect to any deficiency identified in the investigation that affects compliance to certification requirements; and e) Document the actions taken. For large FMUs (>10.000 ha) and group or multiple-FMU certificates, these procedures shall be documented.

4.5.3 Documented procedures are employed for resolving grievances and providing fair compensation where forest operations lead to loss or damage to property, resources, livelihoods and/or legal or customary use rights of local peoples.

C Refer to Indicators 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.

Principle #5: Benefits from the forest Forest management operations shall encourage the efficient use of the forest's multiple products and services to ensure economic viability and a wide range of environmental and social benefits. 5.1 Forest management should strive toward economic viability, while taking into account the full environmental, social, and operational costs of production, and ensuring the investments necessary to maintain the ecological productivity of the forest.

C

5.1.1 The forest operation has sufficient financial capital and human resources to implement the management plan, over the long run.

C At present, FT’s human resources (professional workforce including employees and contractors) as well as its financial resources (working capital) remains sufficient to manage the forest estate in conformance with the FSC certification standard. Provided that the Tasmania Government maintains its commitment to maintaining Forestry Tasmania as a viable state-owned enterprise, the audit team expects that conformity to this Indicator can be maintained. But further reductions in staff could jeopardize ongoing ability to demonstrate conformity.



Observation 2014.4: Further staff reductions could jeopardize the ability of FT to operate in conformance with the FSC forest stewardship standard.

5.1.2 Adequate investments of capital, machinery and human resources are made so as to maintain or restore the productive capacity, ecological integrity and socio-economic profile of the define forest area.

C The audit team concludes that current levels of working capital and human resources are compatible with the resources needed to maintain or restore the productive capacity and ecological integrity of the FT forest estate. Observation 2014.5: Further reductions in staff could jeopardize FT’s efforts to restore and/or maintain the ecological integrity of the FMU and to maintain the socio-economic profile of the forest management operation.

5.1.3 Commercial (income generating) activities are financially viable, given short and medium-term market conditions and costs.

C With the exception of some chipping operations (particularly in the south), commercial activities on the forest estate are profit generators. FT senior personnel fully recognize the financial challenges presented by the current chip market where costs associated with long haulage distances eliminate positive margins. FT is actively exploring, in collaboration with external parties, possible solutions. Observation 2014.6: In the absence of shorter haul distances, chipping operations do not contribute to the financial viability of overall forest management operations.

5.2 Forest management and marketing operations should encourage the optimal use and local processing of the forest's diversity of products.

C

5.2.1 Management and marketing policies, as well as field-level decisions, systematically assure that commercial forest products are being sold for their highest and best uses. Examples may include: -new products are explored and developed for common but less used species -access to new markets is explored and developed

C On log landings visited during the assessment, the audit team was impressed that use of multiple “log sorts”—a standard operating procedure—is effective at capturing highest and best uses of harvest products. Product merchandizing is clearly a key aspect of all operations visited during the audit. Key FT personnel clearly understand and systematically work to assure that financial



returns from commercial operations are optimized to the extent possible.

5.2.2 The FME strives to diversify the mix of commercial products recovered from the forest.

C A diverse array of product, from sawlogs to veneer logs to chip logs to power poles is regularly being generated on most harvest sites. The company is actively trying to expand supplying product into the emerging “hardlam” engineered wood manufacturing sector.

5.2.3 The FME makes a proportion of its production available to local enterprises, such as small-scale industries and processing operations, unless there is an over-riding reason which makes this impossible.

C FT has multiple customers for its harvested products, spanning a range of size classes from small, local specialty timber buyers to larger multi-national pulp purchasers. All sawlogs coming from the FT estate are sold to Tasmanian-based businesses. Firewood harvesting licenses are issued to small operators based around Tasmania.

5.3 Forest management should minimize waste associated with harvesting and on-site processing operations and avoid damage to other forest resources.

C

5.3.1 Harvesting operations are designed to avoid waste and residual stand damage. Examples may include: -bumper trees and directional felling techniques are used to minimize unintentional tree damage

C The audit team observed consistently excellent performance with regard to avoidance of waste and minimization of residual stand damage.

5.3.2 Yarding and log sorting operations minimize product wastage, de-grade and foregone revenue opportunities.

C Each harvesting operation visited during the audit revealed a consistent focus on maximizing value recovery through use of multiple log sorts and efforts to minimize “cull wood” (wastage).

5.3.3 Log landings are kept to a minimum practicable number and size and are located so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts.

C Log landings are incorporated into the road system as much as possible to avoid loss of productive forest area and facilitate transportation of harvested materials. Landings are reused whenever possible to minimize the loss of productive area. Size depends on the type of equipment used in processing and loading. In no cases were landings observed that were too large for operations.

5.3.4 Where on-site processing takes place, the footprint of the milling facility is kept to the

NA FT does not engage in on-site milling.



smallest practicable size; the processing facilities are located in the most environmentally benign locales as well as in locations where losses to productive forest area are minimized. Verifier: Records of an impact assessment with completed mitigation measures (where applicable) for placement of charcoal kilns or milling operations 5.3.5 While minimizing undue waste, the FME implements documented guidelines for the retention of downed woody debris and standing snags within harvest areas. Verifier: Written field guidelines for biomass retention (snags, tops, and downed woody debris).

C FT has developed and is implementing written guidelines for the retention of downed (“coarse”) woody debris and standing dead trees. See OBS 2014.7, CAR 2014.11, CAR 2014.12 and OBS 2014.13 for the audit team’s assessment of the efficacy of FT’s documented guidelines in assuring that adequate amounts of down woody debris and standing dead trees are being retained in harvest units.

5.4 Forest management should strive to strengthen and diversify the local economy, avoiding dependence on a single forest product.

C

5.4.1 The FME has information on the range of potential products and services that could be supplied from their FMU, including 'lesser known' timber species, Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), carbon and opportunities for forest recreation.

C FT managers maintain a very active focus on the range of potential commercial products found on the forest estate that can be merchandized. Markets for new/emerging products, such a “hardlam” are actively being pursued. Recreation, while primarily provided by state-owned lands not managed by FT, is still within the sphere of consideration. Activities within a commercial aspect that are managed for on the FT estate include apiary (beekeeping), hunting and eco-tourism. The forest carbon offset market is not presently under consideration as FT forest managers do not consider that market to be sufficiently developed in the Australian context

5.4.2 The FME has assessed the possibility of selling or marketing such products or services locally, either on their own account or through the involvement of local enterprises.

C FT managers demonstrate a clear orientation towards and commitment to pursuing commercial opportunities for the sale of a wide range of products and, to a



lesser extent, forest services. 5.4.3 Where market opportunities exist and where such use does not compromise the ecological health of the forest, the marketing of non-timber forest products is undertaken by the FME. Examples may include: -compatible uses such as recreation, ecotourism, hunting, fishing, specialty product harvesting, Christmas tree cutting, etc.

C Eco-tourism and forest-based recreation remains an active element of the FT management program. Non-timber forest products fall within the scope of the commercialization efforts of the company.

5.5 Forest management operations shall recognize, maintain, and, where appropriate, enhance the value of forest services and resources such as watersheds and fisheries.

C

5.5.1 The full range of forest services and resources within the FMU (including but not limited to watershed values, fisheries, landscape quality, specific contribution to local biodiversity and recreation) has been assessed and such services and resources are identified in the FME’s forest management plan (or equivalent documentation).

C Section 4.6 of the Forest Management Plan documents the assessment of the range of forest services and resources. With respect to watershed values and water resources, P. 57 of the Forest Practice Code requires FT managers to afford appropriate consideration of these forest services in the course of managing for commercial forest production.

5.5.2 The management plan (or equivalent documentation) specifies effective measures to ensure that these services and resources are not compromised by wood production.

C Conformity to this Indicator could be enhanced by improving the efficacy of measures for old growth management, landscape-scale management, course woody debris and standing dead tree retention. Observation 2014.7: Conformity to Indicator 5.5.2 would be enhanced if the management plan and appurtenant documents specified measures effectively ensuring that forest services and resources such as watersheds and fisheries are maintained and/or enhanced.

5.6 The rate of harvest of forest products shall not exceed levels which can be permanently sustained.

C

5.6.1 The expected level of harvesting is clearly justified relative to the established maximum sustained yield level of forest products.

C The March 2014 document, Sustainable high quality eucalypt sawlog supply from Tasmania’s Permanent Timber Production Zone Land, presents the results of a sustained yield assessment conducted by Forestry Tasmania, per Clause 98 of the



Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. Notably, the Summary of this assessment document states: “This review confirms Forestry Tasmania’s ability to supply at least 137,000 cubic metres per year of high quality eucalypt sawlogs from Permanent Timber Production Zone Land, for the next 90 years. In particular, this review confirms Forestry Tasmania’s ability to supply the required quantity of high quality eucalypt sawlogs, and the required quantity of eucalypt peeler billets, from eucalypt native forests over the period to 30 June 2027. However, these yield predictions are generated from biologically based forest estate modelling of productive capacity, and do not imply supply based on economic criteria.” FT’s current harvest levels do not exceed the 137,000 cubic metres per year target. The Three-Year Wood Production Plan Standard Operating Procedure is a well-tested and properly functioning process that is responsive to this Indicator.

5.6.2 All assumptions regarding regeneration, growth, abundance, quality and size distribution of the main commercial species are explicit and are in line with the best available data for the locality from relevant research and/or inventories, and are available to the certification body for review and verification.

C The audit team had full access to all aspects of FT’s allowable harvest planning processes. The audit team is satisfied that FT employs best practices in the determination of harvest levels that can be maintained on available land base.

5.6.3 The expected level of harvesting is clearly justified relative to the established maximum sustained yield level of forest products.

C Planned harvest levels on FT’s forest estate have been the object of intense scrutiny by not only the signatories to the 2012 Tasmanian Forest Agreement but also by many other parties and entities. Harvesting levels have been very clearly justified.

5.6.4 For forest operations entailing regular annual harvesting, the 10-year rolling average harvest level does not exceed the established maximum sustained yield level. Comparison of records of harvested volume by species (or species groups) with the AAC established for the species (or species groups).

C The maximum sustained harvest level applicable to FT has undergone frequent revisions as the forest estate underwent several iterations of reductions during the course of negotiations leading to the 2012 Tasmania Forest Agreement. As such, 10-year rolling averages of harvest levels are irrelevant in this circumstance where the



PTPZ land base has undergone radical changes over the past decade. That said, it is the audit team’s conclusion that current harvest levels are appropriate, from a sustained yield standpoint, for the production forest land base presently comprising the FT forest estate.

5.6.5 For smaller operations that do not harvest annually, the frequency and intensity of harvest entries is set such that inventory levels are allowed to recover—and increase, as appropriate—between entries.

NA FT conducts annual harvesting and does not qualify as a small operation.

5.6.6 When harvesting non-timber forest products, management strategies incorporate the best available monitoring and inventory data to ensure a sustainable rate of harvest.

C The Forest Activities Assessment, periodically undertaken by FT, is responsive to this Indicator. Harvesting of tree ferns is covered under the FPA and subject to the oversight of the Forest Practice Authority.

Principle #6: Environmental impact Forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated values, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes, and, by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and the integrity of the forest. 6.1 Assessment of environmental impacts shall be completed -- appropriate to the scale, intensity of forest management and the uniqueness of the affected resources – and adequately integrated into management systems. Assessments shall include landscape level considerations as well as the impacts of on-site processing facilities. Environmental impacts shall be assessed prior to commencement of site-disturbing operations.

C

6.1.1 Project (site)-level environmental impact assessments, scaled to the size and complexity of operations, are systematically completed prior to commencement of site disturbing activities and shall address, at a minimum, the potential impacts of management activities to any:

1. Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) species and rare ecological communities (including plant communities);

2. Other habitats and species of management concern;

3. High Conservation Values identified within the FMU;

4. Water resources and associated riparian habitats and hydrologic functions;

NC 1) While there was evidence that the pre-harvest coupe surveys undertaken by Forest Practices Officers (FPO) are identifying and protecting RTE plant communities within areas proposed for harvesting (e.g. Eucalyptus ovata communities), the audit team concludes that with regard to systematic pre-harvest surveys for RTE fauna, FT’s current efforts do not constitute conformity with this Indicator. In particular, there are no systems in place to routinely identify and protect habitat for the threatened landscape-scale fauna species, including Swift Parrot, Masked Owl, Grey Goshawk, Spotted-



5. Soil resources; and 6. Historical, archaeological, and cultural

sites. NOTE: Site-disturbing activities may include, but are not limited to, harvesting, invasive species control, prescribed fire, road construction/ maintenance, and those associated with on-site processing facilities.

tailed Quoll and Tasmanian Devil. 2) The occurrences of site-specific species

and their habitats are better known and mapped in FPPs.

3) The management approach has not adequately addressed the issue of mature forest retention in the local and broader landscape. This is primarily due to the inadequacy of HCV identification and mapping (see Principle #9), but also due to shortcomings in FT’s Landscape Context Planning System (LCPS).

4) The exclusion of logging within retained vegetation buffers in riparian zones along Class 1, 2 and 3 streams appears to be adequate to protect water resources and hydrologic functions; however, retained vegetation buffers visited during the audit were usually found to be absent from Class 4 streams. While the code of practice does not routinely require vegetation buffers along Class 4 streams, from the standpoint of protecting riparian RTE species as required by the FSC standard, FT’s practice of not employing vegetation buffers along Class 4 streams except where required by the Forest Practices Code is not considered by the audit team to be sufficient demonstration of conformity to this Indicator.

5) Soil resources are protected to a degree by the riparian zone buffers, and cable logging is routinely employed to reduce erosion risk on steep slopes.

6) An awareness of local historic/cultural sites was evident and these are identified and protected in FPPs.

CAR 2014.8: FT must modify and enhance coupe-level environmental planning, assessment and monitoring procedures so that RTE species, particularly wide-ranging landscape species, and other high conservation values are being consistently identified and appropriately protected.

6.1.2 In addition to project-level assessments, NC The cumulative effects of forest operations



the FME also completes landscape-level environmental impact assessments in which the cumulative effects of forest operations on items 1-6 of indicator 6.1.1 are considered. NOTE: Cumulative impacts should be assessed within and nearby the FMU at a scale or scales large enough to allow the FME to modify its activities to reduce and/or mitigate any long-term negative impacts identified during assessments.

on items 1-6 above (6.1.1) is not being adequately considered, particularly in the case of items 1 and 3 where initial impacts and presence of landscape-scale fauna species and HCV forest values are poorly understood. FT’s Landscape Context Planning System has the potential to assess the cumulative effects of forest operations on these items, once these forest values are fully recognized and understood, but the LCPS needs to operate across a broader range of scales (e.g., 5 km radius or larger) than is presently the case (i.e., currently limited to 1 km radius) in order to fully demonstrate compliance with this Indicator. CAR 2014.9: FT must modify or replace its current approach to landscape-scale planning in order to more effectively identify and consider (i.e., reduce and/or mitigate) cumulative effects of coupe-level forest operations.

6.1.3 To provide background for environmental impact assessments, the regional, sub-regional, and landscape environmental context of the defined forest area is established and documented (preferably in the management plan), consistent with the scale and intensity of operations.

C The environmental context of the defined forest area is established and documented in the Forest Practices Plan, although better information is required about landscape-scale fauna species habitats and HCV forest values. The LCPS should be used to assist this process by considering a broader range of spatial scales around coupes proposed for harvesting.

6.1.4 Planned management activities are modified to mitigate and/or reduce the negative impacts identified during environmental impact assessments. For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations:

C The Forest Practices Plan is the principal device for ensuring that negative environmental impacts are reduced or mitigated.

6.1.5 The FME demonstrates knowledge of the possible negative impacts of its management activities and seeks to minimize them. Assessments do not need to be documented unless legally required.

N/A Forestry Tasmania is not a SLIMF (small or low intensity managed forest).



6.2 Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). Conservation zones and protection areas shall be established, appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management and the uniqueness of the affected resources. Inappropriate hunting, fishing, trapping and collecting shall be controlled.

C

6.2.1 There is an up to date list of the rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species (including those species included on CITES Appendices 1 and 2, and any species listed as 'rare, threatened or endangered' at State or Commonwealth levels) that are present or are likely to be present within the FMU.

C The likelihood of occurrence of RTE species throughout the FMU is generally well known, but the specifics of which areas are most important for these species is much less well known.

6.2.2 Using the best information available and the results of field surveys, the FME shall identify the potential presence of RTE species and their habitats within the FMU (e.g., nesting and feeding areas).

NC There is no systematic procedure for identifying foraging/breeding habitat and nest trees for the Swift Parrot and Masked Owl. This is also likely to be the case for other wide-ranging RTE fauna species. CAR 2014.10: FT must develop and implement a systematic procedure, at the coupe level, for identifying nesting habitat for swift parrot and masked owls.

6.2.3 The FME shall establish, appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operation, conservation zones and/or other protection measures for RTE species and their habitats. These conservation zones and other protection measures shall be described in the management plan.

NC The lack of detailed, site-specific information about the presence of wide-ranging RTE fauna species and/or their critical habitat requirements provides little confidence that existing conservation zones and other protection measures are adequate. There are no systematic procedures in place to validate the effectiveness of those measures or zones for conserving RTE species. CAR 2014.11: Commensurate with the large scale and intensive nature of its forest management operations: a) FT must reassess, modify (e.g., the number, size, location and configuration) and then evaluate the effectiveness of conservation zones and/or other protection measures employed for maximizing protection of RTE species and their habitats, particularly swift parrot and



their habitats, as well as the contribution of these protection measures to broader biodiversity objectives. b) The management plan must be updated to accurately describe the modified protection measures and how these measures will assure the continuing presence of RTE species, such as swift parrot, in occupied areas of the FMU.

6.2.4 Conservation zones are selected to maximise their contribution to the conservation of biodiversity in relation to their size (for example through the creation of conservation corridors, protected wetland areas and consolidation of natural areas).

NC The conservation zones provided are likely to be useful, but validation of their effectiveness (in maximizing their contribution to the conservation of biodiversity) for relevant RTE species is required. Examples were observed of wildlife habitat conservation areas being co-located with areas where landscape aesthetics was the principal driver. Insufficient attention is given to the location and protection of nesting habitat for wide-ranging RTE species, for example, the Swift Parrot. CAR 2014.11: Commensurate with the large scale and intensive nature of its forest management operations: a) FT must reassess, modify (e.g., the number, size, location and configuration) and then evaluate the effectiveness of conservation zones and/or other protection measures employed for maximizing protection of RTE species and their habitats, particularly swift parrot and their habitats, as well as the contribution of these protection measures to broader biodiversity objectives. b) The management plan must be updated to accurately describe the modified protection measures and how these measures will assure the continuing presence of RTE species, such as swift parrot, in occupied areas of the FMU.

6.2.5 The size and location of conservation zones shall be sufficient overall to ensure the continuing presence of RTE species as listed, to protect existing examples of ecosystems in their natural state (see Criterion 6.4) and are not less than 10% of the area of the FMU under

NC While FT has allocated more than 10% of the FMU to riparian buffers and other conservation zones, exceeding that threshold in and of itself does not constitute conformity to this indicator. No monitoring is undertaken to



assessment. Note: conservation zones are not necessarily forested land. They may include wetlands and open space, and may have dual purposes (e.g. they may be located partly on slopes susceptible to erosion, or in order to protect water sources). However, in all cases, the overall selection must be justified to maximise the conservation of biodiversity across the FMU.

demonstrate that conservation zones are effective in protecting important habitat for wide-ranging RTE fauna species and, by extension, are maximizing the conservation of biodiversity across the FMU. CAR 2014.11: Commensurate with the large scale and intensive nature of its forest management operations: a) FT must reassess, modify (e.g., the number, size, location and configuration) and then evaluate the effectiveness of conservation zones and/or other protection measures employed for maximizing protection of RTE species and their habitats, particularly swift parrot and their habitats, as well as the contribution of these protection measures to broader biodiversity objectives. b) The management plan must be updated to accurately describe the modified protection measures and how these measures will assure the continuing presence of RTE species, such as swift parrot, in occupied areas of the FMU.

6.2.6 The FME shall not harvest species that are included in Appendix I of CITES (also applicable to SLIMF).

C There was no evidence that species included in Appendix 1 of CITES are harvested by the FME.

6.2.7 The FME can demonstrate that the levels of authorized hunting, fishing, trapping or collecting estimated to take place do not exceed replacement levels within the FMU.

C There was no evidence that levels of licensed harvesting of fauna and flora exceeded replacement levels within the FMU.

6.2.8 The FME shall control and minimize illegal, unauthorized and/or inappropriate activities, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, collecting or poaching (also applicable to SLIMF).

C There was no evidence that illegal harvesting of fauna and flora was occurring at significant levels.

6.2.9 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: Where information exists on rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species and their habitats, the FME designs and implements specific management activities (and/or restrictions) to protect or enhance the associated biodiversity.

N/A Forestry Tasmania is not a SLIMF

6.3 Ecological functions and values shall be C



maintained intact, enhanced, or restored, including: a) Forest regeneration and succession. b) Genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity. c) Natural cycles that affect the productivity of the forest ecosystem. 6.3.1 The forest manager shall have site-specific data or published analyses of local forest ecosystems that provide information on the FMU with regards to: • regeneration and succession • genetic, species and ecosystem diversity;

and, • natural cycles that affect productivity.

C Forestry Tasmania has supported comprehensive programs of research to understand patterns of species regeneration and succession following forestry operations. Ecological and silvicultural research in FT has increased the awareness of the role of natural cycles affecting productivity. Ecological surveys and research have informed understanding of species diversity and ecosystem diversity throughout the FMU. Genetic diversity is less well understood.

6.3.2 Forest management systems shall maintain, enhance or restore ecological functions and values of the FMU based on the data in 6.3.1. Management systems shall include: • Silvicultural and other management

practices which are appropriate for forest ecosystem function, structure, diversity and succession;

• Where appropriate, a program for the restoration of degraded sites; and,

• Natural regeneration, unless data shows that enrichment planting or artificial reforestation will enhance or restore genetic, species or ecosystem diversity.

NC Clearfell, burn and sow (CBS) is a common forest management practice employed by FT to harvest and regenerate wet eucalypt forest. It is also employed to harvest old growth when it occurs as wet eucalypt forest. However, this management system applied to old growth provides insufficient confidence that ecological functions and values (including habitat for wide-ranging RTE fauna species) in the FMU will be maintained, enhanced or restored. Furthermore, CBS is regularly conducted in conjunction with cable-logging which effectively precludes the retention of any mature live or standing dead, hollow-bearing trees and any trees within CAT 4 stream buffer zones within logged coupes. For these reasons, the Assessment Team cannot conclude that the CBS management system constitutes an adequate approach to the protection of old growth forest values. CAR 2014.12: FT must take actions to reduce the rate and extent to which it is harvesting old growth and mature forest structural components, including hollow trees. In harvest coupes located in or containing mapped old growth, FT must develop and utilize alternatives to its



current practice of clear fell, burn and sow. 6.3.3 The FME maintains, enhances, and/or restores forest composition (e.g., species), structure, and under-represented successional stages that would naturally occur on the types of sites found on the FMU.

NC Old-growth forest and mature forest components (e.g., hollow-bearing trees) are, in the judgment of the audit team, on a trajectory to be under-represented structural and successional stages due to harvesting practices throughout the FMU. FT needs to reduce the rate and extent to which it is harvesting old growth and mature forest structural components, including hollow-bearing trees. CAR 2014.12: FT must take actions to reduce the rate and extent to which it is eliminating old growth and mature forest structural components, including hollow trees. In harvest coupes located in or containing mapped old growth, FT must develop and utilize alternatives to its current practice of clear fell, burn and sow.

6.3.4 Harvesting is designed and laid out, over time and space, with consideration of the types, sizes and frequency of natural disturbances as well as connectivity of wildlife habitats.

C Harvest planning systems, including the development and certification of FPPs and the application of LCPS, have the capacity to maintain ecological functions and values, provided they are better informed by relevant ecological data.

6.3.5 Standing and fallen dead wood habitats should be retained, based on local best management practice or documented research.

C The audit team observed many instances where standing live and dead hollow-bearing trees were felled for firewood or to permit the use of cable-logging in steep coupes. FT should explore opportunities for enhanced retention of standing dead trees while maintaining safe working conditions. OBS 2014.13: Conformity to this Indicator can be enhanced by continuing to explore opportunities for enhanced retention of standing and fallen dead trees while maintaining safe working conditions.

6.3.6 The FME shall ensure that regeneration of native forests and establishment of plantations is effective and timely. Species composition and the density of the regeneration of native forests and the stocking rate of plantations shall be assessed and remedial action taken where necessary to ensure effective regeneration and establishment.

C FT routinely assesses the stocking rate and plant species composition of native plant species in harvested coupes, as well as the browsing pressure occurring on young seedlings, using small wire animal-exclusion plots and seedling transects. Similar practices are employed to ensure that planted coupes are appropriately stocked



with the desired tree species. 6.3.7 In the management of native forests, FME shall use natural or prescribed fire and other disturbance regimes to maintain and enhance forest ecosystem health where appropriate to the forest type or scale.

C FT employs post-log burning to regenerate native forest plant species and to remove logging slash following clearfelling and selective logging operations. Prescribed (lower intensity) burning is practiced at regular intervals in the drier forest types.

6.3.8 FME shall plan for and implement effective measures to reduce the extent and impact of unplanned wildfire.

C FT has a comprehensive Fire Management Plan to burn strategic areas to protect important human assets (e.g. small townships) from wildfire, to conduct regeneration burns in recently harvested coupes, and to conduct fuel-reduction burns at regular intervals within dry forest types. Final approval to undertake these burns on any particular day is dependent on weather conditions and on the volume of smoke that will be released by all landowners in each “smoke catchment”.

6.3.9 FME shall identify, assess and prioritize any potential damage agents (such as invasive species, weeds, insect and vertebrate pests, and diseases and pathogens) that may impact ecosystem health and vitality.

C FT has a program for assessing and prioritizing control of potentially damaging insects, diseases, pathogens, weeds and vertebrates. These efforts are focused primarily in eucalypt plantations and in recently-harvested CBS coupes. Eucalyptus leaf beetles are a problem in some plantations, while browsing of seedlings and young trees by Common Brushtail Possums and several species of macropods is regarded as a problem in many recently-harvested CBS coupes. Leaf beetles are usually controlled by natural or chemical means, whilst browsing mammals are controlled by shooting.

6.3.10 Invasive species, weed, pest, disease and pathogen control plans are implemented to ensure ecological functions are maintained including ecosystem regeneration and succession and species diversity.

C Post-harvest and post-planting programs are routinely monitored in priority areas to determine whether commercial tree stocking rates have been achieved, and whether potentially damaging agents are threatening future wood production expectations.

6.3.11 Management maintains, enhances and/or restores the plant and wildlife habitat of Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) to provide: a. habitat for aquatic species that breed in

surrounding uplands; b. habitat for predominantly terrestrial species

C The Assessment Team found that Class 4 streams are routinely treated as Mechanical Exclusion Zone areas, in which considerable damage occurs to native vegetation, including the loss of most standing trees. Unlogged filter strips,



that breed in adjacent aquatic habitats; c. habitat for species that use riparian areas for

feeding, cover, and travel; d. habitat for plant species associated with

riparian areas; and, e. stream shading and inputs of wood and leaf

litter into the adjacent aquatic ecosystem.

typically 10 to 20m in width, seem to be applied only rarely along these drainage lines. Management should maintain, enhance and/or restore the plant and wildlife habitat in Riparian Management Zones (RMZs). OBS 2014.14: Conformity to this indicator can be enhanced by strengthening protection/retention measures in Class 4 riparian management zones.

6.4 Representative samples of existing ecosystems within the landscape shall be protected in their natural state and recorded on maps, appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations and the uniqueness of the affected resources. (See also 6.2.8)

C

6.4.1 The FME documents the ecosystems that would naturally exist on the FMU, and assesses the adequacy of their representation and protection in the landscape (i.e., outside of the FMU; see Criterion 7.1). The assessment for medium and large forests includes some or all of the following: a) GAP analyses; b) collaboration with Commonwealth or state natural heritage programs and other public agencies; c) regional, landscape, and watershed planning efforts; d) collaboration with universities and/or local conservation groups. For an area that is not located on the FMU to qualify as a Representative Sample Area (RSA), it should be under permanent protection in its natural state. Verifiers:

Information on regional protected areas, such as national parks, is reviewed and analyzed in the management plan;

The FME documents and takes measures to prevent adverse effects to identified RSAs.

C Forestry Tasmania has relied on several different analyses to assess the level of representativeness of RSAs on their forest. Mainly, FT participates in the multi-tenure Tasmanian Comprehensive, Adequate, and Representative Reserve System, i.e. CAR reserves. The analysis for this reserve system was conducted by DPWIWE across different ownership types throughout Tasmania, and is designed to maintain a reserve system of a range of different vegetation types and age classes. For FT this resulted in the classification of 120,000 ha of “informal reserves”. These informal reserves are not specifically classified as RSAs, since this system was not designed with FSC in mind. However the process meets similar requirements of this indicator in its goal to assess the adequacy of reserves throughout the state. In addition, as part of FT’s HCV assessment, a landscape level analysis of forest types was completed based on a Regional Ecosystem Model (REM) approach. This analysis identified additional underrepresented areas that FT needs to identify and manage for protection during operational planning.



6.4.2 Management activities within RSAs are limited to low impact activities compatible with the protected RSA objectives, except under the following circumstances: a) harvesting activities only where they are

necessary to restore or create conditions to meet the objectives of the protected RSA, or to mitigate conditions that interfere with achieving the RSA objectives; or

b) road-building only where it is documented that it will contribute to minimizing the overall environmental impacts within the FMU and will not jeopardize the purpose for which the RSA was designated.

C Forest values on reserved lands are managed in a variety of ways (usually full protection) depending on whether they are classified as CAR reserves (i.e. part of the Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve system), informal reserves (i.e. wildlife habitat strips, skyline reserves, etc. which are also part of the CAR reserve system), and non-production areas that are not harvested or available for harvesting. In addition, forest activity assessments for other forest values are conducted by FT to cover the range of non-harvesting activities that might be proposed for use in PTPZ lands (e.g. recreational activities).

6.4.3 The RSA assessment (Indicator 6.4.a) is periodically reviewed and if necessary updated (at a minimum every 10 years) in order to determine if the need for RSAs has changed; the designation of RSAs (Indicator 6.4.b) is revised accordingly.

C The CAR reserve system is monitored annually by DPIPWE, which can result in new areas being added to the State’s reserve system. Field verification of HCV3 during operational planning will result in some additional areas being put into the CAR system.

6.4.4 Protected areas within the defined forest area are delineated on maps and protection policies are included in the management plan.

C Existing areas that have been identified for protection within the FMU are delineated on maps and these are noted in Forest Practices Plans that have been developed for use in adjacent areas proposed for logging.

6.4.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: Representative samples of ecosystems are identified, recorded on maps, and excluded from the harvesting area. If existing representative samples of ecosystems are already adequately protected on other private or public properties within the region then no additional samples need to be identified and protected.


6.5 Written guidelines shall be prepared and implemented to: control erosion; minimize forest damage during harvesting, road construction, and all other mechanical disturbances; and protect water resources.

C



6.5.1 The FME has written guidelines outlining conformance with the Indicators of this Criterion.

C Forestry Tasmania has prepared comprehensive standard operating procedures covering many aspects of its forest management activities. The primary source for this information is available within the Forest Practices Code which is well known and available to all forest workers.

6.5.2 Forest operations meet or exceed Best Management Practices (BMPs) that address components of the Criterion where the operation takes place.

C The standards for “best management practice” are contained within the Forest Practices Code which is well known and available to all forest workers. The Landscape Context Planning System has the capacity to ensure that FT meets or exceeds the duty of care requirements expected under the Code through the identification of areas of potential habitat connectivity and constraints affecting the spatial distribution of forest age classes.

6.5.3 Management activities including site preparation, harvest prescriptions, techniques, timing, and equipment are selected and used to protect soil and water resources and to avoid erosion, landslides, and significant soil disturbance. Logging and other activities that significantly increase the risk of landslides are excluded in areas where risk of landslides is high. The following actions are addressed: • Slash is concentrated only as much as

necessary to achieve the goals of site preparation and the reduction of fuels to moderate or low levels of fire hazard.

• Disturbance of topsoil is limited to the minimum necessary to achieve successful regeneration of species native to the site.

• Rutting and compaction is minimized. • Soil erosion is not accelerated. • Burning is only done when consistent with

natural disturbance regimes. • Natural ground cover disturbance is

minimized to the extent necessary to achieve regeneration objectives.

• Whole tree harvesting on any site over multiple rotations is only done when research indicates soil productivity will not be harmed.

C The standards for site preparation, harvest prescriptions, techniques, timing and equipment to protect soil and water resources are contained within the Forest Practices Code which is well known and available to all forest workers.



• Low impact equipment and technologies is used where appropriate.

6.5.4 The transportation system, including design and placement of permanent and temporary haul roads, skid trails, recreational trails, water crossings and landings, is designed, constructed, maintained, and/or reconstructed to reduce short and long-term environmental impacts, habitat fragmentation, soil and water disturbance and cumulative adverse effects, while allowing for customary uses and use rights. This includes: • access to all roads and trails (temporary and

permanent), including recreational trails, and off-road travel, is controlled, as possible, to minimize ecological impacts;

• road density is minimized; • erosion is minimized; • sediment discharge to streams is minimized; • there is free upstream and downstream

passage for aquatic organisms; • impacts of transportation systems on

wildlife habitat and migration corridors are minimized;

• area converted to roads, landings and skid trails is minimized;

• habitat fragmentation is minimized; • unneeded roads are closed and

rehabilitated.

C The standards for design, placement and construction of forest transportation systems are contained within the Forest Practices Code which is well known and available to all forest workers. The specific locations where transport systems are to be built are mapped and described in relevant Forest Practices Plans.

6.5.5 The FME implements provisions to protect water courses by specifying wetland, water source and streamside protection zones in which harvesting and other site disturbing activities are limited and/or prohibited.

C The standards for protection of water courses, including wetlands, water sources and streamside protection zones, are contained within the Forest Practices Code which is well known and available to all forest workers. The specific locations of these water courses, including the width of relevant buffers, are mapped and described in relevant Forest Practices Plans.

6.5.6 Where they exist, the FME shall manage forest operations to ensure that hydrological flows are in accordance with authorised regional catchment goals. Where regional catchment goals do not exist and if FME operates in or near hydrologically sensitive areas, the FME should follow the regional Catchment Management Authority guidelines to minimise adverse

C The Assessment Team was unaware of any additional regional Catchment Management Authority goals and guidelines for maintenance of hydrological flows that may exist in addition to those measures described above in Indicator 6.5.5.



environmental impacts of changes in hydrological flows. 6.5.7 Stream and wetland crossings are avoided when possible. Unavoidable crossings are located and constructed to minimize impacts on water quality, hydrology, and fragmentation of aquatic habitat. Crossings do not impede the movement of aquatic species. Temporary crossings are restored to original hydrological conditions when operations are finished.

C The standards for protection of streams and wetlands are contained within the Forest Practices Code which is well known and available to all forest workers. The specific locations of any unavoidable stream crossings are mapped and described in relevant Forest Practices Plans, including measures required to restore temporary crossings to original hydrological conditions at the completion of forest operations.

6.5.8 Recreation use on the FMU is managed to avoid negative impacts to soils, water, plants, wildlife and wildlife habitats.

C The Assessment Team is unaware of any notable instances of environmental impacts caused by inappropriate recreational activities.

6.5.9 Grazing by domesticated animals is controlled to protect in-stream habitats and water quality, the species composition and viability of the riparian vegetation, and the banks of the stream channel from erosion.

C The Assessment Team is unaware of any notable instances where adverse impacts to riparian zone soils, water quality, vegetation and fauna habitat were caused by inappropriate management of domestic grazing animals.

6.6 Management systems shall promote the development and adoption of environmentally friendly non-chemical methods of pest management and strive to avoid the use of chemical pesticides. World Health Organization Type 1A and 1B and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides; pesticides that are persistent, toxic or whose derivatives remain biologically active and accumulate in the food chain beyond their intended use; as well as any pesticides banned by international agreement, shall be prohibited. If chemicals are used, proper equipment and training shall be provided to minimize health and environmental risks.

C

6.6.1 All chemical pesticide use occurs within the context of an integrated pest management program; pesticides are only used when non-chemical management is a) not available; b) prohibitively expensive, taking into account overall environmental and social costs, risks and benefits; c) the only effective means for controlling invasive and exotic species; or d) results in less environmental damage than non-chemical alternatives (e.g., top soil disturbance, loss of soil litter and down wood debris). If

C Forestry Tasmania monitored 13,454 ha of eucalypt plantations for insect damage during 2013-2014 as part of their Integrated Pest Management program. A total of 1,543 ha was assessed to have above-threshold levels of damage, and leaf beetle control operations were conducted across 1,402 ha. FT has conducted research to investigate non-chemical alternatives to leaf beetle management and also into low



chemicals are used, the FME uses the least environmentally damaging formulation and application method practical. Verifiers:

Silvicultural prescriptions are selected and designed to minimize the dependence on chemical pesticides.

The FMU can demonstrate documented evidence of reduction or elimination of the use of chemical pesticides over time.

environmental impact biological insecticides. While the audit team recognizes the efforts undertaken by FT to date with respect to non-chemical methods, FT should continue to explore and implement alternatives to pesticide use, including selection of silvicultural prescriptions as well as the possibility of employing ecological solutions. OBS 2014.15: FT should continue to explore and implement alternatives to pesticide use, including selection of silvicultural prescriptions as well as employing ecological solutions.

6.6.2 A complete and up-to-date list of all chemical pesticides used on the FMU shall be maintained (including trade name, active ingredient, quantity of active ingredient used, date of use, location of use, reason for use) and made available to the SCS auditor(s).

C A complete list of chemicals used by FT has been provided and is displayed in Section 1.5 of this report.

6.6.3 No products on the FSC list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides are used (see FSC-POL-30-001 EN FSC Pesticides policy 2005 and associated documents) unless a formal derogation has been granted by the FSC.

C Derogations are being pursued by FT, but at the time of the evaluation they have not been presented to SCS for action and approval (nor is it timely to do so).

6.6.4 All pesticide use is guided by site-specific written prescriptions designed to avoid human and environmental hazard and to maximize efficacy of use.

C All chemical use, pesticide or herbicide, used on the FT estates is governed by FPP and Safety Data Sheet requirements which state prescriptions for safe use and to avoid environmental damage.

6.6.5 Chemicals and application methods are selected to minimize risk to non-target species and sites. When considering the choice between aerial and ground application, the FME evaluates the comparative risk to non-target species and sites, the comparative risk of worker exposure, and the overall amount and type of chemicals required.

C The FT FMP states: “Woody understorey species often compete strongly with young seedlings and trees for water, nutrients and light, which can result in low survival and slow early growth. These species can also significantly inhibit stand management and harvesting operations. Forestry Tasmania therefore aims to provide competition-free conditions for at least the first two years after planting. Aerially applied herbicides are the main method of controlling competition. Herbicide application is carefully planned and matched with the site conditions, so that the optimal timing and control can be



achieved. This is usually before planting, as application of herbicides after planting risk damage to the tree crop. Refer to the Managing pesticide use section of this plan for details on the procedures Forestry Tasmania uses to avoid harmful outcomes such as water pollution and spills.”

6.6.6 Field personnel applying pesticides are properly licensed (where applicable) and trained; appropriate equipment and gear to assure safe application is used by field personnel.

C The auditors visited contractors carrying out plantation waste thinning by stem injection. During these visits the auditor reviewed FPP documents and workers qualification records (Chemical Certificate Level 3 Agricultural Chemicals). Worker qualifications also form a part of the internal audits carried out by FT, but also external OH&S audits carried out regularly by a consultant.

6.7 Chemicals, containers, liquid and solid non-organic wastes including fuel and oil shall be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner at off-site locations.

C

6.7.1 Chemical, container, liquid and solid waste shall be disposed of in an environmentally sound and legal manner, whether from forest management or processing facilities.

C The Assessment Team observed instances where logging contractors had taken measures to store all liquid wastes (e.g. oils) in a central location prior to their removal and appropriate disposal off-site.

6.7.2 The forest manager shall manage forest operations to prevent or constrain water pollution and soil contamination, with the objective that: • chemicals from planned applications are not

transported into waterways; and • disposal of waste fuels, lubricants and

chemicals is carried out in the prescribed manner.

C The control and prevention of water pollution and soil contamination during forest operations is regulated through Forest Practices Plans and by regular oversight from supervising Forest Practices Officers who regularly visit each logging coupe.

6.7.3 There are on-site facilities for secure collection of waste, including oil and fuel.

C Appropriate waste storage facilities for use by contractors were observed on-site in logging coupes.

6.8 Use of biological control agents shall be documented, minimized, monitored and strictly controlled in accordance with national laws and internationally accepted scientific protocols. Use of genetically modified organisms shall be prohibited.

C

6.8.1 There shall be no use (defined as commercial use as well as research) of

C The Forestry Tasmania FMP clearly states Forestry Tasmania’s tree improvement and



genetically modified organisms within the defined forest area.

establishment program does not use genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Forestry Tasmania has no intention to use GMOs. The use of GMOs is prohibited under AFS and FSC certification systems.

6.8.2 All use of biological control agents takes place within the context of an integrated pest management program that will document, minimize, monitor, and strictly control their application.

C The audit team is of the understanding the FT presently is not utilizing biological control agents.

6.8.3 Use of biological control agents takes place only where demonstrably necessary and only under strict protocols in compliance with applicable laws and peer reviewed scientific protocols.

C The audit team is of the understanding the FT presently is not utilizing biological control agents.

6.9 The use of exotic species shall be carefully controlled and actively monitored to avoid adverse ecological impacts.

C

6.9.1 Exotic species (tree species as well as other flora and fauna) are introduced into the FMU only after active investigation demonstrates that they are not invasive and do not have other adverse ecological impacts at the local level.

C The Assessment Team was unaware of any notable instances of exotic species being introduced into the FMU, other than the widespread use of Eucalyptus nitens trees in eucalypt plantations and the widespread use of Pinus radiata in pine plantations. E.nitens is endemic to NSW and Victoria. The assessment Team was advised by FT that E. nitens was not an invasive species of adjacent forest areas. Exotic species introduced into the estates are limited to plantation trees (Pinus radiata). Pinus radiata (which can be invasive and cause serious weed problems) was introduced from California in the mid-19th century. Research to develop a sterile line of radiata pine to reduce its invasiveness has not yet succeeded.

6.9.2 The FME shall introduce exotic species ONLY in accordance to national and local laws and regulations, as well as any legally mandated testing and control measures.

C The introduction of exotic species for plantation forestry is strictly governed by federal and state laws. The introduction of Pinus radiata has followed federal and state legislation with respect to quarantine issues.

6.9.3 Planting and replanting occur only where the risks of wilding tree spread can be safely managed from an ecological perspective.

C Eucalyptus nitens trees are planted extensively within eucalypt plantations managed by FT. E.nitens is endemic to NSW and Victoria. The Assessment Team was advised by FT that E. nitens has a low



propensity to establish wildings in adjacent forest areas. The FPA has developed a risk-management procedure to control and report instances of gene flow from eucalypt plantations into native forests. Wildlings of radiata pine outside plantation areas are controlled strategically and in collaboration with relevant authorities.

6.9.4 Where exotic species are planted, measures shall occur to prevent spontaneous regeneration outside plantation areas, unusual mortality, disease, insect outbreaks or other adverse environmental impacts.

C Wildlings of radiata pine outside plantation areas are controlled strategically and in collaboration with relevant authorities.

6.10 Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses shall not occur, except in circumstances where conversion: a) entails a very limited portion of the forest management unit; and b) does not occur on high conservation value forest areas; and c) will enable clear, substantial, additional, secure, long term conservation benefits across the forest management unit.

C

6.10.1 The FME shall not convert forests or threatened non-forested habitats to plantations or other non-forest land uses, except when the conversion complies with indicators 6.10.2 to 6.10.5.

C FT adopted a policy of not converting natural forests to plantations on FT-managed lands in 2006. After an initial time lag, this policy is now fully implemented.

6.10.2 If there is conversion, this shall not exceed 5% of the FMU during any given period of 5 years and this conversion shall comply with relevant state or federal legislation, and the enterprise has all necessary approvals for the conversion, in line with the applicable Commonwealth and state/ territory requirements.

C The Assessment Team was advised that there are no plans to convert additional areas of native forest to plantations.

6.10.3 Plantations or conversion to non-forested land uses shall not occur in High Conservation Value Forests or Areas.


6.10.4 The FME shall demonstrate the long-term conservation benefits of converting portions of the FMU to plantations or non-forest land. Examples: • The installation of a charcoal kiln allows for

the use of small woody residues, which can be proven to improve the conditions for the regeneration of some commercial species.




• The construction of a look-out tower to detect illegal logging or forest fires.

6.10.5 The FME shall not conduct activities that contribute to the destruction or substantial alteration of natural forest, or other natural ecosystem types, in areas outside of the FMU under evaluation.

C The audit team detected no evidence of FT engaging in activities in conflict with this indicator outside of its FMU. The Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014 provides for the potential for Forestry Tasmania to harvest wood from up to 400,000 ha of land which is currently designated as Future Potential Production Forest (FPPF) These lands could conceivably be exchanged for PTPZ lands and become available for harvesting. However, the Act precludes such action by FT until at least April 2020.

Principle #7: Management plan A management plan -- appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operations – shall be written, implemented, and kept up to date. The long term objectives of management, and the means of achieving them, shall be clearly stated. 7.1 The management plan and supporting documents shall provide: a) Management objectives. b) Description of the forest resources to be

managed, environmental limitations, land use and ownership status, socio-economic conditions, and a profile of adjacent lands.

c) Description of silvicultural and/or other management system, based on the ecology of the forest in question and information gathered through resource inventories.

d) Rationale for rate of annual harvest and species selection.

e) Provisions for monitoring of forest growth and dynamics.

f) Environmental safeguards based on environmental assessments.

g) Plans for the identification and protection of rare, threatened and endangered species.

h) Maps describing the forest resource base including protected areas, planned management activities and land ownership.

i) Description and justification of harvesting techniques and equipment to be used.

C

7.1.1 Appropriate to the scale, intensity, and complexity of operations, there shall be a

C The auditors reviewed the Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan dated



written management plan for the defined forest area that addresses the subjects and plan components enumerated in this criterion, above, as well as provisions for protection against forest fires, forest pests and diseases, illegal settlement and harvesting, hunting and fishing policies, safeguarding archaeological sites, and others.

November 2014 which describes the company’s approach to the issues (a) to (i) above. It also covers subjects such as providing access to the forest, and stakeholder engagement, and fire management. The management plan and appurtenant documents are collectively appropriate for the scale and intensity of operations.

7.1.2 The management plan contains both long term goals and objectives as well as short and near term tactical direction.

C The Forest Management Plan shows that FT takes a long-term view of forest management planning; these are incorporated into shorter term goals.

7.1.3 There are clear and accessible maps describing the forest resource base including protected areas, planned management activities and land ownership, at appropriate scales for their respective purposes.

C FT manages a significant GIS database that allows staff to access clear maps that describe the forest resources at a scale that is appropriate for implementing the FMP, including protected areas and other elements cited in this indicator. The use of the GIS database is considered appropriate for management activities; these were reviewed during many site visits.

7.1.4 There are sufficient resources invested in plan development so as to produce a functional and effective management plan.

C The Forest Management Plan has clearly had contributions from multiple parts of the FT business in its compilation, and although a new document, is an effective summary of the operational and management frameworks FT uses in its estate management.

7.1.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: A written management plan exists and is implemented. The management plan includes at least the following: a) The objectives of management; b) A description of the forest; c) How the objectives will be met, harvesting

methods and silviculture (clear cuts, selective cuts, thinnings) to ensure sustainability;

d) Sustainable harvest limits (which must be consistent with FSC criteria 5.6);

e) Plans for monitoring forest growth; f) Environmental/ social impacts of the plan;




g) Conservation of rare species and any high conservation values;

h) Maps of the forest, showing protected areas, planned management and land ownership;

i) Pest and weed control planned; j) Duration of the plan. 7.2 The management plan shall be periodically revised to incorporate the results of monitoring or new scientific and technical information, as well as to respond to changing environmental, social and economic circumstances.

C

7.2.1 The management plan is revised and updated at regular intervals, the frequency of which is appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations.

C The introduction [in November 2014] of the Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan [which replaces the 2008 Sustainability Charter] states that it is intended to review this plan on a five-yearly cycle, or earlier if required. The next major review is currently scheduled for 2019.

7.2.2 The FME maintains conversancy in emerging scientific and technical information pertinent to the management of the defined forest area.

C FT maintain an active research and development program, mentioned in the FMP, but also further covered in the Stewardship Report 2013-2014 and covering topics such as genetics, fertiliser management, mammal browsing and environmental protection. Interviews with scientific staff were carried out during the evaluation. A site visit to the Warra carbon flux tower, located within the Warra Long-term Ecological Research site and used to measure carbon, was also visited by the audit team. At this site, the audit team also visited silvicultural system field trials to discuss FT’s research into alternatives to clearfelling.

7.2.3 Over time, the management plan is kept current and relevant; as such, the plan is able to provide ongoing guidance to the management of the defined forest area.

C Updates to the FMP through review and other significant changes that impact on the business (social, financial, environmental) are planned to maintain the currency of the FMP which will be reviewed every 5 years or earlier if required

7.2.4 The management plan and supporting documentation incorporates the results of monitoring by the enterprise up to the date of its last revision.

C The Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan sets out monitoring requirements. Monitoring requirements and results of monitoring are also included in the Stewardship Report 2013-2014

7.2.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, N/A Forestry Tasmania is not a SLIMF



only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: The management plan is revised and updated at regular intervals, the frequency of which is appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations. 7.3 Forest workers shall receive adequate training and supervision to ensure proper implementation of the management plan.

C

7.3.1 Appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, there is a documented protocol by which forest workers (including subcontractors) are duly trained as to their role in implementing the management plan.

C Training includes workplace health and safety training on an as needs basis (e.g. to provide updates on amendments to legislation). Verbal training on cultural heritage management is also provided. FT has been pro-active at ensuring their contractors understand what to do if a cultural, historic and archaeological site is accidently discovered. All contractors must have the correct training certificates (e.g. dozer ticket or Chemical handling certificate) for the type of work they are being employed for. Training certificates are reviewed during FT audits but were also verified by the auditor during site visits.

7.3.2 There are accurate and up-to-date records showing training and education records of all employees.

C Training learning and development is considered a primary function of the HR dept. Staff training records are maintained by the FT HR department. The auditor interviewed the HR Manager who confirmed training records are maintained. Training records were reviewed during field visits to silvicultural and harvesting operations.

7.3.3 There is a demonstrable track record of compliance with and implementation of the management plan.

C While the Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan is a new document (released November 2014), there was significant evidence of the implementation and compliance to the plan seen by the auditors throughout the evaluation.

7.3.4 Forest workers are supervised by qualified managers who provide guidance in the implementation of the management plan.

C The auditor team verified throughout the evaluation that all contract operations are designated an FT Forest Officer who undertakes regular supervision of contractor activities. The Forest Officer is



responsible for monitoring compliance to all FPP requirements. Regular field visits to contractor operational sites are made by FT Forest Officers.

7.3.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply: Appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, forest workers are duly trained, according to a documented protocol, as to their role in implementing the management plan.


7.4 While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly available a summary of the primary elements of the management plan, including those listed in Criterion 7.1.

C

7.4.1 Interested stakeholders are readily able to obtain a public summary of the management plan, which provides information on the primary elements of the plan, including those enumerated in criterion 7.1.

C The Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan is available to stakeholders on the FT internet website, (www.forestrytas.com.au). A hard copy of the management plan is available on a per case basis for stakeholders that cannot access the internet.

7.4.2 The summary includes a specific section on the presence of High Conservation Values within the FMU, and the measures that are being taken to maintain or enhance such values within the FMU (see criterion 9.3).

C Forestry Tasmania has developed a separate document for HCV matters. This is titled the High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan dated November 2014 which is also available from the FT website.

7.4.3 The public summary is appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations.

C The publically available Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan is generally appropriate for the scale and intensity of FT’s operations.

7.4.4 The public summary is updated periodically, at a frequency appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations.

C The FMP has only been released for a short period of time (November 2014) and been made available on the FT website. It is intended that the forest management plan will be updated every 5 years or earlier, if required. As noted above, the new FMP replaces the 2008 Sustainability Charter.

7.4.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply: Interested stakeholders are readily able to obtain a public summary of the management plan.


Principle #8: Monitoring and assessment



Monitoring shall be conducted -- appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management -- to assess the condition of the forest, yields of forest products, chain of custody, management activities and their social and environmental impacts. 8.1 The frequency and intensity of monitoring should be determined by the scale and intensity of forest management operations as well as the relative complexity and fragility of the affected environment. Monitoring procedures should be consistent and replicable over time to allow comparison of results and assessment of change.

C

8.1.1 Appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, there are written protocols for periodic monitoring of forest conditions, management activities, plan compliance and chain-of-custody.

C There is regular monitoring of forest conditions and management activities, The protocols for these monitoring regimes are contained within the FMP or associated documents.

8.1.2 Forest managers have a demonstrated track record of implementing monitoring protocols which are consistent and replicable over time.

C Forestry Tasmania, as forest managers have implemented monitoring protocols. The auditors interviewed staff in charge of various monitoring programs, including regeneration monitoring.

8.1.3 The FME periodically reviews and evaluates monitoring and feedback mechanisms, including the adequacy of monitoring activities, and incorporates results of such reviews into monitoring protocols.

C Monitoring results are in active use at all levels throughout the company, especially by FT planning systems and also for operational management. Social, environmental and financial objectives are set out in the Stewardship Report 2013-2014

8.1.4 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply: Appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, periodic monitoring of forest conditions, management activities, plan compliance and chain-of-custody is conducted, and done so according to written protocols.


8.2 Forest management should include the research and data collection needed to monitor, at a minimum, the following indicators: a) Yield of all forest products harvested. b) Growth rates, regeneration and condition

of the forest. c) Composition and observed changes in the

flora and fauna. d) Environmental and social impacts of

harvesting and other operation. e) Costs, productivity, and efficiency of forest

C



management. 8.2.1 Appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, forest managers periodically gather data on the indicators enumerated in this criterion, above.

C There is regular monitoring of elements (a) through (e) of this Criterion. The protocols for these monitoring regimes are contained with the appropriate management plan sections.

8.2.2 The data collected during pre- and post- harvest inventory and general inventory is sufficient to provide an accurate estimate of species composition, stocking, growth rates, regeneration and presence of commercially significant pests or diseases for each forest type in the production forest.

C Data collected by FT staff pre and post-harvest, plus general inventory information is used to constantly improve knowledge regarding tree species, stocking, growth rates, regeneration and pest control. The auditors visited several stocking and growth plots during the evaluation.

8.2.3 The enterprise has a documented programme for collecting data sufficient to demonstrate the maintenance (or otherwise) of any High Conservation Values (see Criterion 9.1.1, 9.1.2) within the FMU, and this plan is made publicly available as part of the public submission of the management plan.

NC FT maintains an active research and development program which is described in the FMP. Additionally, FT has developed a High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan dated November 2014 which is also available from the internet website. However, the HCV effectiveness monitoring system has not yet been adequately elaborated. See CAR 2014.21.

8.2.4 The monitoring programme is sufficient to identify unusual mortality, disease, insect outbreaks or adverse ecological impacts related to the planting of exotic species within the FMU.

C FT monitoring procedures are effective at detecting and tracking mortality, disease and pest outbreaks with respect to use of non-native species (which is limited to the plantation portion of the estate).

8.2.5 Forest managers regularly monitor the presence, change in population or conditions of: a) Rare, threatened and endangered species; b) Location, presence and abundance of

invasive species; c) Condition of protected areas, set-asides and

buffer zones; d) Special sites of cultural or archeological

significance.

NC

At the landscape level, lead responsibility for monitoring the presence and condition of RTE species in Tasmania falls on the Forest Practice Authority. However, FT’s R&D branch does undertake some activities that constitute effectiveness monitoring. As well, Forestry Tasmania works with the Tasmanian Department of Environment (DPIPWE) and the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) to co-ordinate conservation and recovery efforts across land tenures for Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) species, including the Swift Parrot and Wedge-tailed Eagle. Forest Practices Plans identify the known occurrences of all RTEs and other HCV attributes in or near the coupes to be harvested and specify the agreed buffers and other exclusions from disturbance that



may be required to conserve these species. However, there are no routine pre-harvest surveys for wide-ranging RTE species, such as Swift Parrot, Masked Owl, Grey Goshawk, Tasmanian Devil and Spotted-tailed Quoll, so the important habitat requirements and presence of these species could be overlooked/undetected. Accordingly, we conclude that FT’s monitoring activities are not adequate with respect to FSC requirements regarding RTE species. Any invasive species are monitored by forest officers and any changes noted during the forest health surveillance programme. Conditions of protected areas and reserves are regularly monitored by FT forest officers. Sites of cultural or archaeological significance are again identified from database searches, and clearly marked on planning and operational maps; these are again monitored by FT forest officers. CAR 2014.8: FT must modify and enhance coupe-level environmental planning, assessment and monitoring procedures so that RTE species, particularly wide-ranging landscape species, and other high conservation values are being consistently identified and appropriately protected.

8.2.6 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: Appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, forest managers periodically gather information on the indicators enumerated in this criterion, above.


8.2.7 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations:




Information necessary to judge progress towards management objectives is collected and recorded. In all cases this will include: Amount of products harvested, by species; Effects of operations as identified under

Criteria 6.1; Changes in features identified under Criteria

6.2; Annual monitoring of high conservation

values identified under Criteria 9.1; Invasive exotic species. 8.3 Documentation shall be provided by the forest manager to enable monitoring and certifying organizations to trace each forest product from its origin, a process known as the "chain of custody."

C

8.3.1 The FME shall have written procedures for the tracking of certified products, also known as “Chain-of-Custody” (COC). At a minimum, these procedures shall include: • The measures to control and track data

related to volume and origin of harvested forest products (e.g., weights, inventories, and other measurements) in the forest, during transport, in logging decks and landings and processing centres controlled by the FME;

• A description of the FSC product claim (e.g., FSC-Pure) and the FME’s certificate code (e.g., SCS-FM/COC-XXXXXX) on invoices and other documentation related to the sale of certified products; and

• A description of the measures used to segregate certified forest products from non-certified ones through marking, labels, separate storage, and invoices or other documentation that accompanies the product until the point of sale, or the “forest gate.”

NC

FT provided a document titled Chain of Custody Procedures, dated July 2014. This document provides insufficient evidence to adequately assess FT's ability to track products from harvest to the forest gate. CAR 2014.16: FT must further elaborate its documented CoC control system so as to demonstrably conform to Criterion 8.3. Note: subsequent to the field audit, FT provided the audit team with evidence that warrants closure of this CAR. Closure is recorded in the main body of this report.

8.3.2 The FME shall consistently implement the COC procedures defined in Indicator 8.3.1.

NC At the time of the evaluation, insufficient evidence was made available demonstrating conformance to this Indicator. CAR 2014.16: FT must further elaborate its documented CoC control system so as to demonstrably conform to Criterion 8.3.



Note: subsequent to the field audit, FT provided the audit team with evidence that warrants closure of this CAR. Closure is recorded in the main body of this report.

8.3.3 If the FME wants to use the logo and/or other trademarks of FSC or SCS on its products or in publications, including websites, it shall ask for documented approval from SCS prior to use.

N/A At the time of this evaluation there have been no requests for logo or trademark use, the Chain of Custody Procedures do not include any procedures for seeking permission from SCS for application of the logo or trademarks. FT is not yet eligible to use FSC or SCS logos and trademarks.

8.4 The results of monitoring shall be incorporated into the implementation and revision of the management plan.

C

8.4.1 Forest managers and planners demonstrate a commitment to adaptive management where information gathered during systematic monitoring is incorporated into revisions to the management plan as well as revisions to standard operating procedures, (see Criterion 7.2).

C Forest managers and staff were interviewed and the audit team is satisfied with FT’s collective commitment to adaptive management; however, at the time of the evaluation there had been no revisions (apart from an initial draft version) of the FMP [although this document itself is a revision of the 2008 Sustainability Charter].

8.4.2 The forest managers monitor and document the degree to which the objectives in the management plan are being fulfilled, as well as significant deviations from the plan.

C Objectives are monitored through the use of the "Yellow Book" Sustainable Management Objectives which are regularly reviewed. The FPA (through FPOs and its own independent assessments) monitors forest practices against the requirements of the Forest Practices Code. This provides a rigorous compliance framework.

8.4.3 Where monitoring indicates that management objectives and guidelines are not being met or if changing conditions indicate that a change in management strategy is necessary, the management plan, operations plans, and /or other plan implementation measures are revised to ensure the objectives and guidelines will be met.

C The Forest Management Plan commits FT to update management plans and strategies through the review process. At the time of the evaluation there had been no requirement to revise management objectives and guidelines. FT has the capability to take action on any environmental issue arising from a monitoring report.

8.4.4 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply: Forest managers and planners demonstrate a commitment to adaptive management where information gathered during systematic




monitoring is incorporated into revisions to the management plan as well as revisions to standard operating procedures, see Criterion 7.2. 8.5 While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly available a summary of the results of monitoring indicators, including those listed in Criterion 8.2.

C

8.5.1 Interested stakeholders are readily able to obtain a public summary of the results of periodic monitoring that addresses the indicators listed in Criterion 8.2.

C The stewardship report, released annually by FT, provides a summary of the results of periodic monitoring of the subject areas listed in Criterion 8.2.

8.5.2 Forest managers shall endeavor to the keep all monitoring summaries up-to-date.

C The monitoring carried out by FT staff is regularly updated and, where applicable, will be included in the review and update of the FMP.

8.5.3 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) of this criterion apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: Upon request, the FME shall make available the results of monitoring (see 8.2.4) pertinent to stakeholders who could be affected directly or indirectly by forest management activities (e.g., (neighboring properties, affected communities).


8.5.4 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) of this criterion apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: The FME shall update all public summaries at least one time during the period of validity of the forest management certificate (5 years).


Principle #9: Maintenance of high conservation value forests Management activities in high conservation value forests shall maintain or enhance the attributes which define such forests. Decisions regarding high conservation value forests shall always be considered in the context of a precautionary approach. 9.1 Assessment to determine the presence of the attributes consistent with High Conservation Value Forests will be completed, appropriate to scale and intensity of forest management.

C

9.1.1 The FME shall conduct an assessment to identify

NC Forestry Tasmania prepared a document in November 2014 entitled “High



2High Conservation Values (HCVs) Evaluation Framework: (http://www.fscaustralia.org/sites/default/files/HCV%20draft%202%201.pdf)

the presence on the FMU of High Conservation Values (HCV) attributes HCV1 – HCV6 as defined in the Australian HCV Framework, Draft 2.1.2. This evaluation should include: • Consultation of conservation databases and

resources as listed in the Australian HCV Evaluation Framework for CW, including the IBRA (Interim Bio-Regionalisation for Australia);

• A thorough data audit and gap analysis undertaken using the FSC Australia HCV database;

• Consultation of the national HCVF toolkit: until the national toolkit is finalized, the FME shall use the Australian HCV Evaluation Framework for CW; Consideration of forest inventory data and observations from field workers, contractors or consultants of the FME;

• Interviews with biologist and scientific experts, local communities, and other stakeholders;

• Identification and documentation of possible threats to HCVs.

Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan”. This document summarizes the occurrences of forest areas within the FMU which contain a) “globally, nationally or regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity values” (HCV 1); b) “regionally significant large landscape level forests where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution or abundance” (HCV 2); c) “rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems” (HCV 3); d) “areas which provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)” (HCV 4); e) “areas which meet basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)” (HCV 5); and, f) “areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity” (HCV 6). However, there is considerable uncertainty, and much stakeholder concern, about the methods used and the results presented in this report. One point of contention is whether FT has correctly interpreted the intent of HCV 1. The document, Common Guidance for the Identification of High Conservation Values, specifies that “Even a single species can be considered important enough to be an HCV 1 on its own; if the species is for example, listed in the IUCN Red List or on the National Protected Species list and is found in a population large enough to qualify as a concentration or significant in the country in question .” Many stakeholders expressed opinions, and the Assessment Team concurs, that FT’s HCVF approach resulted in a deficiency of designated areas tied to single species, as distinct from areas associated with “concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare threatened or endangered (RTE) species



that are significant at global, regional or national levels”. The nationally endangered Swift Parrot, a migratory species which relies on old hollow-bearing trees in Tasmania for breeding, is an example of a species that, in the judgement of the audit team, is inadequately represented in FT’s HCVF designations. There are additional aspects of FT’s HCV approach, particularly definitions and interpretations used to document other HCV forest values, for which numerous stakeholders have expressed strong opinions to the audit team that FT is not in conformance with the Australian HCVF evaluation framework. At bottom line, the Assessment Team considers that there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that FT has designed and undertaken a HCV assessment that has effectively identified areas on its forest estate that possess one or more of the six categories of high conservation value. FT must engage in additional expert consultation, as well as with the FSC-Australia Policy and Standards Committee, as to whether or not its approach to identification and management of areas possessing high conservation values is consistent with the FSC-Australia Evaluation Framework and current best practice. CAR 2014.17: FT must engage in additional external expert consultation, as well as with the FSC Australia Policy & Standards Committee, to confirm whether or not its approach to identification and management of areas possessing high conservation values is consistent with the FSC-Australia HCV Evaluation Framework and current best practice. Consultation must also seek expert and stakeholder input on the results (i.e., identified locations and attributes) of applying FT’s HCV approach. Results of this consultation and resulting changes to FT’s HCVF approach must be documented.

9.1.2 For non-SLIMF operations, the FME shall: C As described above, Forestry Tasmania has



• Provide a written evaluation for HCVs that includes the elements of 9.1.1 and proposals to protect these HCVs;

• Provide a technical explanation for the HCVs identified and the recommendations presented for the protection of these attributes

prepared an extensive report describing and evaluating the distribution of HCV forest values throughout the FMU, but the methodology and findings of this report have been disputed by numerous stakeholders. The report sets out management prescriptions for areas identified as HCV ranging from full protection, to a combination of protection and wood production, to standard wood production management for vegetation communities that have already met JANIS targets for reservation and for habitats of species considered to be tolerant of disturbance. Vegetation mapping is currently indicative for many HCV areas, especially HCV 3), requiring verification during harvest planning. The requirement to conduct operational vegetation mapping is described in the HCV plan.

9.1.3 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) of this criterion apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: The FME shall consult environmental stakeholders, government officials or researchers to identify HCVs and/or HCVFs.


9.1.4 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) of this criterion apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: The FME shall consult the national HCVF toolkit: until the national toolkit is finalized, the FME shall use the Australian HCV Evaluation Framework for CW.


9.2 The consultative portion of the certification process must place emphasis on the identified conservation attributes, and options for the maintenance thereof.

C

9.2.1 The results of the data analysis and gap assessment conducted in accordance with Indicator 9.1.1 using the FSC Australia HCV Database shall be made available to stakeholders.

C As confirmed via a review of the HCV assessment and interviews with stakeholders, FT’s HCV assessment was made available to the public. Results of stakeholder consultation indicate that there is still a lack of understanding and trust in



FT’s HCV assessment. Stakeholder consultation is a core element of the high conservation value assessment process required of FSC-certified forest managers. Stakeholder confidence in the results of FT’s HCV assessment would be enhanced by an additional round of stakeholder consultation. OBS 2014.18: Stakeholder confidence in the results of FT’s HCV assessment would be enhanced by an additional round of stakeholder consultation.

9.2.2 The FME holds consultations with stakeholders and experts to confirm that proposed HCVF locations and their attributes have been accurately identified, and that appropriate options for the maintenance of their HCV attributes have been adopted. Verifiers: • FME’s current list of pertinent stakeholders; • Comments related to HCVF are documented.

NC FT received 26 written submissions from the public regarding its draft High Conservation Value Assessment and Management Plan. A summary of these stakeholder submissions and FT’s responses was prepared by FT. During stakeholder consultations as part of the audit, the audit team was made aware of many concerns that remain unresolved with regard to FT’s approach to addressing high conservation values consistent with the requirements of the FSC Standard. One example of stakeholder concern, expressed to both FT and the audit team, was the need to identify, separately, areas of habitat required by the nationally endangered Swift Parrot. FT agreed to review this consideration and made this assessment; however, it did not present these results independently. A related stakeholder concern is that the HCVF approach taken by FT results in a potentially substantial understatement of the area of designated HCV 1 forests, including the extent of Swift Parrot habitat. The audit team was informed by numerous stakeholders that the HCVF approach taken by FT effectively failed to adequately respond to the intent of their submissions regarding the draft HCVF Assessment and Management Plan. FT must engage in additional consultation with external experts to assure that it has accurately identified the locations and



attributes of areas possessing high conservation values. CAR 2014.17: FT must engage in additional external expert consultation, as well as with the FSC Australia Policy & Standards Committee, to confirm whether or not its approach to identification and management of areas possessing high conservation values is consistent with the FSC-Australia HCV Evaluation Framework. Consultation must also seek expert and stakeholder input on the results (i.e., identified locations and attributes) of applying FT’s HCV approach. Results of this consultation and resulting changes to FT’s HCVF approach must be documented. OBS 2014.18: Stakeholder confidence in the results of FT’s HCV assessment would be enhanced by an additional round of stakeholder consultation.

9.2.3 The results of periodic stakeholder consultation on the maintenance and/or enhancement of HCV attributes indicate that the FME consistently protects areas of high conservation value.

NA Not applicable, as this Indicator applies to future performance after award of certification. The identification, management and monitoring of HCV forest areas has yet to be implemented, against which conformance to this Indicator can be assessed.

9.3 The management plan shall include and implement specific measures that ensure the maintenance and/or enhancement of the applicable conservation attributes consistent with the precautionary approach. These measures shall be specifically included in the publicly available management plan summary.

C

9.3.1 The management plan, relevant operational plans, and public summary describe the measures necessary to ensure the maintenance and/or enhancement of all high conservation values present in all identified HCVF areas, including the precautions required to avoid risks or impacts to such values (see Principle 7). These measures are implemented.

NC In areas known by FT to possess attributes qualifying or potentially qualifying as high conservation value, such as mature forests with hollow-bearing trees and areas of potential habitat for RTE species, Forest Practices Plans for forest operations do not, as yet, consistently and adequately identify, describe and implement management measures for the purpose of ensuring maintenance and/or enhancement of all areas possessing high conservation values



present in the coupe, and in a manner that can be reasonably considered precautionary. The audit team notes that FT plans on documenting its approach to HCVs at a coupe level using forest practices plans. This approach will be assessed at a later date. CAR 2014.19: FT must modify its operational planning process for Forest Practices Plans to ensure that high conservation values are identified, maintained and/or enhanced at the coupe level.

9.3.2 All management activities in HCVFs must be consistent with a precautionary approach and maintain or enhance the high conservation values and the extent of the HCVF.

NC FT’s current approach to the identification and maintenance/enhancement of high conservation values, and how those values limit site disturbing activities, cannot be considered precautionary. For example, the removal of most hollow-bearing trees and other old-forest legacies in coupes comprised substantially of mature forest provides insufficient evidence of a precautionary approach to the management of HCV forest areas. CAR 2014.20: FT must revise its approach to HCV identification and management such that all management activities carried out on the FMU are consistent with a precautionary approach to maintaining and enhancing the extent and attributes of areas possessing high conservation values.

9.3.3 If HCVF attributes cross ownership boundaries and where maintenance of the HCV attributes would be improved by coordinated management, then the forest owner or manager attempts to coordinate conservation efforts with adjacent landowners.

C Forestry Tasmania has been working with the Tasmanian Department of Environment (DPIPWE) to coordinate conservation and recovery efforts across land tenures for Rare, Threatened and Endangered species, including the Swift Parrot and Wedge-tailed Eagle. As managers of public lands in Tasmania, these two agencies, and the statutory Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority, are likely to coordinate their conservation efforts once all HCV forest attributes have been identified and mapped.

9.4 Annual monitoring shall be conducted to NC



assess the effectiveness of the measures employed to maintain or enhance the applicable conservation attributes. 9.4.1 The FME monitors, or participates in a program to annually monitor, the status of the specific HCV attributes, including the effectiveness of the measures employed for their maintenance or enhancement. The monitoring program is designed and implemented consistent with the requirements of Principle 8.

NC FT’s HCV effectiveness monitoring system has not been adequately elaborated. As part of an annual HCV monitoring program, FT must develop, document and implement procedures for assessing the effectiveness of the measures employed for the maintenance or enhancement of identified HCV attributes. CAR 2014.21: As part of an annual HCV monitoring program, FT must develop, document and implement procedures for assessing the effectiveness of the measures employed for the maintenance or enhancement of identified HCV attributes.

9.4.2 When monitoring results indicate increasing risk to a specific HCV attribute, the FME re-evaluates the measures taken to maintain or enhance that attribute, and adjusts the management measures in an effort to reverse the trend.

NA Not applicable during an initial certification evaluation, as this Indicator applies to future performance after award of certification. The process of identification, management and monitoring of HCV forest areas has yet to be implemented. However, in the HCV Assessment and Management Plan, FT states that it will report annually (through its Annual Report) on the levels of protection and harvesting activity for each HCV category and its compliance with the management prescriptions described therein. FT has also undertaken to formally review its HCV A&M Plan every five years. The formal review process will include stakeholder consultation, the findings of audit processes, and the results of monitoring activities.

Principle #10: Plantations Plantations shall be planned and managed in accordance with Principles and Criteria 1 - 9, and Principle 10 and its Criteria. While plantations can provide an array of social and economic benefits, and can contribute to satisfying the world's needs for forest products, they should complement the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote the restoration and conservation of natural forests. Note: Principle 10 applies only to the 42,000 hectares of the FT forest estate that meets the definition of FSC plantations. 10.1 The management objectives of the C



plantation, including natural forest conservation and restoration objectives, shall be explicitly stated in the management plan, and clearly demonstrated in the implementation of the plan. 10.1.1 The management plan for the defined plantation forest area includes a presentation of the landowner and/or plantation owner objectives.

C Forestry Tasmania manages approximately 38,000 hectares of hardwood plantation forest and approximately 3,300 hectares of softwood in its own right, or with joint venture partners. This plantation estate is distributed across PTPZ land. Plantation objectives are discussed in the Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan and in relation to the plantation estate state "The primary management objective for Forestry Tasmania’s hardwood plantation estate is to grow high-value, pruned logs. Forestry Tasmania aims to apply appropriate management regimes to as many stands as possible in order to achieve this objective".

10.1.2 The plantation forest objectives include express policies for natural forest conservation as well as restoration of degraded natural forest areas.

C Statements in the FMP and the FT Permanent Forest Estate Policy clearly state their commitment to the protection and management of natural areas within their estate. FT has procedures to assess and manage forest protection areas and those parts of their estate that are defined suitable as HCVF.

10.1.3 The FME demonstrates a systematic pattern of implementing the management plan.

C The Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan has only recently been released (November 2014). Forest officers were observed implementing FPP's, which form part of the FMP.

10.2 The design and layout of plantations should promote the protection, restoration and conservation of natural forests, and not increase pressures on natural forests. Wildlife corridors, streamside zones and a mosaic of stands of different ages and rotation periods, shall be used in the layout of the plantation, consistent with the scale of the operation. The scale and layout of plantation blocks shall be consistent with the patterns of forest stands found within the natural landscape.

C

10.2.1 FMEs shall demonstrate through action their commitment to protect, restore and

C Within plantation areas, areas of native forest are protected and generally have



conserve key areas of natural forest within the ownership.

buffer zones. FT harvests native forest but, again, reserve areas and stream sides are shown on operational maps and protected during operations.

10.2.2 Streamside buffer zones are established, within which natural vegetative cover is maintained or established. Width of buffer zones meets or exceeds regional norms.

C Streamside protection zones, and zones to protect watercourses and drainage lines within plantation coupes, are applied according to the Forest Practices Code. Buffer widths are defined within this document and were seen to be complied with during visits to harvest sites.

10.2.3 Appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, natural vegetative corridors are established for wildlife movement. The need for wildlife corridors shall be assessed and managed appropriate to rare, threatened and endangered species present within the ecological landscape.

C Significant wildlife corridors are present outside the PTPZ area in the FT estate. Within the PTPZ estate, management of stream sides with native species, and strict management prescriptions for e.g. wedge-tailed eagles ensure appropriate management, based on the best available scientific advice. In Tasmania, these measures are developed and implemented in consultation with experts at the FPA.

10.2.4 The plantation design includes stands with a diversity of age classes and rotation periods.

C Within plantation blocks, a range of age classes is normally represented. An age class distribution graph has been included in the FMP which clearly shows a mix of age classes; the generalised rotation for Eucalyptus species for FT uses is stated as 25 years; at this time only 13% of the plantation estate is older than 20 years. Pulpwood regimes generally have rotation periods of 10-18 years.

10.3 Diversity in the composition of plantations is preferred, so as to enhance economic, ecological and social stability. Such diversity may include the size and spatial distribution of management units within the landscape, number and genetic composition of species, age classes and structures.

C

10.3.1 Plantation management shall maintain and/or enhance landscape diversity by varying block size and configuration, species, genetic diversity, age class and structure.

C Landscape diversity is maintained within FT by block sizes, tree age, species (in some cases) establishment methods, and overall makeup of the blocks.

10.3.2 The management regime introduces diversity through practices such as: variable rotations, cut blocks of different size and shape, maintenance of volunteer (naturally established) seedlings within planted stands.

C The stated objective for FT plantation timbers is to produce high-value, pruned logs. Species selection and proposed end use limits the rotation length (25 years) however plantation coupes are of varying



size and shape. Lower log grades do have different rotation lengths (10-18 years).

10.3.3 The plantation forest management plan contains biodiversity objectives, policies and guidelines.

NC The Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Plan dated November 2014 describes the company’s approach to biodiversity objectives; these are also covered in the High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan. However, FT have not adequately described, documented and implemented biodiversity objectives, policies and guidelines in relation to the plantation areas. CAR 2014.22: FT must incorporate biodiversity objectives into its management plan, policies and guidelines for those areas classified as plantations per the FSC definition.

10.4 The selection of species for planting shall be based on their overall suitability for the site and their appropriateness to the management objectives. In order to enhance the conservation of biological diversity, native species are preferred over exotic species in the establishment of plantations and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Exotic species, which shall be used only when their performance is greater than that of native species, shall be carefully monitored to detect unusual mortality, disease, or insect outbreaks and adverse ecological impacts.

C

10.4.1 Exotic tree species are planted only after an assessment of native species is conducted, in which it is demonstrated that native species cannot achieve comparable performance levels.

C The FMP states: The two eucalyptus species planted by Forestry Tasmania are Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum) and E. nitens (shining gum). Approximately 73 per cent of the total hardwood estate is E. nitens, 22 per cent is E. globulus, and six per cent is other eucalypt species that were largely planted as growth trials.

10.4.2 If there is a native species which meets the management objectives as well as an exotic species, it shall be selected in preference to the exotic species.

C At present, there are no alternative native species that meets these requirements.

10.4.3 Periodic monitoring is conducted of the adaptability of exotic stands, as indicated by measured levels of mortality, disease and insect outbreaks.

C Forest health surveillance surveys across the entire estates are conducted annually, with periodic surveys by FT staff during routine operations.



10.4.4 Selection of plantation species and provenances is based on documented trials that demonstrate their suitability to the plantation sites and management objectives.

The FMP states Decades of local and international research have shown that both E. nitens and E. globulus are suitable for growing high-quality logs, as they are fast growing and are suited to most Tasmanian conditions. However, E. globulus timber exhibits superior density, strength and pulp yield to E. nitens. Research is continuing into the development of efficient processing technologies, and the identification of high-value applications for plantation timber from both timbers There is a significant area of established E. nitens plantation that, following eventual harvest, may be suitable for future E. globulus plantings. Forestry Tasmania now aims to extend plantings of E. globulus into these areas where appropriate. E. nitens will continue to be the preferred species on higher altitude, frost-prone sites that are not suited to E. globulus.

10.4.5 Information about the source of seed or planting stock is presented in the management plan or another suitable document.

C Forestry Tasmania identifies site-specific characteristics during plantation establishment planning, and existing seedlots are matched to these site characteristics, which enables trees most suited to each site to be planted. Seedlots are then propagated at Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Nursery at Perth for subsequent planting.

10.5 A proportion of the overall forest management area, appropriate to the scale of the plantation and to be determined in regional standards, shall be managed so as to restore the site to a natural forest cover.

C

10.5.1 Representative samples of existing natural ecosystems are being protected or restored in their natural state.

C As previously stated FT operate within the Tasmanian Forest Practices code and FPP requirements which clearly state protection requirements for existing natural ecosystems.

10.5.2 The percentage of the plantation forest operation that is devoted to natural forest cover exceeds regional plantation forestry norms.

C There is approximately 800,000 hectares of PTPZ native forests within the FT estate, of which there are approximately 38,000 hectare of hardwood plantation and 3,300 hectares of softwood plantation.

10.5.3 Areas of natural forest or natural vegetative cover are delineated on maps and, as

C The GIS system used by FT to develop operational maps for plantation forests



necessary, delineated in the field for purposes of assuring protection.

clearly delineates native forest areas; these were reviewed by the auditors at all site visits.

10.5.4 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: Improvements to the ecological value of the plantation are made particularly around conservation features.


10.5.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply; the indicator(s) are not to be used for assessing non-SLIMF operations: Where it is ecologically and economically unviable for a small plantation to manage a restoration area, the plantation manager or group is able to demonstrate off-site contributions to the management and/or restoration of similar landscape and ecosystem types either jointly with other adjacent small operations, or in-kind by supporting an existing protected area.


10.6 Measures shall be taken to maintain or improve soil structure, fertility, and biological activity. The techniques and rate of harvesting, road and trail construction and maintenance, and the choice of species shall not result in long term soil degradation or adverse impacts on water quality, quantity or substantial deviation from stream course drainage patterns.

C

10.6.1 The FME actively engages in field research to assess trends in soil productivity; soil types found within the plantation forest area are mapped and considered during field operations.

C The FMP states that “Soils, geology, and geomorphological features are assessed when preparing a forest practices plan for any forest operation. The Forest Practices Code guides the planning and conduct of forest operations on specific soil conditions and types of geology, so that soil damage, such as compaction and erosion, is minimised. In addition to applying operational prescriptions and practices, some areas require special management, or are left unharvested due to their sensitivity to disturbance.” FT has also published technical reports in



relation to soil types and productivity. 10.6.2 Prescriptions for the establishment, tending and final harvest of planted stands are designed with consideration to soil health and productivity.

C All operations have written FPP's that include measures to minimize impacts and damage to the soil and avoid long-term soil degradation. A key strategic objective is to improve the productivity of the forest management unit.

10.6.3 Site disturbing activities do not adversely impact aquatic and riparian resources including water quality and do not significantly alter the hydrologic characteristics of the site; planted stand establishment is limited to flat or gently sloping terrain.

C The auditors visited harvesting sites within the FT estate and saw no evidence of riparian or aquatic impacts from the harvesting. Significant planning is now undertaken to ensure riparian zones are maintained or increased.

10.6.4 All stream courses within the operating area are identified and mapped.

C FT's GIS system maps all waterways and reserve wetland areas including areas within their estate. This mapping is used in pre-planning stages of operations and where relevant is made available on operational prescriptions and was reviewed by the auditor during site visits.

10.6.5 The management plan contains policies and guidelines for soil maintenance and water quality protection.

C FT's FMP includes a section titled Water Soil and geodiversity which contains guidelines for soil maintenance and water protection. Controlled release fertilizer is generally applied at planting in areas where soils have low nitrogen or phosphate levels. Some secondary fertilization may also be necessary to maintain growth rates; however, this is currently restricted to sites where tree health issues are involved. FT also complies with Forest Practices Code requirements.

10.7 Measures shall be taken to prevent and minimize outbreaks of pests, diseases, fire and invasive plant introductions. Integrated pest management shall form an essential part of the management plan, with primary reliance on prevention and biological control methods rather than chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Plantation management should make every effort to move away from chemical pesticides and fertilizers, including their use in nurseries. The use of chemicals is also covered in Criteria 6.6 and 6.7.

C

10.7.1 Plantation forest standard operating procedures include regular monitoring for pest and pathogen activity, inordinate levels of

C Forest health surveillance is conducted estate-wide on an annual basis. Post-planting assessments of mortality are



mortality, and the spread of invasive exotic plants.

conducted as part of the FPP.

10.7.2 The management plan contains policies and guidelines for integrated pest management that are demonstrably followed in the field. The plan shall identify: the range and number of pests; population dynamics – when is it best to intervene, what is a sustainable pest population; compliance with the regional pest management strategy; and methods of intervention.

C The FMP states that Forestry Tasmania’s pest management aims to: • adhere to legislated responsibilities to minimise the risk of new exotic pests from becoming established; • limit the area of PTPZ land that is adversely affected by exotic pests that have become established; • intervene to protect PTPZ land from severe impacts by pests, where appropriate and feasible; • assist the recovery of areas that have been adversely affected by pests, where appropriate and feasible; and • minimise the need to use chemicals, and, where chemicals are used, prefer those that are effective and present a low environmental risk. Forestry Tasmania’s management objective for pests is to firstly detect when a pest is present. When damage is detected, the severity is assessed, the extent is mapped and the cause is identified. Where necessary, a more detailed inspection is done to identify the cause. This may include the collection of samples for subsequent examination by specialists. Once the detection of damage has been assessed as moderate or severe then remedial action can be carried out.

10.7.3 The FME, through its policies and actions, demonstrate a commitment to progressively lessen the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

C The Forestry Tasmania Pesticide Use Policy dated July 2014 states: Pesticides can play an important role in efficiently establishing and maintaining healthy and productive forests. However, if used inappropriately, pesticides can also cause significant environmental, social and economic harm. Forestry Tasmania recognizes that any use of pesticide must be undertaken with due consideration of the potential for both negative and positive outcomes. This policy applies to all forest-based pesticide operations conducted by Forestry Tasmania. Under this policy, Forestry Tasmania will:



--Minimise and strive to avoid the need for pesticide use through the use of integrated pest management approaches, adoption of appropriate silvicultural techniques, and by conducting research into more benign alternatives--Use pesticides only when alternative approaches to the management of recognised pests are unfeasible. FT is also a member of the Forest Industry Herbicide Research Consortium (FIHRC)

10.7.4 Fire management and protection plans are in place. FMEs have the following: • Employee and contractor responsibilities are

clear through contracts, training and orientation;

• Key contact details are available at the field level;

• Proper safety gear and fire suppression equipment; and,

• Emergency procedures and maps are produced (plans for access routes, firebreaks, dams,

• ponds and other water supplies, helipads and priority buildings/areas for protection) and readily available

C Fire management is included in the FMP and the Plan states the principal requirements for bushfire control, planned burning, smoke management, planned burn stakeholder engagement procedures and planned burn programme management. The auditors also received a presentation from FT on Fire Management and confirmed that FT maintains an active fire fighting response capacity (150 staff are listed for Fire Duty Rosters and first response), have adequate training (contractors have Level II in Public safety), equipment (89 light truck and 16 heavy tankers) and logistical backup (FT has the ability to use staff from other agencies, companies and countries). Maps were reviewed as part of the presentation and it was confirmed that they showed water sources and access routes.

10.8 Appropriate to the scale and diversity of the operation, monitoring of plantations shall include regular assessment of potential on-site and off-site ecological and social impacts, (e.g. natural regeneration, effects on water resources and soil fertility, and impacts on local welfare and social well-being), in addition to those elements addressed in principles 8, 6 and 4. No species should be planted on a large scale until local trials and/or experience have shown that they are ecologically well-adapted to the site, are not invasive, and do not have significant negative ecological impacts on other ecosystems. Special attention will be paid to social issues of land acquisition for plantations, especially the protection of local rights of ownership, use or access.

C



10.8.1 Monitoring incorporates ecological and social impacts of plantation forest activities, see Criterion 4.4 and 8.2.

C Ecological impacts are monitored as part of plantation forest management activities and the plantation forest health surveillance programme; however, in the wider estate context there are significant gaps in monitoring (See Indicator 8.2.5). FT conducted a social impact evaluation that was documented in the sighted ‘Social Impact Evaluation of Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Activities 2014’.

10.8.2 Monitoring focuses on both on-site and off-site impacts such as landscape level effects generated by the species that are being planted.

C The Landscape Context Planning system is a geographic information system-based system developed by Forestry Tasmania that uses mapped information on forest type, harvest boundaries and forest zoning, to inform, implement, and monitor habitat retention and coupe dispersal decisions. The Landscape Context Planning system provides field planners with the tools to take a landscape approach to biodiversity management. The Landscape Context Planning system includes a set of analytical tools to assist planners in adjusting the location and extent of harvest operations in order to meet these objectives.

10.8.3 Species are selected for planting only after local trials and other empirical evidence demonstrates their suitability to the site. Species selected are determined to be not invasive, and have minimal negative ecological impacts on other ecosystems.

C Local and international research have shown that both E. nitens and E. globulus are suitable for growing high-quality logs, as they are fast growing and are suited to most Tasmanian conditions. However, E. globulus timber exhibits superior density, strength and pulp yield to E. nitens. Research is continuing into the development of efficient processing technologies, and the identification of high-value applications for plantation timber from both species. Forestry Tasmania identifies site-specific characteristics during plantation establishment planning, and existing seedlots are matched to these site characteristics, which enables the tree species most suited to each site to be planted. Seedlots are then propagated at Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Nursery at Perth



Appendix 6 – Tracking, Tracing and Identification of Certified Products

SCS FSC Chain of Custody Indicators for Forest Management Enterprises, Version 5-1 Note: All Non-Conformities (NC’s) raised in the following table link to this Major Corrective Action Request:

for subsequent planting. 10.8.4 Acquisition of land for establishment of plantation forests does not adversely impact, without due compensation, local ownership rights or access/use patterns.

C FT is not presently acquiring land specifically for plantation establishment.

10.8.5 For FMU’s meeting SLIMF requirements, only the following indicator(s) apply: Monitoring incorporates ecological and social impacts of plantation forest activities, see Criterion 4.4 and 8.2.


10.9 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994 normally shall not qualify for certification. Certification may be allowed in circumstances where sufficient evidence is submitted to the certification body

C

10.9.1 Records are of sufficient detail to enable the SCS auditor(s) to determine if conversion of natural forests to plantations has occurred since November, 1994.

C Forestry Tasmania implemented a program to cease native forest conversion on PTPZ land in 2007. The Permanent Forest Estate Policy now prohibits conversion of native forest to plantation or non-forest uses. The footprint of plantation on PTPZ land has therefore stabilized. Prior to this, plantations were established in land converted from native forests. Appendix 2, Data Tables in the Sustainable Forest Management shows 49,320 hectares of land have been converted to plantation on previously cleared land (i.e., where harvesting was initiated prior to 31/12/2006)

10.9.2 Any such conversions, if they have taken place, can be demonstrated to not be attributable to the current managers/owners.

NA



CAR 2014.23: FT must develop procedures to meet all requirements of the chain of custody indicators comprising Appendix 6 of this report.

REQUIREMENT

C/N

C

COMMENT / CAR

1. Quality Management

1.1 The organization shall appoint a management representative as having overall responsibility and authority for the organization’s compliance with all applicable requirements of this standard.

NC

CoC Procedures (Forestry Tasmania Chain of Custody Procedures dated July 2014) presented to the auditors have not specified who the management representative is.

1.2 The FME shall maintain complete records of all FSC-related COC activities, including sales and training, for at least 5 years.

NC This is not stated in the CoC procedures; however, FT does maintain electronic and hard copy records.

1.3 The FME shall define its forest gate(s) (check all that apply): The forest gate is defined as the point where the change in ownership of the certified-forest product occurs.

C

Stump Stumpage sale or sales of standing timber; transfer of ownership of certified-forest product occurs upon harvest.

On-site concentration yard Transfer of ownership of certified-product occurs at concentration yard under control of FME.

Off-site Mill / Log Yard Transfer of ownership occurs when certified-product is unloaded at purchaser’s facility.

Auction house / Brokerage Transfer of ownership occurs at a government-run or private auction house / brokerage.

Lump-sum sale / Per Unit / Pre-Paid Agreement A timber sale in which the buyer and seller agree on a total price for marked standing trees or for trees within a defined area before the wood is removed — the timber is usually paid for before harvesting begins. Similar to a per-unit sale.

Log landing Transfer of ownership of certified-product occurs at landing / yarding areas.

X Other (Please describe): This is sale specific for each log sale



1.4 The FME shall have sufficient control over its forest gate(s) to ensure that there is no risk of mixing of FSC-certified forest products covered by the scope of the FM/COC certificate with forest products from outside of the scope prior to the transfer of ownership.

C

FT has sufficient control over forest products to ensure there is no mixing of certified and non-certified products prior to the change of ownership

1.5 The FME and its contractors shall not process FSC-certified material prior to transfer of ownership at the forest gate without conforming to applicable chain of custody requirements. NOTE: This does not apply to log cutting or de-barking units, small portable sawmills or on-site processing of chips / biomass originating from the FMU under evaluation.

C The auditors did not see any processing of any forest material prior to the forest gate. Logs are cut to length, only.

2. Product Control, Sales and Delivery

2.1. Products from the certified forest area shall be identifiable as certified at the forest gate(s).

C

Log dockets provide product information for each load of logs, logs dockets are generated as the trucks are loaded at each coupe. log dockets are provided to contractors, transport operators and FT.

2.2 The FME shall maintain records of quantities / volumes of FSC-certified product(s).

C

Records of quantities of certified products are recorded via the use of the DA system (Delivery Arrangement), this is system that traces product from the individual coupe and is used as the basis for payments to contractors and invoices to customers.

2.3. The FME shall ensure that all sales documents issued for outputs sold with FSC claims include the following information:

a) name and contact details of the organization;

b) name and address of the customer; c) date when the document was issued; d) description of the product; e) quantity of the products sold; f) the organization’s FSC Forest

Management (FM/COC) or FSC Controlled Wood (CW/FM) code;

g) clear indication of the FSC claim for each product item or the total products as follows:

i. the claim “FSC 100%” for products from FSC 100% product groups;

C

Examples of chain of custody documentation were presented as part of the audit process. FT has an existing traceability scheme in order to demonstrate compliance with its Australian Forestry Standard chain of custody certification. This system needs to be upgraded to include the correct FSC code and claim if certification is granted.



ii. the claim “FSC Controlled Wood” for products from FSC Controlled Wood product groups.

h) If separate transport documents are issued, information sufficient to link the sales document and related transport documentation to each other.

2.4 The FME shall include the same information as required in 2.3 in the related delivery documentation, if the sales document (or copy of it) is not included with the shipment of the product. Note: 2.3 and 2.4 above are based on FSC-STD-40-004 V2-1 Clause 6.1.1 and 6.1.2

C See above comments

2.5 When the FME has demonstrated it is not able to include the required FSC claim as specified above in 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 in sales and delivery documents due to space constraints, through an exception, SCS can approve the required information to be provided through supplementary evidence (e.g. supplementary letters, a link to the own company’s webpage with verifiable product information). This practice is only acceptable when SCS is satisfied that the supplementary method proposed by the FME complies with the following criteria:

a) There is no risk that the customer will misinterpret which products are or are not FSC certified in the document;

b) The sales and delivery documents contain visible and understandable information so that the customer is aware that the full FSC claim is provided through supplementary evidence;

c) In cases where the sales and delivery documents contain multiple products with different FSC Claims, a clear identification for each product shall be included to cross-reference it with the associated FSC claim provided in the supplementary evidence.

FSC-ADVICE-40-004-05

C

FT invoices reference delivery arrangements and log dockets, which have all relevant claim information on them. This is required because FT’s invoicing system cannot access its sales database, which contains information on the certification status of each operation. Despite this, FT’s system meets the requirements of this indicator.



3. Labelling and Promotion N/A

3.1 Describe where / how the organization uses the SCS and FSC trademarks for promotion.

C

At the time of the evaluation FT CoC procedures state that "FSC Controlled Wood" will be added to packing lists and sales invoices, however FT has not provided and templates of these.

3.2 The FME shall request authorization from SCS to use the FSC on-product labels and/or FSC trademarks for promotional use.

N/A At the time of the evaluation Forestry Tasmania has not applied to SCS for any trademark use.

3.3 Records of SCS and/or FSC trademark use authorizations shall be made available upon request.

N/A See above

4. Outsourcing

N/A

4.1 The FME shall provide the names and contact details of all outsourced service providers.

N/A No outsource sites or companies have been identified by FT

4.2 The FME shall have a control system for the outsourced process which ensures that:

a) The material used for the production of FSC-certified material is traceable and not mixed with any other material prior to the point of transfer of legal ownership;

b) The outsourcer keeps records of FSC-certified material covered under the outsourcing agreement;

c) The FME issues the final invoice for the processed or produced FSC-certified material following outsourcing;

d) The outsourcer only uses FSC trademarks on products covered by the scope of the outsourcing agreement and not for promotional use.

N/A No outsource sites or companies have been identified by FT.

5. Training and/or Communication Strategies

5.1 All relevant FME staff and outsourcers shall be trained in the FME’s COC control system commensurate with the scale and intensity of operations and shall demonstrate competence in implementing the FME’s COC control system.

NC No evidence of training for CoC procedures was presented to the auditors.



5.2 The FME shall maintain up-to-date records of its COC training and/or communications program, such as a list of trained employees, completed COC trainings, the intended frequency of COC training (i.e. training plan), and related program materials (e.g., presentations, memos, contracts, employee handbooks, etc).

NC No evidence of training for CoC procedures was presented to the auditors.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 7 – Peer Reviews and SCS Evaluation Team Responses to Peer Reviews Three peer reviewers with regionally relevant expertise pertinent to the forest management and socioeconomic context of Forestry Tasmania were selected to review the certification evaluation report. Where applicable, SCS responses to the peer reviewers’ comments are provided in red text.

Peer Reviewer 1. Date of Review: September 20, 2015 This is a peer review of the Evaluation Report of Forestry Tasmania, for a Forest Stewardship Council Forest Management and Chain of Custody Certificate. This evaluation covered the management of a single Forest Management Unit (FMU), totaling some 750,000 ha, comprising 420,000 ha of forest from which timber may be harvested, including 42,000 ha of forest plantations, and 323,000 ha of area protected from commercial harvesting. The evaluation team does not recommend issuance of a Forest Stewardship Council certificate until Major Corrective Action Requests (CARs) receive attention to a satisfactory standard.

1) Clarity of the report in describing the evaluation that was conducted, the criteria that were

employed, and the data that were collected. The methodology of the evaluation, the criteria used and the data collected are well described following an established protocol. The evaluation was based on a survey across Forestry Tasmania lands in Tasmania of the range of activities relative to the SCS interim standard for Natural Forest and Plantation Forest Management Certification in Australia, v2.0. This interim standard has been used for earlier audits in Australia and has been readily available for any comments by interested stakeholders. The report clearly describes the scope and application of forest management practices used by Forestry Tasmania in their management of the 750,000 ha covered by the certificate. However, in section 1.2, areas are often specified imprecisely; in particular, the total forest area (at a given date) in the scope of certificate should be given more accurately than to within 10,000 ha. Similarly, the 190,000 ha specified as “Silvicultural systems, Uneven-aged management, Other” is too large an area for such a vague classification. A full tree species list should be given, at least in an appendix. In 1.2.2 “Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber” is 323,000 ha while 1.2.3 “Total area of forest and non-forest land protected from commercial harvesting of timber” is 120,000 ha. It is not clear what is the difference. Under section 4.1 P6 Environmental impact it is stated that “Forestry Tasmania manages approximately 800,000 ha of Permanent Timber Production Zone”. This lack of precision and consistency, coupled with generic descriptions of areas of FMUs owned or managed by the applicant but excluded from the certificate scope, leads to a lack of clarity. It is clear what data were used to draw conclusions for each criterion and indicator. A diverse range of stakeholders were contacted for comments, with phone conversations, E mails or face to face meetings. There is no indication that any stakeholders were prohibited from making comments to the evaluation team. SCS response: SCS has had FT correct the data reported.


2) Adequacy of the report in clearly conveying the basis upon which conformance decisions were

reached. In all instances, decisions of conformance are relevant and based on the information presented. The Evaluation Team also notes areas where additional information and clarification may be relevant or needed under each Principle and Criterion for each indicator. In section 4.1 of the report, “Notable Strengths and Weaknesses of the FME Relative to the FSC P&C”, the strengths of the company’s performance are well summarized. However, the summary of weaknesses relies in the main on a list of CAR’s and observations that are detailed elsewhere in the report. There are very brief comments on Principles 6, 8 and 9 which have 5, 2 and 4 Major non-conformities issued against them, precluding certification until the indicators and verifiers are met. The other Principles have no overview commentaries in the table on any perceived weaknesses. SCS response: SCS provided a summary of each finding in the weaknesses section of the summary.

3) Appropriateness of the Evaluation Team's findings in light of the information presented and the condition of the ownership's resource base.

The audit team’s findings and the final conclusion not to recommend award of FSC forest management certification to Forestry Tasmania until closure of the Major CARs raised in the report are justified. The systems, research and application of management by Forestry Tasmania meet the standard required for certification for seven out of ten of the FSC Principles, but fail requiring Major Corrective Actions for Principle 6, Environmental Impact, and Principle 9 Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest. It is clear from the evidence presented in the report that Forestry Tasmania is deficient in its assessment and establishment of conservation zones for wide-ranging Rare, Threatened and Endangered fauna species, for example the Swift Parrot and Wedge-tailed Eagle. The report is less explicit in its evaluation of Forestry Tasmania’s environmental impact on forest flora and ecologies with regards to FSC criteria in Principle 6, except that the auditors believe that ecological functions and values are not being sufficiently maintained intact when forestry Tasmania harvests old growth and mature forest structural components. SCS response: It is not clear on what basis the peer reviewer considers FT’s management relative to Swift Parrot and Wedge-tailed Eagle to be commensurately deficient. During the audit, FT demonstrated that it establishes conservation zones for and manages wedge tail eagles in an appropriate manner. The peer reviewer’s misimpression may have arisen from the fact that swift parrot and eagles are mentioned in the same sentence on three occasions in the report (a lumping that is partially misleading) and that eagles are a wide-ranging species. Forestry Tasmania, in the report, identifies only some 23,800 ha of High Conservation Value Forest, 3% of the area of the FMU. Given the nature of Tasmania’s natural forest, this appears to be a very small area. The audit team justifiably issues four Major CARs under Principle 9 that require closure prior to award of certification: to confirm whether or not Forestry Tasmania’s approach to the identification and management of; to modify its operational planning procedures for; and to assess the effectiveness of


the measures employed with regards to, the High Conservation Value Forest that is present within its management unit. Principle 8, Monitoring and Assessment, also has two indicators that fail as a consequence of non-conformity in the above (Note CAR 2014.24, referred to in Indicator 8.2.3 does not exist – perhaps a typo for 2014.14). These CARs indicate that Forestry Tasmania has some work to do in its environmental and high conservation value forest assessment and management. This work may take some time and require dedicated resources to ensure that their stewardship and management fully meet the high standards expected by FSC. SCS response: SCS corrected the reference to findings in Principle 8 (CAR 2014.21 corresponds to a CAR given under Criterion 9.4) and provided links to the websites of local authorities that maintain information on RTE species. In conclusion, the audit team’s findings and the final conclusion not to recommend award of FSC forest management certification to Forestry Tasmania until closure of the Major CARs raised in the report are justified. The report provides sufficient information to support this. The corrective action requests and observations noted by the team are all valid and important. Peer Reviewer 2. Date of Review: October, 2015

The following is a peer review of the SCS/ FSC Evaluation Report of Forestry Tasmania (FT), the forest management entity of the government of the Australia state of Tasmania. The evaluation team recommends that FT should not be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as a result of their audit and the numerous instances of major and minor non-conformances to FSC standards and principles that the team documented. There were also many observations made by the audit team as to how FT might improve or enhance their management practices.

This peer review is organized by addressing the following considerations the audit report:

• those specifically addressing findings of the social and economic sustainability of the FT forestlands,

• general comments on the findings of ecological sustainability of FT forests, and • comments on methods, typographical errors, or systemic structures concerning the evaluation

report. Where appropriate, recommendations are provided for expansion of the “additional considerations” for certification of the FT management estate relative to the FSC Australian Standards and Principles.

1. Clarity of the report in describing the evaluation that was conducted, the criteria that were employed, and the data that were collected.

The information presented on the content, scope, and duration of the evaluation of the FT forestlands was clear; the logic and references applied was internally consistent and externally defensible. The


detail supplied was sufficient and appropriate to understand scoring and overall accumulation of information with regard to the Principles and Criteria applied to reach the conclusion of overall non-conformity by FT. The Evaluation Report provides a clear picture of forest management activities of FT, including detailed information on non-conformance relative to the FSC Australian Standards.

The data used to draw conclusions for each criterion and the overall findings and conclusions for each Principle was clearly described and appropriate. Although the range of stakeholders was lengthy and their involvement was complex, the use of written correspondence, meetings, and interviews via phone or face-to-face were appropriate for collecting information. The effort made to correspond with a diversity of stakeholders ensured that multiple data sets verified the audit team’s findings. There is no indication that specific stakeholders, such as conservation groups or industry interests, were prohibited from participating in or overtly influencing the evaluation. There is some question concerning the extent to which Aboriginal and local community stakeholders choose to participate.

SCS response: The willingness of Aboriginal stakeholders to participate over time likely will depend on several factors, including issues of maintaining confidentiality of sites of cultural importance.

2. Adequacy of the report in clearly conveying the basis upon which conformance decisions were reached.

In all instances, decisions of non- conformance appear to be relevant based on the information presented. There were few (if any) places were additional information would be relevant. The Evaluation Team is to be commended for their transparency and articulating areas where additional clarification may be needed.

3. Appropriateness of the Evaluation Team's findings in light of the information presented and the condition of FT and Tasmanian state resource base.

The entitlements and responsibilities of FT according to State, Australian Government and international legislation is clearly set out, as are the requirements according to FSC Australian Standards. These include appropriate environmental, social and economic parameters. Given these factors, and based on the observations and other findings presented, the overall conclusions of non-conformity are justified. No deficiencies which may require additional clarification to ensure clear communication between parties were apparent.

Peer Reviewer 3. Date of Review: October 26, 2015

The following is a peer review of the SCS/ FSC Evaluation Report of Forestry Tasmania (FT), the state-funded management entity for forests in Tasmania, Australia. The evaluation team recommends issuance of a Forest Stewardship Council certificate as a result of their audit upon closure of the Major CARs (corrective action requests). While the Major CAR in relation to Chain of Custody have been resolved at the time of the peer review, most Major CAR are yet to be addressed. The remaining Major


CAR relate to Principle 6: Environmental Impact and Principle 9: High Conservation Value Forests. Generally, the issue to be addressed in these CARs is the appropriate monitoring at the landscape and couple level for Rare, Threatened or Endangered species and inclusion of relevant management prescriptions in forest plans.

1. Clarity of the report in describing the evaluation that was conducted, the criteria that were employed, and the data that were collected.

Overall, the evaluation was comprehensive, thorough and well prepared. Clear information was presented on the content, scope, and duration of the evaluation of FT for certification. The principles, criteria and performance indicators were clearly laid out and described in clear and specific language. Appropriate detail was provided to understand how Principles and Criteria were assessed. The Evaluation Report provides a clear picture of forest management activities undertaken by FT, including detailed information on conformance (or non-conformance) relative to the FSC Principles and Criteria.

It is clear what data were used to draw conclusions for each criterion and the overall findings and conclusions for each Principle and Criteria. The use of written correspondence, meetings, and interviews via phone or face-to-face were appropriate for collecting information from a range of stakeholders. The process used to identify and correspond with a diversity of stakeholders was clearly, if briefly, described. A good representation of stakeholders were involved in the evaluation, although the inclusions of interests of local government and the broader community may be limited given the low participation from these sectors, especially when the large geographic scope of the FME is considered. The range of stakeholders engaged is therefore appropriate to the context and there is no evidence that specific stakeholders were prohibited from participating in the evaluation.

2. Adequacy of the report in clearly conveying the basis upon which conformance decisions were reached.

Appendix 5 provides a very clear statement of conformance to each certification requirement. The evaluation team has clearly described documentation sighted, field observations, processes in place and comments collected from stakeholders in relation to each assessing performance indicators for each criterion. In all instances, decisions of conformance appear to be relevant based on the information presented. However there are some performance indicators/criterion where additional information will ensure that conformance statements are consistent with the stated certification requirements. These are noted via review comments on the report.

SCS response: SCS modified the text based on the peer reviewer’s comments, including: • 2.2.3: In concerns raised by stakeholders, restricted access for hunting was noted. In relation to

public and recreational access, were any instances of obstruction or prevention of access identified by the audit team? If no, please note this. If yes, explain what determined that there was no substantive evidence of restricted access;

• 4.4.1: Need to address whether the social impact evaluation is considered appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations;

• 7.1.1: Incomplete sentence. Does it need to be stated whether the Management Plan is


appropriate to the scale, intensity and complexity of operations?; • 9.2.1.: As per criteria, is the data analysis and gap assessment made available to stakeholders

via FTs HCV assessment? Additional stakeholder consultation does not always enhance confidence. It might be necessary to specify how further consultation is expected to enhance confidence or otherwise to broaden suggestion to recommend that further community engagement techniques in relation to the HCV assessment be explored .

3. Appropriateness of the Evaluation Team's findings in light of the information presented and the condition of the ownership's resource base.

Forestry Tasmania manages a large estate providing multiple values. The findings of the evaluation and information presented are consistent with the reviewer’s understanding of FTs operations and the social context in which it operates. The overall conclusion to grant certification subject to resolution of the Major CARs described appears to be justified based on both information presented and condition of the resource base.

forest management and stump-to-forest gate chain-of-custody certification evaluation ... › sites...

Documents