“This includes clearly demonstrating to ASI how and why a problem happened in the first place, what the certification body has done to correct anything that needs to be corrected, and how it will make sure things work better in the future with evidence that this has been effective.”
The reports reveal a litany of missed chances to spot obvious cases of FSC certification non-compliance following the 2018 Queen’s Birthday storm that resulted in woody debris causing damage around Tolaga Bay and landslides around Gisborne.
PF Olsen and Ernslaw One were convicted on Resource Management Act breaches in Gisborne District Court in 2020 for varying roles in the 2018 damage.
The case of the certification auditors of both companies, written judgements and media reports in 2020 provided detailed descriptions of situations that were non-compliant with the requirements of the FSC Standard for Plantation Forest Management in New Zealand.
In the case of Preferred by Nature (formerly Nepcon) the report said:
“Despite the detailed information that was publicly available, the CAB did not identify non-conformance with any of Indicator 1.1.3, Indicator 5.3.1, Indicator 6.3.1, or Indicator 6.3.9 (debris deposited to prevent . . . flooding and erosion and downstream property damage) in the CAB audits in 2021 and 2022.
Multiple issues flagged in ASI assessments
“The CAB reported 100 percent compliance with FSC requirements related to compliance with law, logging, prevention of soil erosion and waste in all four audits during this period. They failed to detect non-conformities that were fully described and well-known.”
Further, in four audits between 2019 and 2022, certified properties in the Gisborne region were only visited once — in the surveillance audit of 2021.
“The CAB did not visit any sites in the Gisborne region, including the Paroa catchment where the landslides that were the subject of the CH prosecution had occurred in 2019 when the CAB was aware of the landslides and the prosecution. The CAB also did not visit any sites in the Gisborne region in 2020 or in 2022 after the CH had been convicted and the judge’s written decisions in the prosecution were available.
“Audit effort was in other properties in the group certificate in other parts of New Zealand. This was an insufficient number of sites to evaluate and provide assurance that there were no major non-conformities, given the publicly available information describing non-conformity with legal requirements and best management practices.”
The report also flagged issues with auditors not being rotated as should have happened, saying the same person conducted audits on the certification holder 12 times out of the 17 years between 2006 and 2022, and was auditor on the last eight consecutive audits from 2015 to 2022, including the 2020, 2021 and 2022 audits when he worked alone as lead auditor.
“That is not consistent with the concept of “auditor rotation” or the maintenance of impartiality and audit integrity. It is an Opportunity for Improvement.”
The report in the case of SGS’ auditing was also critical on a number of similar issues.
“In January 2022, the CH entered a guilty plea. On August 12, 2022, a judge convicted the CH of violations of the Resource Management Act for failing to comply with “consents” that were legal requirements, and for not following best management practices. The conviction involved five non-compliances with laws and five non-compliances with best management practices described in the New Zealand Environmental Code of Practice for Plantation Forestry, that are also requirements of the FSC National Standard for Certification of Plantation Forest Management in New Zealand.
“Despite this detailed and comprehensive set of information about legal non-conformities and non-conformities with best practices guidelines, which also indicated non-conformities with the FSC standard for New Zealand, the CAB did not detect any non-conformity with FSC requirements in the audit of November 2022.
“In 2019, the CH was convicted and fined for a breach of a WorkSafe New Zealand requirement by failing to ensure that dangerous work was being carried out safely.
“This event, in which a worker was killed, was a non-conformity with Indicator 1.1.3 and resulted in a conviction and a fine. It was not detected as a CH non-conformity by the CAB.
“In the 2020 audit report, the CAB presented a table that identifies five forestry fatalities over a four-year period 2016/2017 to 2019/2020. All these fatalities occurred on the CH operations in the Gisborne MU (management unit). By any objective measure, four fatalities in five years is an excessively high number of fatalities in a relatively small operation and represents a very high frequency. It demonstrated a failure to implement the best management practices for a safe work environment.
“The safety record was described to ASI by the current CH health and safety manager as “horrendous — the worst in New Zealand” and far higher than industry norms.
“Despite the information in the 2020 audit report, no follow-up action is described in the audit reports and the CAB failed to detect any non-conformity with Indicator 4.2.1 which requires “that forest managers comply with the HSE Act and its associated regulations and the relevant codes of practice and best management guidelines.
“Although no additional prosecutions were made by authorities, evidence provided to ASI indicated that there were breaches of codes of practices and best practices guidelines. CH staff acknowledged this and soon after 2020 implemented a variety of programmes to address the safety issues.”
AIS also noted that there was no significant direct stakeholder contact initiated by the CH.
Again, as with Preferred by Nature, the report noted SGS had not rotated audit personnel.
The same auditor carried out five consecutive audits on the CH certificate for the CAB between 2017 and 2021.
“He was team leader and conducted the audits alone in 2017, 2018 and 2019. He was an audit team member in 2020 and for the re-evaluation in 2021.
“SGS has not provided documentation that provides the required justification why it was not possible or feasible to rotate the auditor or provided a demonstration how an impartial and objective evidence-based audit was ensured.”
