The post ASI suspends TUVDC for FSC COC scope in India appeared first on Forest Certification.

This decision is based on the outcomes of the Amazon Timber investigation that FSC and Assurance Services International (ASI) started in 2019. This investigation focused on the supply chains of FSC-certified Cumaru, Ipe, and Jatoba timber species from the Amazon rainforests.

The blocked and suspended certificate holders (along with their certificate numbers) are:

• Maderera Rio Yaverija SAC (MADERYJA) (NC-FM/COC-002175)
• Maderera Rio Yaverija SAC (CU-COC-810564)
• Maderera Industrial Isabelita SAC (EMINI) (CU-COC-858403)

Maderera Rio Yaverija SAC (MADERYJA) (NC-FM/COC-002175) and Maderera Rio Yaverija SAC (CU-COC-810564) were also unable to justify the volume mismatches and false claims detected over the course of this investigation.

This investigation has also resulted in the termination of the FSC certificates of Nordisk Timber EIRELI (IMA-COC-000547). Hence, they can no longer claim FSC certification on their products. However, FSC has not blocked the company, therefore they may seek recertification with a different certification body. For more details about the certification status of these companies, please visit the FSC Certification Search tool.

When ASI finds evidence of false claims, fraud or any other major non-conformity in the trading patterns of an FSC-certified company, the concerned certification body is advised to either suspend or terminate that company’s FSC certificate. Additionally, ASI may recommend FSC to block this company from the FSC system to safeguard the supply chain and FSC’s brand credibility. When FSC blocks a company, it cannot seek recertification, in addition to not being allowed to claim FSC certification on its products because their trademark license agreement with FSC is revoked.

For more details about false claims and blockage from the FSC system, please refer to the FSC Advice Note 18 on False Claims (available on page 24 of this document).

The Amazon Timber transaction verification loop was launched in 2019, in which 121 certificate holders of FSC-certified Cumaru, Ipe, and Jatoba wood, from Brazil and Peru, were requested to report their transactions for 2018.

FSC and ASI decided to investigate these supply chains because of a number of incidents reported to ASI, which highlighted a potential integrity risk for FSC. Brazil and Peru account for more than 80 per cent of certificate holders selling Cumaru, Ipe, and Jatoba species of timber into the global market; hence the investigation focused on these two countries. These three species of wood have a high commercial value and face a risk of overharvesting.

Source: FSC News 26 April 2022

The post FSC blocks three companies from Peru appeared first on Forest Certification.

According to FSC’s normative procedure on TV loops and the FSC Advice Note 18, all certificate holders are mandated to respond to requests for data and documentation made by their certification bodies (who act on requests from ASI). Failure to respond to these requests is a violation of certification requirements, and certificate holders who do not comply will face serious consequences.

Califórnia Biomassa was a part of the ongoing TV loop on FSC-certified charcoal that is being conducted by ASI on behalf of FSC. During the first phase of this TV loop, ASI found potential volume mismatches in Califórnia Biomassa’s 2019 transactions of FSC-certified charcoal.

Despite repeated requests issued by Imaflora (the concerned certification body), Califórnia Biomassa failed to respond to a request for supporting invoice documentation to support their volume declarations. As a result of Califórnia Biomassa’s non-compliance, its FSC certificate was suspended by Imaflora in September 2021.

Volume mismatch is a serious integrity concern for FSC, and when a certificate holder does not provide clarifications, FSC considers such a non-compliance to be indicative of a deliberate action. Thus, FSC used the data provided by this company during the first phase of the TV loop and determined that there is evidence of false claims, thereby blocking the company from the FSC system.

Based on this assessment, FSC has blocked Califórnia Biomassa from its system for 30 months.

Any company that is blocked by FSC cannot seek recertification and it can no longer make an FSC claim on its products or use the FSC trademark. For more details about the meaning and implications of blockage due to false claims, please refer to FSC Advice Note 18, in pages 25 – 39 of this document.

The ongoing TV loop on FSC-certified charcoal will be completed by the end of 2022, and the final results will be shared in the first quarter of 2023.

Source: FSC News, 26 Jan 2022

The post FSC blocks Brazilian company appeared first on Forest Certification.

FSC received information that two United Kingdom-registered entities, UK Merit Assessments Ltd. and United Accredium Certification and Inspection Limited, posed as authentic certification bodies and provided counterfeit FSC certificates in the Indian market.

Source: FSC News, 4 August 2021

The post Counterfeit FSC Certificates Identified in India appeared first on Forest Certification.

Effective 26 June 2021, Assurance Services International (ASI) has accredited Česká společnost pro jakost, z.s. (CSQ). CSQ will be able to audit and issue certificates for FSC Chain of Custody, excluding controlled wood, in the Czech Republic. 

Effective 24 July 2021, Assurance Services International (ASI) has accredited Neocert Certificações Florestais e Agrícolas Ltda (NEO). Neocert will be able to audit and issue certificates for FSC Forest Management and Chain of Custody, excluding controlled wood, in Brazil.  

To receive the accreditation, Neocert and CSQ were evaluated by ASI and had demonstrated their ability to conduct impartial assessments to issue FSC certificates according to the established criteria. 

Source: FSC New,  14 September 2021

The post Two New FSC Certification Bodies Accredited appeared first on Forest Certification.

Transaction verification is a process of comparing and then verifying all transactions within a specific product type, group or region over a given time period.

Certification bodies will be notified when transaction verification is necessary. Certificate holders will also be informed, and will cooperate with their certification body to provide the required data.

How do certificate holders forward transaction data?

Certificate holders can submit their data using pre-defined formats supplied by FSC. The format requires information on volumes bought and sold, as well as unique identifiers such as invoice numbers.

How do certificate holders know if they are subject to transaction verification?

Certification bodies will notify the affected certificate holders, providing clear instructions, timelines and requirements of the specified transaction verification loop.

Who will process the data that is submitted for transaction verification and is a non-disclosure agreement signed as part of the process?

Transaction verification is a certification activity carried out by Certification Bodies with their clients, and Certification Bodies collect the transaction data from their client certificate holders.

As with all certification activities, and according to FSC-STD-20-001, clause 1.8, the Certification Body “shall be responsible, through legally enforceable commitments, for the management of all information obtained or created during the performance of certification activities”. According to FSC-STD-20-001, clause 2.4.2, the Certification Body must have established procedures to “define the controls needed for the identification, transport, transmission, storage, protection, retrieval and disposition of its records related to the implementation of FSC requirements, including controls to safeguard confidentiality”. Therefore, if a certificate holder has concerns on matters regarding certification activities, including Transaction Verification, the certificate holder should raise these concerns with its Certification Body.

Certification Bodies must have the necessary agreements with their clients to comply with the requirements of FSC-STD-20-001.

What happens if a certificate holder refuses to provide transaction data to their certification body?

The refusal to provide transaction data represents a breach of the contractual agreement between the organization and the certification body. If the information is not provided within the time frame requested by the certification body, the certificate holder will be issued a CAR or have their certificate suspended and/or terminated.

What are the consequences for uncertified businesses that are found making false and/or inaccurate claims?

Fraud and misuse of the FSC label by non-certificate holders are dealt with through the FSC legal office and trademark enforcement team, which investigate false use of FSC trademarks for non-eligible products and take legal action when needed.

What is the difference between false claims, inaccurate claims, and fraud?

‘Fraud’ is the term used for intentional false claims within the FSC system. ‘False claims’ happen when a product that is not eligible to be sold as FSC certified is sold with FSC claims on its sales documents. False claims can be intentional or not. They are only considered fraud when it can be proven without a doubt that the claim was made intentionally. ‘Inaccurate claims’ are where a product that is eligible to be sold as FSC certified is sold with the wrong claim (e.g. a product that should be sold as FSC Mix is sold as FSC 100%).

What information must be provided to fulfil the transaction verification requirement?

The data required for each TV loop may vary but generally will include information on trading partner (e.g. name, FSC CoC code), quantity, units, FSC claim type and species. Other data may be requested such as transaction identifier (e.g. invoice number), transaction date, description of products, country of origin, etc. No financial information will be required. The data will be collected on a sample basis, usually relating to a specific species, product type or timeframe in a specified format. The size of the sample requested will be determined by FSC and ASI based on risk. Auditors may also request access to shipping documents, invoices, or similar for confirmation.

Source: fsc.org

The post What is Transaction Verification appeared first on Forest Certification.

The post Supply chain fraud in Vietnam appeared first on Forest Certification.

Accreditation Services International (ASI) has suspended certification body Bureau Veritas from issuing FSC Chain of Custody (CoC) and Forest Management (FM) certificates worldwide.

The suspension came into effect last 19 October 2016 and it restricts Bureau Veritas’ ability to continue to offer and provide FSC accredited CoC and FM certification.

The post ASI has suspended certification body Bureau Veritas from issuing FSC certificates worldwide appeared first on Forest Certification.

The post Forest Path appeared first on Forest Certification.