business review report - afs...in particular, the internal audit system will need to be assessed for...

Business review report - AFS

Client Name: Private Forestry Southern Queensland Incorporated (to be changed to “Private Forestry Services Queensland Incorporated”).

Date(s) of review: 16th and 17th September 2010

Type of review Pre-certification stage one

Site visited (include address) 224 Mary Street, Gympie, Queensland 4570, and two associated forest sites that PFSQ currently or has previously managed and are typical of areas that would be in its Defined Forest Area.

Certification standard Australian Forestry Standard, AS4708-2007

Scope of activities within the scope of certification (short description)

Farm forestry services managing native and planted forests for private forest owners/growers, provision of workshops and field days to private forest owners/growers, provision of extension services. Service activities include planning, roading, harvesting, maintenance, and regeneration/ establishment.

Names of review team members: Wayne Tibbits

Name of Client Manager, and signatory to this report:

Wayne Tibbits

Exclusions to the standard/management system

Nil

Review team declaration:

We confirm that for the purpose of this review:

• We did not have any conflict of interest with and is fully independent from the company listed above

• We had the review team has sufficient resources, and competences to complete its review and reach its conclusions,

• We had the appropriate credentials to perform this review in accordance with Global-Mark and applicable accreditation requirements (as applicable)

Comment and disclaimer on this report:

• This report does not and should not be seen as advice. Please consult a qualified advisor or consultant for advice.

• Due to the sampling nature of third party business reviews, the time available and samples size, some issues, non-compliances or improvements might not have been identified in the present report. This does not imply that these issues do not exist, or are in compliance. Employees, management and other stakeholders of the organization need to and are responsible for, continuously identifying and taking necessary controls to ensure continued compliance with the standard(s), and improvement.

• Readers of this report should make judgement taking the above into account.

• The report is confidential, and is owned by the organization listed above, Global-Mark Pty Ltd and the review team members who participated in its preparation

• Global-Mark reserves the right to make this report available to regulators, and/or funding providers if requested.

Photos: Thinned mixed species plantation (left) and soil stabilization (right) at Bunce’s property.

Global-Mark Pty Ltd, Copyright 2005 of 16

1 Review team conclusions

The organisation’s forest management system has some parts that have been functioning adequately for apparently a number of years since the commencement of PFSQ about 12 years ago. This system aims to meet the forestry requirements under the regulatory control in the state of Queensland. It also has some new components to meet the additional requirements of the Australian Forestry Standard that have been specifically developed with consultant input and advice. Its management and organisational structure are small but by all appearances quite effective. This group of six people who work out of the Gympie office have a clear team approach that says, “Everybody has to be able to do everything”. The structure is quite flat, and interestingly they deliberately have just a single email address so that everyone can view all electronic communications.

Key policies are those for sustainable forestry and Workplace Management. There is a “sustainable native forest management policy”. As the forest types managed are both are native forest and plantations, we raised an observation that the policy does not reference plantations. The native forests are predominantly mixed species, uneven-aged, dominated by Corymbia and/or Eucalyptus species and owned by other parties where PFSQ has management responsibility. The extent of the estate on the basis of information verbally supplied in August and September 2010 is several thousand hectares. The forest manager does not own any forest but manages forest for private landowners. Accordingly, the defined forest area will depend upon those forests that PFSQ is managing at any time.

The organisation’s documentation structure and its planning processes are areas where we think that a number of key improvements could be made (see Finding № 2 to Finding № 7). The documentation structure is essentially electronically based but the structure has only recently been modified to meet the AFS specific requirements additional to that which previously existed in their system and so the structure is in parts not complete and fully developed. The planning processes are outlined in its key document entitled "PFSQ ESF Forest Management Plan Template”. Whilst this is designed to be completed with quite specific information for each property, none has yet been completed so far using this template that incorporates and addresses much of the full suite of AFS forest management performance requirements. However, we did sight some examples of previous plans and they indicate that PFSQ does a very thorough job of its planning. Overall though, there is no forest management plan or equivalent instrument that provides the core scope and objectives of management, and describes the values to be managed, including those for protection of social benefits.

The forest manager’s significant aspects and impacts are typical of forestry operations and include those associated with biodiversity, soils, water and heritage. However, we did find that the forest manager has not assessed the significance of specific aspects and impacts of activities relevant to any of the full range of forest management performance requirements of the standard, and the list in 'PFSQ Default Data Revisited' does not appear to be complete and identify the full range of aspects.

Goals for environmental, social and economic values are embedded in their “Ethos” that can be found in the Annual Report 2009/2010. This Ethos provides valuable direction. However, the forest manager does not have a clear identification of management objectives and targets for identified significant impacts, with various documents having some reference to a range of general forest management objectives (such as “Re-veget.au” on page 7 of the Annual Report and its Attachment 1).

The legislative environment is largely under the regulatory control of the state of Queensland, and it includes the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld) and Native Forest Practice Code 2006, regulated through Department of Environment and Resource Management. The key Federal requirement is the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Processes for protecting forest values include careful allocation of time and resources into plans that prescribe treatments to each forest on a case-by-case basis for whole of landscape solutions rather than more broad acre type treatments. Processes for protecting forest health follows a similar approach and the forest manager also has a Sustainable Native Forest Management publication on case studies in managing private native forest in southeast Queensland. However, this is an area where we think that two key improvements could be made (see Finding № 16 to Finding № 17). Systems for maintaining long-term benefits for stakeholders are driven by a cooperative approach and involvement with communities, since for the ongoing functioning of PFSQ there is a clear reliance on stakeholders such as Regional NRM groups, farm forestry support groups, and Landcare groups.

The concept of continual improvement is driven by the forest manager having an ethos that “values continuous improvement in economic, environmental and social” values (Annual Report 2009/2010). The forest manager was willing to learn from the process of assessment and review at this stage one pre-certification review and adjust their management systems in ways that will assist them to better achieve the AFS requirements. The enthusiasm, passion and motivation displayed by employees (one part of their social values in their ethos), and the fact that all attended the opening and closing meetings, would support the notion that there is sufficient in place to support continual and planned improvement.

Applicable regulations and agreements with authorities are largely those identified as regulated through Department of Environment and Resource Management and the Environmental Protection Agency.


Procedures for and records of document control include electronic files on the PFSQ network with folders for each property and filing cabinets for hard copy file documentation. Document control is mostly in place, though throughout this report we note that some document templates are still in draft stages.

Procedures and records of corrective and preventative action programmes exist in design form in the incident reporting and evaluation used for corrective and preventative actions is the “PFSQ Non-conformance and improvement request system. However, we advise that at stage two certification review more records may be required for nonconformities, complaints and corrective/ preventive action. However, like the audit and review programmes this work is incomplete (see finding № 8). On the basis of our interviews, observations and sighting of various documents we conclude that people in PFQS are focused on outcomes of their forest management and appear to take care in evaluating these outcomes so that remedial action, if required, can be timely.

Procedures and records of audit and review programmes are largely incomplete. Work has not started on auditing of forest operations for conformance of planned operations. Neither has there been any periodic auditing of the forest management system to determine whether it conforms to the planned arrangements and has been properly implemented and maintained (see finding № 9). Also, the forest manager’s intention is to add management review to the end of their staff meetings. However, this has not yet started and so the forest manager cannot yet ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the forest management system (see finding № 10). This review cannot take place without the auditing having also already taken place. The forest manager was clearly informed at the closing meeting that audit and management review must be completed with sufficient records prior to certification review.

Issues identified that will need special attention at the stage two certification audit include the following. There are some comments in the body of the report shown in underline that indicate where specific evidence will need to be reviewed at the stage two audit. One such example is, “Currently, harvesting is not happening and hence there are no regular inspections of harvest operations; yet for stage two we will need to verify that this will happen.” At the closing meeting when the findings were presented, it was emphasized that some issues will need special attention by the forest manager as they prepare for certification, since there will be of necessity a focus on these at stage two certification review. These include, (1) that the three findings of major nonconformity (# 2, 9 and 17) have been sufficiently addressed, (2) that the same general issue of criterion one (forest management shall be undertaken in a systematic manner that addresses a range of forest values) is a major nonconformity as there are six findings of improvement request (# 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10) which need to be sufficiently addressed, and (3) requirements identified in this report that were not specifically addressed at this stage one pre-certification review. In particular, the internal audit system will need to be assessed for its effectiveness on key criteria such as listed in ISO19011 and JAS-ANZ Procedure Number 26 (G 3.3.11) - including, competence of personnel, procedures, references to standards, resources, organising programmes, checks and verifications, findings, and relative importance of components of forest management system.

The forest manager has identified key stakeholders groups through the PFSQ Stakeholder Database that also is to be included in the PFSQ ESF Management Plan Template, which will have a specific list for each property. Also, we have requested during this review audit that the forest manager forwards to us at least four weeks prior to the scheduled start of the stage two certification audit, (1) a list of active operations (where work has been conducted in the three month period leading up to the first day of the certification audit) so that we can determine both the number of active operations to sample and make the selective and non-selective (random) samples, and (2) a list of stakeholders so that we can make a selection from it in order to hold discussions with some. We advised that we would ask some stakeholders to respond to the Global-Mark “Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey” by the time of stage two certification audit. Also, records of forest management system communication received and actions taken may be required during stage two certification.

As we reviewed the forest management system we noted some components that are worthy of special mention. We note how well that the forest manager is working with Indigenous peoples, such as the Memorandum of Understanding with the Silver Lining Foundation (Ironbark Ridge Services). We also consider that the forest manager’s planning instruments identify existing productive uses of the defined forest area quite extensively, including identifications of how past management practices have influenced the current forest condition and indications of future directions to improve productive use (for example, at the Rifle Range site of Gympie Regional Council). Also, the enthusiasm and passion displayed by the employees for their work in PFSQ, and the fact that all attended the opening and closing meeting, would support the notion that there is sufficient in place to support continual and planned improvement of focusing in sustainable forest management outcomes.

Management system implementation programme justifies proceeding to stage two provided that the forest manager (1) takes all findings from this stage one pre-certification review and addresses them in a timely and appropriate manner to ensure system effectiveness, and (2) the system is supported by sufficient evidence and records for these and other AFS requirements. Ten of the 17 findings are in criterion one, relating to systematic management.

We believe that the organization listed above at the site(s) listed above on the basis of this pre-certification stage one business review audit, provided that it does address the matters of nonconformity, does have the capability to systematically meet the requirements of the Australian Forestry Standard, and for the activities/products and sites listed on the Global-Mark scope of certification. The scope of the audit is listed above.


Table 1 – List of field sites visited.

Date Sites visited Forest Type/Features Operations active

17th September 2010 Bunce’s property at Moy’s Pocket, off Lowe Road in the Mary Valley.

Mixed species plantation of native hardwoods being principally grown for high quality poles.

Another area on the property of 5.65 hectares is the fourth stage of development into a mosaic of plantation and other natives.

Pruning of retained trees at a stocking of about 500 stems per hectare.

17th September 2010 Rifle Range property on the outskirts of Gympie, owned by former Cooloola Shire Council, and now Gympie Regional Council.

Uneven-aged native forest comprising species of Corymbia, Eucalyptus and other genera.

The silviculture applied in 2003 was to intentionally remove poorer trees and retain better trees for future use.

There were no active operations. The area was managed by PSFQ for selective harvest in 2003.

2 Review teams findings

At the conclusion of this review the following presents the status of new and existing findings:

Number of findings:

• Open Total: 17 (Observation, Improvement Request, Nonconformity)

• Closed Total: 0

• Remaining open: Total: 0 (this is the first business review audit)

Photos: Large mature Spotted Gum intentionally retained and protected at Rifle Range site (left), and Spotted Gum amongst mostly Gympie Messmate in thinned and pruned plantation at Bunce’s property (right).


3 Comments in relations to compliance with the standard

Requirements of the Standard

Review team and client manager comments Compliance

(Yes, No, Could Improve, Observation)

Criterion 1: Criterion 1 – Forest management shall be undertaken in a systematic manner that addresses the range of forest values

Forest Management policy (4.1.1)

Photo: Regeneration at Rifle Range site.

PFSQ has a "Sustainable Native Forest Management Policy" that essentially includes commitment to the points required in the Australian Forestry Standard. The policy is contained within the main document used for plans, the “PFSQ ESF Management Plan Template”. The forest management policy does mention commitment to economic, economic and cultural values, and provision of resources appropriate to scale of the forest manager.

Finding № 1, Observation – The forest management policy is limited to "Native Forest" and does not include plantations, which are in the scope of the AFS sustainable forest management system developed by the forest manager.

Observation # 1

Forest Management plan (4.1.2)

Photo: Whole of landscape planning example of plantation and native vegetation at Bunce’s property.

Photo: Sign indicating forest management plan with Gympie Regional Council at Rifle Range site.

The forest manager identifies legal and other external requirements as listed in their Excel spreadsheet file. The PFSQ ESF Management Plan Template also includes a checklist of legislative and other requirements. A key legal requirement is the Native Forest Practice Code administered under Department of Environment and Natural Resource Management (DERM), and a comment in the spreadsheet lists the intent of the code. There also is a field guide for the code. The list contains a # Queensland Acts and a key federal act, the Environmental protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. For changes in legislation the forest manager relies on State government e-mail notifications.

Aspects and impacts were contained in a spreadsheet file named “PFSQ Default Data Revisited by Ken 19072010”. The FMP Template also tabulates social, environmental, economic and cultural heritage with their “value” and “SOP’ This work is incomplete (see finding № 2).

The objectives and targets are incomplete (see finding № 3).

The forest manager respects stakeholder input through input to FMP can be from stakeholders. We noted that the PFSQ Inc. Board has members representing stakeholders (SEQ Catchments Natural Resource Management Group) and minutes from 17th March 2010 supported this.

An example of planning providing thorough information is the PFSQ C4C (Caring for our Country) MERI (Monitoring, Evaluation, Review, Implementation).

Finding № 2, Major nonconformity – The forest manager has not assessed the significance of specific aspects and impacts of activities relevant to any of the full range of forest management performance requirements of the standard, and the list in 'PFSQ Default Data Revisited' does not appear to be complete and identify the full range of aspects.

Finding № 3, Improvement Request – The forest manager does not have a clear identification of management

No

Major nonconformity # 2

Improvement request # 3, 5

Observation # 4





Photo: Dribble bar used for application of low rates of chemicals.

objectives and targets for identified significant impacts, with various documents having some reference to a range of general forest management objectives.

Finding № 4, Observation – The PFSQ ESF Forest Management Plan template is designed to be completed with quite specific information for each property but none has yet been completed so far using this template that incorporates and addresses much of the full suite of AFS forest management performance requirements. Hence, it is not possible to verify its effectiveness.

Finding № 5, Improvement Request – There is no forest management plan or equivalent instrument that provides the core scope and objectives of management, and describes the values to be managed, including those for protection of social benefits.

Implementation of the forest management plan (4.1.3)

Photo: Regeneration at Rifle Range site.

Photo: Retaieed habitat tree (yellow “H’ still visible after years) at Rifle Range site.

Photo: Store at Gympie.

An example of operation plans was that of the Farm Forestry Property Management Plan that gives rationale and controls, such as single-tree establishment, e.g. at Tyalgum, NSW.

PFSQ is a small organisation and all forest employees indicated that everybody has to be able to do everything. Notwithstanding we think that this could be improved (see finding № 6).

Our interviews with staff and employees (no contractors were seen) would lead us to conclude that they have an adequate skill base and competencies to achieve forest management objectives for native and plantation forest management.

Procedures for external communication include a register for correspondence in and out. We sighted an example of correspondence in on 02/09/2010 from Ergon Energy on drug and alcohol policy. Internal communication appears very efficient with regular discussions amongst staff and everyone using a common email address.

Procedures for documentation include electronic files on the PFSQ network with folders for each property. There also are filing cabinets for hard copy files. A couple of whiteboards are also used, one listing contracts and another listing daily activities.

Emergency situations are covered by the PFSQ Crisis Management Plan (undated) that was developed in response to an earlier tender. This work has not been tested (see finding № 7).

Finding № 6, Improvement Request – Roles and responsibilities for staff and contractors are not defined, though they are known by staff, with people being able to describe these.

Finding № 7, Improvement Request – The PFSQ Crisis Management Plan has had no periodic testing to evaluate its effectiveness, and it is not dated nor a controlled document.

Could Improve

Improvement request # 6, 7

Monitor and evaluate forest management activities and their outcomes (4.1.4)

The forest manager has a mechanism for checking compliance of plans with legislation via the PFSQ ESF Management Plan Template that includes a checklist of legislative and other requirements.

No

Major





Photo: Spotted Gum tree with tag identifying it in a growth plot for assessment at Rifle Range site.

Photo: Native species establishment for site restoration at Bunce’s property.

Monitoring of operations is via sound practice indicators to check that desired outcomes are achieved. Currently, harvesting is not happening and hence there are no regular inspections of harvest operations, yet for stage two we will need to verify that this will happen. Evidence of monitoring of forest operations includes the field visit to Bunce’s property at Moy’s Pocket, off Lowe Road in the Mary Valley, where we observed the Operations Manager monitoring pruning of retained trees. People in PFQS are focused on outcomes of their forest management and appear to take care in evaluating these outcomes so that remedial action, if required, can be timely. Incident reporting and evaluation used for corrective and preventative actions is the “PFSQ Non-conformance and improvement request system. This work is incomplete (see finding № 8).

Auditing work has not been started (see finding № 9).

Finding № 8, Improvement Request – The “PFSQ Non-conformance and improvement request system" is newly developed and, as such, is at this stage, a template that is designed to be used to evaluate corrective and preventative actions. Hence, it is not possible to verify its effectiveness in correcting deficiencies to support continual improvement in forest management.

Finding № 9, Major nonconformity – There have not been any internal audits conducted of the forest management system to determine whether or not it conforms to its design, and is properly implemented and maintained.

nonconformity # 9

Improvement request # 8

Periodically review and where necessary modify the forest management system (4.1.5)

The forest manager’s intention is to add management review to the end of their staff meetings. However, this has not been started (see finding № 10).

The forest manager indicated that there is a pre-assessment and post-assessment of each property. However, we sighted no evidence for these at this review.

Finding № 10, Improvement Request – There has not been any management review of the forest management system to ensure its suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness to ensure continual improvement.

Could Improve


Criterion 2: Forest management shall provide for public participation and foster on-going relationships to be a good neighbour

Identify and establish contact with relevant stakeholders (4.2.1)

The forest manager has identified stakeholders through the PFSQ Stakeholder Database that also is to be included in the PFSQ ESF Management Plan Template, which will have a specific list for each property. This provides a link to the web or contact details.

At this review we did not confirm that the forest manager has established contact with relevant stakeholders.

Yes

Facilitate and encourage meaningful participation of stakeholders (4.2.2)

We inspected and confirmed that the website of PFSQ, through the Annual Report and Management Guides, explains how forest management decisions are/were made.

At this review there were no results yet of independent certification audit reports, but the forest manager did confirm that they would place these on their website.

Yes

Good neighbour (4.2.3) Not specifically assessed at this pre-certification audit. Not assessed





Criterion 3: Forest management shall protect and maintain the biological diversity of forests, including their successional stages, across the regional landscape

Identification and assessment of the significance of biological diversity values and structural elements (4.3.1)

Active identification and assessment of the significance of biodiversity values is through the Regional Ecosystem Overlay of remnant and non-remnant ecosystems. This also identifies essential habitats with descriptions of values for rare or threatened species. Hence, it is in a regional context.

Yes

No conversion of native vegetation to plantation or non-forest cover except in limited circumstances (4.3.2)

The forest manager abides by this requirement. There have been no applications for a permit to clear. We noted Form 19U Version 1.0 that relates to S.19U (Z) in the Vegetation Management Act 199 (Qld). This is the regrowth vegetation code clearing notification form. The Certified Regrowth Map from October 2009 now reserves regrowth from clearing.

If anything, attempts the opposite of conversion of native vegetation applies here, where the forest manager encourages landowners to allow their native vegetation to encroach into their cleared paddocks.

Yes

Implement practices to support the protection and maintenance of Significant Biological Diversity Values (4.3.3)

The forest manager uses strip assessment on properties that captures more information on regional ecosystems. It uses GPS reference points for characteristics such as sodium soil issues and stand structure. We noted the “Leather Management Plan” that had biodiversity mapping.

Yes

Establish and maintain a spatial configuration (4.3.4)

The C4C strategy encourages growth in connectivity as noted in Table 1 of the “PFSQ C4C MERI Plan”. It refers to “linking fragmented essential habitat forest” in “PEFC Consortium Proposal Re-vegnet”.

Yes

Regenerate native forest (4.3.5)

Photo: Lignotuber regeneration at Rifle Range site.

At the Rifle Range site on the outskirts of Gympie we noted obvious regeneration of a number of species since a previous harvest and fire. Regeneration happens as a result of coppice, lignotuber, natural seed fall. In some cases PFSQ could use enrichment planting if required.

We noted that PMAV (Property Vegetation Assessment Mapping) may be required if the map of an area has the wrong vegetation classification. We noted an example at Kiamba (Lanham), where the house and lantana patch was wrongly identified as regrowth. Formally seeking an alteration is a slow process.

Yes

Plantations shall constrain the spread of introduced species, provenances or populations used in plantations (4.3.6)

Photo: Overview at Bunce’s property.

The Forestry Plantation Manual is under development by PFSQ. We sighted a draft and noted that it refers to species selection and only using those endemic to the broader region. At this review we could not confirm that the manual would be sufficient, but the forest manager assured us that the manual would be completed prior to stage two certification review audit. Notwithstanding we think that this could be improved (see finding № 11). Planting will be Spotted Gum, Eucalyptus longistrata, E. cloeziana and a few other species in minor proportions.

Finding № 11, Improvement Request – There is no evaluation of the impact of introduced species, provenances or populations for plantations managed.

Could Improve






Forest managers managing native forests shall, where appropriate, use fire and other disturbance regimes (4.3.7)

The forest manager has a PFSQ Wet Forest Management Guide that refers to soil disturbance and/or bare earth from machine movement or fire. The PFSQ ESF Management Plan Template also refers to this.

Yes

Criterion 4: Maintenance of the productive capacity of forests

Identification of existing productive uses of the defined forest area to support the maintenance of the land (4.4.1)

The forest manager’s planning instruments identify existing productive uses of the defined forest area quite extensively. They include “inventory and evaluation of harvestable native forest timber”. These identify how past management practices have influenced the current forest condition. They also indicate future directions to improve productive use. PFSQ also use “EPLOT" and Project evaluation FF4.

Yes

Planning of forest operations to ensure productive capacity (4.4.2)

We sighted a Business Plan at the Parish of Numinbah dated September 2008 with a contract for assessment signed by Michael Freeman, thereby indicating that planning considers growth and yield estimates.

The draft Forestry Plantation Manual is to cover selection of species for plantation developments. At this review we could not confirm that the final manual would necessarily cover this point, but the forest manager assured us that the manual would be completed prior to stage two certification review audit.

Yes

Evaluation and use of silvicultural systems (4.4.3)

The forest manager uses “EPLOT" to manage inventory plots and design the Silvicultural treatment for the particular “unit”. The Project Evaluation also considers an evaluation of silviculture systems. PFSQ has also produced three useful Guidelines (№ 1 to 3) on Native Forest Stand Management.

Yes

Regeneration & establishment (4.4.4)

Photo: Well established and thinned plantation at Bunce’s property.

For the regeneration of native forests the forest manager has relied upon visual assessments and there were no records available to confirm that the forest manager ensures that regeneration is timely and effective. We think that this could be improved (see finding № 11). We did note that the forest manager is mindful of this and we sighted on page 91 of their Sustainable Native Forest Management publication photographs of regeneration from case studies in managing private native forest in southeast Queensland. For the plantations observed at Bunce’s property their establishment was a number of years ago but it would appear that establishment was timely and effective.

Finding № 12, Observation – The system does not provide sufficient evidence that the forest manager ensures that regeneration of native forests is effective and timely.

Observation # 12

Damage to forest growing stock during forest operations (4.4.5)

Photo: The one instance of stem

The forest manager attempts to ensure that damage to growing stock during forest operations stays within tolerable levels. We sighted the PFSQ Forest Operational Harvest Plan that mentions the harvest contractor is to avoid damage to retained trees from cutting down trees and extraction. The Harvest Manager can cease operations if in their opinion the damage is excessive. PFSQ № 5 Native Forest Guide also addresses damage. Notwithstanding, we think that this could be improved (see finding № 13). We did note only one instance of stem damage at Bunce’s property and the Operations Manager clearly identified that they took action to control any further damage by selecting more careful operators. We include in this report photographic evidence of this isolated damage.

Could Improve






damage from an forestry operation at Bunce’s property.

Finding № 13, Improvement Request – There are no specifications for and assessment of tolerable levels of damage to growing stock from forest operations.

Implement effective measures to reduce the extent and impact of unplanned fires (4.4.6)

Photo: PFSQ vehicle two quick spray units that can be used for fire fighting.

The draft Forestry Plantation Manual is to cover effective measures to reduce the extent and impact of unplanned fires. This work is incomplete (see finding № 14). Where PFSQ as the forest manager has total property management then this could include fuel reduction burning. We sighted at Bunce’s property on the back of a PFSQ vehicle two quick spray units that can be used for fire fighting, each with 150 m of hose and under remote control. We also sighted the proposed fire management plan for Eagle Rock 2009 that refers to fire control system. Permits are needed for open fires from 29 August to 28 February. The forest manager indicated that they had a relationship with a contractor who is set up with fire suppression equipment. At this review we could not verify this relationship or the equipment.

Finding № 14, Improvement Request – The draft Forestry Plantation Manual covers design criteria to minimise risk from fire and incentives for the owner to address fire risk, but the Manual is not completed, so its cannot be fully reviewed.

Could Improve


Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality

Identification of potential damage agents (4.5.1)

Photo: Crowns appearing healthy in plantation at Bunce’s property.

We did note that the forest manager is mindful of this and we sighted on page 26 of their Sustainable Native Forest Management publication on case studies in managing private native forest in southeast Queensland reference to insect damage. For the plantations the forest manager indicated that they are potentially subject to more damage agents than native forest. We think that this could be improved (see finding № 15). We did not notice any obvious impact in the plantations from damage agents at Bunce’s property.

Finding № 15, Improvement Request – There is insufficient evidence that potential damage agents have been formally identified, assessed and prioritised, although we note that the forest manager considers there to be a relatively short listed of these.

Could Improve


Support the maintenance of forest ecosystems (4.5.2)

Photo: Well developing stand with regeneration at Rifle Range site.

The forest manager informed us that annual inspections on the anniversary of commencement of projects with properties might reveal forest health issues. These inspections are used to identify or confirm operations planned for the year ahead. Diary entries or rough notes may be made and placed ion file from these and other field inspections. We think that this could be improved (see finding № 16).

Finding № 16, Improvement Request –There is insufficient evidence of procedures for forest health surveillance and consequential eradication of damage agents throughout the operational stages of forest management. Therefore, this does not meet what "the AFS requires that monitoring and auditing protocols report the probability that they will detect important changes (if they exist) for identified significant aspects of forest management" (page 34).


Maintenance and enhancement the forest ecosystems (4.5.3)

Our observations at the Rifle Range property on the outskirts of Gympie would indicate that the disturbance

Yes





regime there has been effective in enhancing forest ecosystem health.

Management of degraded forest to facilitate their rehabilitation (4.5.4)

Photo: Area for stage 4 plantation to rehabilitate part of Bunce’s property.

Our observations at the Rifle Range property on the outskirts of Gympie for native forest and Bunce’s property for plantations would indicate that much of the work of the forest manager is in fact rehabilitation.

Photo: Rehabilitating forst at Rifle Range site.

Yes

Reduce reliance on chemicals (4.5.5)

Photo: Area where chemical are stored under office in Gympie.

We sighted at Bunce’s property on the back of a PFSQ vehicle two quick spray units that can be used with dribble bars to apply lower amounts (volume) of chemical than normally used. We include in this report photographic evidence of this equipment. There is a chemical store at the Gympie office and we noted in it Bio-Smart 360, Gladiator 450, Tordon, and Teric G9A6 (for cleaning equipment). At this review we did not verify that all chemicals had MSDS.

Photo: Tree killed with stem injection at Rifle Range site.

Yes

Criterion 6: Protection of Soil and Water Resources

Identification of inherent soil and water values (4.6.1)

The forest manager advised that preliminary assessments for the preparation of management plans use strip lines to identify potential soil erodability issues. We sighted an example of a management plan from June 2008 for Ergon Energy, where maps indicated soil pits and there were photos of these pits and soil cores. Another example was where Queensland Water Infrastructure (QWI) required in its proposal for soil pits and soil core sampling.

Yes

Minimisation of adverse changes to water quality (4.6.2)

At Bunce’s property and the Rifle Range site our observations support a conclusion the PFSQ planning and operations have probably protected and maintained water quality, although there were no water courses that we could inspect to specifically check on water quality.

Yes

Hydrological flows are managed in accordance with authorised regional catchment goals (4.6.3)

We did not specifically assess this requirement during the stage two pre-certification business review audit.

Yes

Protection and maintenance of soil At Bunce’s property our observations were that retention of Yes





physical chemical and biological properties (4.6.4)

patches of vegetation helps to prevent soil movement. The only forest operation seen was pruning that had little potential impact on soil properties. We did see evidence of past “Whoa Boys” constructed on tracks at Rifle Range site to turn water off tracks and reduce potential erosion.

The C4C Project has a focus on soils to protect. Within this there is a rapid assessment to get an overall picture of forest health. Within this Forest Condition is categorized A to D, with drop down boxes and reference to GPS.

Water pollution and soil contamination (4.6.5)

At Bunce’s property and the Rifle Range site our observations identified no instances where chemical were transported into waterways or waste fuels, lubricants and chemicals were left on site. The two quick spray units that can be used with dribble bars that we sighted at Bunce’s property on the back of a PFSQ vehicle should help the forest manager to prevent water pollution and soil contamination.

Yes

Criterion 7: Forest contribution to carbon cycles

Commitment to minimising greenhouse gas emissions (4.7.1)

Photo: Area adjoining Bunce’s property with recent hazard reduction burn that could help minimise greater emissions from a more severe fire.

The forest manager listed this in their “AFS Checklist Gap Analysis 2” but they advised us that they struggled to know what to include in their system to meet this requirement (see finding № 17). In discussions with the forest manager at this review, PFSQ acknowledged the "intrinsic value" of "carbon storage"; particularly through the selective harvesting and regeneration in native forest management and also some of the plantation developments were some areas are primarily planted for reasons such as soil stabilization that would also act as a net carbon sink. The forest manager was unclear leading up to the review as to how it could "demonstrate a commitment to minimising greenhouse gas emissions”. Examples were discussed including reducing by vehicle movements and cartage distances, regularly servicing equipment to improve fuel efficiency and reducing net emissions from burning. However, as there is no evidence that these approaches are being demonstrated we raised a finding (see finding № 17).

Finding № 17, Major nonconformity – There is nothing in the system for the forest manager to track and demonstrate a commitment to minimising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The system does not yet demonstrate how it maintains forests' contribution to carbon cycles, when its forest management activities can contribute to GHG emissions such as machine use and burning.

No

Major nonconformity # 17

Criterion 8: Maintenance of natural, cultural, social, religious and spiritual heritage values for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous people

Recognition of the rights and responsibly of Australia’s Indigenous people (4.8.1)

The forest manager uses the “EPA Indigenous Interests and heritage” facility to allow a search for known localities. It is noteworthy that the forest manager is working with Indigenous peoples, such as the Memorandum of Understanding with the Silver Lining Foundation (Ironbark Ridge Services). The Memorandum of Understanding is for the period November 2009 to June 2011 and is for PFSQ to provide training and to engage the Silver Lining Foundation community to participate in and enhance natural resource management, a seedling nursery and training of youth. We also sighted a photo of the PFSQ Forestry Extension Officer at a presentation of certificates for Silvicultural

Yes





management after a 5-day workshop. This agreement supports education and promotion to the wider Australian community of Indigenous peoples’ interests in forest and supports Indigenous peoples’ economic aspirations in sharing benefits form the management of forests.

Protection of natural heritage and cultural, religious, spiritual and social heritage values (4.8.2)

The forest manager has a draft “Identification and Protection Template”. It has the capacity of inserting pictures and descriptions of items of natural heritage and cultural, religious, spiritual and social heritage values, assigning protection measures, maintenance measures and expert advice. This is aimed to link to the PFSQ ESF Management Plan Template.

We sighted an example for Neerdie block where there was a gravesite of value to be protected. The map indicated the location of the gravesite that was identified by marking it with pink surveyor’s tape. There were records of GPS of cemetery on the same site and a “Proposal to CSC” with reference in CSC Neerdie Harvest Agreement that the gravesites are marked with red paint as zones for no logging.

Yes

Existing legal or traditional use of the forest (4.8.3)

Photo: Warning sign at Rifle Range.

The forest manager indicated that there were no known examples of traditional uses in the privately owned freehold forests that are likely to be within their DFA.

In terms of the forest manager taking appropriate action to constrain unauthorised or illegal activities, we saw records where action at Multiplex, near Caboolture, aimed to control pollution form illegal dumping. We sighted the “Multiplex Rubbish Removal Report” that recorded removal of 17 tonnes of general heavy rubbish, 21 car bodies and 3 tonnes of metal recycling. The Rifle Range site is owned and managed by the Gympie Regional Council. They had placed signs there to inform the public that trail bikes are to not use the area. The bikes can damage tracks and so threaten the condition of the forest.

Yes

Criterion 9: Maintenance and enhancement of long term social and economic benefits

Support of regional industry and regional communities (4.9.1)

Photo: Landowners can continue to have grazing as well as plantations as seen at Bunce’s property.

The efforts by the forest manager to support regional industry and communities is embedded in the goal of PFSQ. The “Native Forest Workshop Series” is one clear initiative that has due regard to the role of forestry in rural and regional development. Its Annual Report 2009/2010 clearly states that its “primary function is to assist the development of the private forest industry in southern Queensland”. It uses local and regional contractors, although we need to verify this at the next review, the certification audit.

Yes

Use of harvested forest products (4.9.2)

The efforts by the forest manager to pursue efficient and optimal use of harvested forest products is also a major focus of PFSQ. The “Native Forest Stand Management Guide № 4” is on forest products and marketing that presents information and options to owners about selling and the relative value of their forest products. The forest manager

Yes





Photo: Thinned plantations aimed as crop of high value poles at Bunce’s property.

gave an example where the managed the salvage of a failed Managed Investment Scheme at a Multiplex site and that the forest products were not wasted but went to Hardboards Australia.

In the Rifle Range site, we observed growth plots and measurement records from 17-Feb-2010 that are being used to identify the growth following the previous harvest and so encourage the Gympie Regional Council to continue pursuit of efficient and optimal use of forest products.

Support to employment and skills development of forest workers (4.9.3)

Photo: People employed for pruning plantation at Bunce’s property.

Its Annual Report 2009/2010 clearly states that the role of PFSQ includes “fosters and supports the growth of a competitive forest industry”. The efforts by the forest manager to do this are in the area of a number of publications that support employment and skills development of forest workers. We sighted the “Landholder Guide – Sustainable Forest Management on Freehold Land – Rights and Responsibilities” Edition 1, June 2005.

Yes

Safe working environment and comply with relevant occupational health and safety employment legislation. (4.9.4)

Photo: Stumps of trees thinned at Bunce’s property appear correct.

PFSQ has a Workplace Management Policy that commits to “workplace health and safety”. There also is a document (“Workplace Health & Safety Links.doc”) that contains various safety links.

On the basis of one operation visited at Bunce’s property at Moy’s Pocket where we noted the safe work practices by two workers pruning trees, it appears that the forest manager fosters a safe working environment in the field. We interviewed these employees and were satisfied that they had and knew their procedures to promote safe work practices.

Yes

Respect the rights of employees and other workers (4.9.5)

Employees of PFSQ were interviewed and they all stressed that they feel a real part of a team that values strong efforts to respect each other’s rights. The Operations Manager indicated that field employees were selected after interview by a panel, and that prior experience and skills are recognised for recommendation for appointment to roles.

Yes


Additional Criteria

Environmental, social and economic aspects, impacts and significance

This requirement has been partly addressed by the forest manager. See text in 4.1.2.

See findings

Operational control, including capacity planning, sustainable production, and maintenance of forest values

We observed a high level of operational control by members of the forest managers’ team in both planning and field activities.

Yes

Statistical monitoring to protect environmental, social and economic values

The forest manager is a small-scale business with six direct employees based in the Gympie office. Hence, their level of statistical monitoring required is generally commensurate with their size. The inspection of one current and one past field operation indicated that they paid particular attention to monitoring of environmental values.

Yes

Statistical power requirements As above. Yes

Qualification, experience and authority of the staff

All members of staff were met and they have appropriate qualifications, experience and authority. They displayed an enthusiasm and passion for their work to support the requirements of the AS4708-2007.

Yes

Performance monitoring, controls, measuring, reporting and reviewing against the objectives and targets

Many of these are not recorded and so we are unable to confirm that they are in place, including operational monitoring and reporting. Reviewing against the objectives and targets is yet to be fully implemented.

See findings

Nonconformities, complaints and corrective/ preventive action

This is an area of the management system where our findings indicate that the forest manager needs to do more here prior to the certification review.

We advise that records will be required during stage two certification.

See findings

Audit and review programs This is an area of the management system where our findings indicate that the forest manager needs to do much more here prior to the certification review.

We advise that records will be required during stage two certification.

See findings

Continual and planned improvement

The forest manager has an ethos that “values continuous improvement in economic, environmental and social” values (Annual Report 2009/2010). The enthusiasm and passion displayed by employees, and the fact that all attended the opening and closing meetings, would support the notion that there is sufficient in place to support continual and planned improvement.

See findings

Legal and Regulatory Requirements This is an area of the management system where our findings indicate that the forest manager needs to do more here.

At the closing meeting we advised the forest manager that licences/ permit requirements and records of compliance may be required during stage two certification.

See findings

Discussions with a selection of relevant stakeholders.

We have requested that the forest manager forwards to us a list of stakeholders so that we can make a selection from it in order to hold discussions with some.

We advise that we will ask some to respond to the Global-Mark “Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey” by the time of stage two certification audit. Also, records of forest management system communication received and actions taken may be required during stage two certification.

To be verified later

Use of marks/logos Not applicable yet. To be verified later


Photo: Putative hybrid Cadagi at Rifle Range.

Photo: Tracks in Rifle Range site showing little erosion (left) and signs of previously installed drainage (right).

End of report (Attendance Sheet follows)

business review report - afs...in particular, the internal audit system will need to be assessed for...

Documents