Summary report – Sustainable Forest Management

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Rev: 8 12-Dec-18

Client Name / Business name RMS NZ Ltd Date(s) of review: Tuesday 13th to Thursday 15th November 2018 Type of review Stage 1 pre-certification; Stage 2 certification;

Surveillance post certification; Re-certification; Follow up or special audit

Site visited (include address) PF Olsen Ltd office at: Unit 3, 2 Northpoint Street, Plimmerton, Porirua, NZ

Certification standard NZS AS 4708:2014 Scope of activities within the scope of certification (short description)

Management of Pinus radiata and other species plantations through Forestry right from Wellington Regional Council.

Scope of the audit / review Second post-certification audit Names of review team members:

Dr. Wayne Tibbits

Name of Global-Mark Client Manager, and signatory to this report:

Dr. Wayne Tibbits

Brief description of the FMUs [Forest Management Units]

Vast majority is Pinus radiata plantation.

Brief description of the DFA [Defined Forest Area] including its area as advised to the Scheme Owner (including updates)

Current area report was produced as at 13-Nov-18 showing 5,210 hectares across 11 named forests.

Guidance as to how to obtain further details of the DFA may be accessed

Refer to website of PF Olsen Ltd.

Exclusions to the standard/management system

Requirements that are not applicable to a largely plantation forest estate.

Name of Management Representative

Mr. Kit Richards [PF Olsen Ltd] and Mr. Chris Barnes [RMS NZ Ltd]

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. 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. The summary of it is publicly available through Global-Mark.

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

Attendance to opening and exit meeting (record below or refer to scanned attendance sheet Name (s) Opening meeting Closing meeting

RMS staff – C. Barnes [Regional Manager], J. Bullock [Senior VP Forest Sustainability, via phone]

Present; Not Present; Not

PF Olsen Ltd staff –M. Hodgson [Harvest manager], R. Cook [SNI Regional Manager, via phone for closing], K. Richards [Environment Manager], H, Van Der Weuff [Harvest Manager]

Present; Not Present; Not

PF Olsen Ltd staff – R. Beamish-White [Forestry Manager] Present; Not Present; Not

Global-Mark – Wayne Tibbits Present; Not Present; Not

Global-Mark Pty Ltd, Copyright 2018 Page 2 of 5

1 Review team conclusions

This Forest Management System [FMS] includes a number of players, with RMS NZ, also known as client, organisation, or forest manager, routine implementation and operation by PF Olsen Ltd as property manager, and field activities undertaken by engineering, harvest, and silvicultural contractors. Audit evidence suggests that all players perform their respective roles to enable the FMS to meet the requirements for certification against the NZS 4708 standard for sustainable forest management under the New Zealand Forest Certification Scheme, for the activities/products and sites listed on the Global-Mark scope of certification. We note that PF Olsen use FIPS [Forest Information Planning System].

This one-person surveillance review over two and one-half days focused on stakeholder consultation, biodiversity and soil/water values as well as some of the management aspects of the FMS, including internal audits, corrective and preventive action, and management review processes. It included one full day in the field with site visits and assessments centering on criteria covering stakeholder, biodiversity, soils and water. Observations relating to other aspects of the standard are included where thought useful.

In the weeks after the exit meeting, the audit team leader attempted by email to contact two of the four stakeholders affected with respect to power lines to be de-energised during forest harvest at Puketiro forest. At the time of completion of this draft report for internal Global-Mark review, no response was received from these stakeholders.

During this audit we closed all three previous findings and raised six new findings, all as observations. Previous findings are shown in bold and italic font in the comment section of the report’s main table. The new findings are shown as red colour font in the comment section of the report’s main table. Text with green highlight is for emphasis to the client.

Two matters of minor non-conformance were identified at this audit. The client for both presented corrective action plans. One was closed during the audit, as were two new observations. This indicates prompt action by the client.

We believe that the organization listed above at the site(s) listed above has 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.

Mandatory reporting checks Audit team leader comments What is their DFA category for PEFC notification fee schedule?

1 to < 5,000 hectares; 5,000 to < 25,000 hectares; 25,000 to < 50,000 hectares; > 50,000 hectares.

Certificate includes a brief description of the geographic locality(ies) of the FMUs comprising the DFA in the scope of certification.

Mentions southern region of north island in New Zealand.

Certificate includes address for obtaining more information on the DFA (i.e. Summary Reports, DFA maps etc.).

The URL in the scope of certification is better listed as: https://nz.pfolsen.com/environment-safety/pefc-forests/ Global-Mark will change this from last part “about-pefc/”.

Client has maintained records of all communications including complaints and corrective action taken in accordance with the requirements of AS 4708 or NZS AS 4708 (as applicable), and these were available Global-Mark on request. This includes correspondence, recommendations and actions documented by the Scheme Owner.

Extensive records were in place for stakeholder consultations, particularly with an example at Puketiro.

If there was any breach of regulatory requirements within the scope of certification to AS 4708 or NZS AS 4708, did the client notify Global-Mark in writing within five business days?

No breach has happened.

How does the client maintain a DFA Current area report was produced as at 13-Nov-18 showing 5,210

Global-Mark Pty Ltd, Copyright 2018 Page 3 of 5

Mandatory reporting checks Audit team leader comments register used that has details of all separately described blocks or forest management units?

hectares. There were 11 named forests: Hiwinui Hukinga Mangaroa Maungakotukutuku and Akatarawa Saddle forests Pakuratahi West Puketiro Stoney Creek Tauanui Valley View Whakatikei Sighted report ‘OCT_CF_2018’ listing change in planted area in Oct-18 showing 25.8 hectares harvested.

How does the client maintain a system that can track additions and/or deletions to the DFA between audits and that can provide areas and maps of any changes?

The GIS is updated with fieldwork identifying any anomalies in boundaries. When re-established the planted area may change due to setbacks.

Have there been any significant changes to the DFA and if so when did they advise Global-Mark?

The changes are small.

How does and when did the client provide the Scheme Owner [Responsible Wood or New Zealand Forest Certification Association] with an annual statement confirming the current DFA?

PF Olsen provides monthly updates of area in the GIS to RMS. Sighted area statement email to RMS on 05-Nov-18. The latest DFA update on the RW website was at 27-Nov-17.

How would Global-Mark summarise the most important observations, positive, negative, regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the client’s forest management system and including considerations of compliance risks arising from activities of relevant stakeholders?

An excellent example is noted of positive implementation and effectiveness of the client’s forest management system in relation to stakeholders. This had to do with handling matters around stakeholders impacted by a harvest at Puketiro forest. A recently appointed harvest contractor, Cable Harvesting Ltd, well and truly supplied sufficient resources and other capacity to implement the management system. This was evident in many ways, such as site office container admirably set up, remote system linking tether machine to the digger/falling machine. The property manager has initiated some projects that aim at assisting “environmental, economic, social, and cultural criteria that support the sustainable management of New Zealand forests”. One is a bio-oil trial, with noted economic benefits to contractors and potential environmental benefits. An overall plan for Stoney Creek Forest has commenced, with the initial 1:7,000 scale map sighted. The property manager displayed thorough preparedness for the audit.

What are any applicable qualifications for scale and intensity, as referred to in AS 4708 or NZS AS 4708 (as applicable)?

In the application of the requirements, some will not be applicable to RMS due to the small scale and nature of the defined forest area [about 5,000ha], the scale and nature of the enterprise [a forest manager with a property manager] and the scale and nature of the impacts on the identified aspects of forest management [mostly P. radiata plantation].

What sampling methodology was used to determine the size of sample of active blocks?

Random numbers were used. There were 13 sites with active operations in the period of three months leading up to this audit. We determined that four [4] should be visited with one [equivalent to 25%] at random. In addition we inspected an inactive site of Douglas Fir [Pseudotsuga menzesii]. Sites were: • Pakuratahi West – current clearfall harvest. • Valley View – current non-commercial thinning. • Hukinga - forest road maintenance [random selection]. • Puketiro – current forest engineering works.

Global-Mark Pty Ltd, Copyright 2018 Page 4 of 5

Mandatory logo use checks Audit team leader comments What are the licence registration numbers provided by the Scheme Owner?

PEFC/40-23-1 is the registration numbers provided with the logo.

Where does the client store the licence agreement with the Scheme Owner?

It was again visually confirmed at this audit as also in May 2017 that the current agreement with New Zealand Forest Certification Association Incorporated office for use of PEFC logo, was signed and dated by both parties on 26/06/2017. The RMS Regional Manager stores this electronically.

Where does the client use the PEFC and/or Responsible Wood logos?

The organisation is only eligible to use the PEFC logo. No use was noted on email signatures, the RMS or PEFC websites or any promotional material. Inspected: https://nz.pfolsen.com/environment-safety/pefc-forests/ http://www.resourcemgt.com/sustainability However, PF Olsen as property manager has used it on an A3 flyer it prepared on “PEFC – How it can impact you and your operations”?

When the client used the PEFC and/or Responsible Wood logos, what essential elements were fulfilled?

The PF Olsen example included logo, registration numbers, website and statement “Promoting Sustainable Forest management”.

In on-product and off-product use, how were the Logos reproduced according to the measurements, colours and other specifications detailed in the respective Logo Reproduction Tool Kit?

Measurements were in accord with toolkit. Portrait size 38 wide by 63 high. There are no examples of on-product to comment on. Sighted email trail 15 & 22-Feb-18 between RMS Regional Manager and PF Olsen Environmental Forester giving access to label generator and checking poster before release.

What if any additional voluntary information is included?

This is not applicable.

2 Review teams findings (major, minor non-conformities or observations)

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

Number of findings:

Finding Details # Major non-conformities

# Minor non-conformities

# Observations

Total

Findings from previous audit(s) at start [№ 16, 26, 27]

0 0 3 3

Findings from above closed during this audit [№ 16, 26, 27]

0 0 3 3

New findings opened during this audit [№ 29-34]

0 2 4 6

New findings closed during this audit [№ 29, 32, 33]

0 1 2 3

Findings open at the end of this audit [№ 30, 31, 34]

0 1 2 3

Global-Mark Pty Ltd, Copyright 2018 Page 5 of 5

Some selected photos taken by the auditor are included below as further evidence to emphasise the report comments

Photo 1 - Power lines at Bull’s Run Road on Puketiro Forest. Photo 2 - Rutting at Pakuratahi related to finding № 34.

Photo 3 – Visibly clear riparian water at Pakuratahi. Photo 4 - Rutting at related to finding № 34.

Photo 5- Inactive site of Douglas Fir at Hukinga. Photo 6 – Engineering works at Puketiro by operator, Eric.

End of summary report