FOREST MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT · Doc. Version date: 24 May 2007 SGS QUALIFOR (Associated Document) Page: 1 of 40 SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens

Doc. Number: AD 36-A-05 Doc. Version date: 24 May 2007

SGS QUALIFOR (Associated Document)

Page: 1 of 40

SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens - PO Box 82582, Southdale 2185 South AfricaSystems and Services Certification Division [email protected] South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens - PO Box 82582, Southdale 2185 - South AfricaSystems and Services Certification Division Contact Programme Director at t. +27 11 681-2500 www.sgs.com/forestry

FOREST MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT

SSEECCTTIIOONN AA:: PPUUBBLLIICC SSUUMMMMAARRYY

Project Nr: 7709-ZA

Client: Siya Qhubeka Forests

Web Page: www.siyaqhubekaforests.co.za

Address:

7 Western Arterial Road,

Alton

Richards Bay Kwa Zulu Natal

Country: South Africa

Certificate Nr. SGS-FM/COC-000870 Certificate Type: Forest Management

Date of Issue 28 December 2007 Date of expiry: 27 December 2012

Forest Zone: Subtropical

Total Certified Area 26879.4 ha

Scope: Forest Management of Siya Qhubeka Forests plantations in KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa for the production of hardwood and softwood timber.

Company Contact Person:

Jim Matsho

Address: 7 Western Arterial Road

Alton Richards Bay Kwa Zulu Natal

Tel: 035 9022776

Fax 035 9022261

Email: [email protected]

Evaluation dates:

Main Evaluation 18 to 20 September 2007

Surveillance 1 27-28/8/2008 – COF 27 October 2008

Surveillance 2 19 – 21 / 10 / 2009

AD 36-A-05 Page 2 of 40

Surveillance 3

Surveillance 4

AD 36-A-05 Page 3 of 40

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS

1. SCOPE OF CERTIFICATE ..........................................................................................................................5 2. COMPANY BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................7

2.1 Ownership ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Company Key Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Company History................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 Organisational Structure...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Ownership and Use Rights.................................................................................................................................. 8 2.6 Other Land Uses ................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.7 Non-certified Forests ........................................................................................................................................... 9

3. FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................9 3.1 Bio-physical setting () .......................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Planning process............................................................................................................................................... 10

The PSP Programme ...........................................................................................................................................10 3.3 Harvest and regeneration.................................................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Monitoring processes ........................................................................................................................................ 13

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT........................................................................14 4.1 Social aspects ................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Environmental aspects ...................................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Administration, Legislation and Guidelines........................................................................................................ 15

5. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT, HARVESTING, SILVICULTURE AND MONITORING ..........................17 6. PREPARATION FOR THE EVALUATION ................................................................................................18

6.1 Schedule ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 6.2 Team................................................................................................................................................................. 18 6.3 Checklist Preparation ........................................................................................................................................ 18 6.4 Stakeholder notification ..................................................................................................................................... 18

7. THE EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................19 7.1 Opening meeting ............................................................................................................................................... 19 7.2 Document review............................................................................................................................................... 19 7.3 Sampling and Evaluation Approach .................................................................................................................. 19 7.4 Field assessments............................................................................................................................................. 19 7.5 Stakeholder interviews ...................................................................................................................................... 19 7.6 Summing up and closing meeting ..................................................................................................................... 20

8. EVALUATION RESULTS...........................................................................................................................20 8.1 Findings related to the general QUALIFOR Programme ................................................................................... 20

PRINCIPLE 1: Compliance with law and FSC Principles.................................................................................... 20 PRINCIPLE 2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities.................................................................................. 21 PRINCIPLE 3: Indigenous peoples’ rights .......................................................................................................... 21 PRINCIPLE 4: Community relations and workers rights ..................................................................................... 22

AD 36-A-05 Page 4 of 40

PRINCIPLE 5: Benefits from the forest .............................................................................................................. 23 PRINCIPLE 6: Environmental impact................................................................................................................. 24 PRINCIPLE 7: Management plan ....................................................................................................................... 25 PRINCIPLE 8: Monitoring and evaluation ........................................................................................................... 26 PRINCIPLE 9: High Conservation Value Forests................................................................................................ 27 PRINCIPLE 10: Plantations .................................................................................................................................. 27

9. CERTIFICATION DECISION......................................................................................................................29 10. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................29 11. RECORD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS (CARs) ....................................................................31 12. RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................36 13. RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND INTERVIEWS ...........................................................37 14. RECORD OF COMPLAINTS .....................................................................................................................39

ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS (not part of the Public Summary)

AD 20: Evaluation Itinerary

AD 21: Attendance Record

AD 26: Corrective Action Requests

AD 36-B: Evaluation - Observations and Information on Logistics

AD 38: Peer Review Report

AD 40: Stakeholder Reports

Evaluation team CV’s

List of stakeholders contacted

Complaints and Disputes

Procedures for submitting complaints, appeals and disputes, and the SGS processing of such are published on www.sgs.com/forestry. This information is also available on request – refer contact details on the first page.

AD 36-A-05 Page 5 of 40

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the evaluation was to evaluate the operations of Siya Qhubeka Forests against the requirements of the QUALIFOR Programme, the SGS Group’s forest certification programme accredited by Forest Stewardship Council.

1. SCOPE OF CERTIFICATE The scope of the certificate falls within the Subtropical Forest Zone and includes 1 Forest Management Units (FMUs) as described below.

Description of FMUs: Description Ownership Area (ha) Longitude E/W Latitude N/S

3 sections in Zululand – ie Dukuduku/Nyalazi in the north within the Greater St.Lucia wetland park.

Leased 15073.7 32deg 25min E 28deg 05 min S

Kwambonambi near Richards Bay Leased 7855.8 31deg 05 min E 28 deg 20mins S

Port Durnford in the South. Leased 3949.9 31 deg 48 min E 28 deg 55 mins S

Total 26879.

Size of FMUs:

Nr of FMUs Area (ha)

Less than 100ha

100 to 1000 ha in area

1001 to 10000 ha in area

More than 10000 ha in area 1 26879.

Total

Total Area in the Scope of the Certificate that is:

Area (ha)

Privately managed 26879.

State Managed None

Community Managed None

Composition of the Certified Forest(s)

Area (ha)

Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for conservation objectives

5885.2

Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for production of NTFPs or services

Area of forest classified as “high conservation value forest”

Total area of production forest (i.e. forest from which timber may be harvested)

AD 36-A-05 Page 6 of 40

Composition of the Certified Forest(s)

Area (ha)

Area of production forest classified as “plantation” 20994

Area of production forest regenerated primarily by replanting

Area of production forest regenerate primarily by natural regeneration

List of High Conservation Values Description Notes

Swamp Forest 30% of The total swamp forest of South Africa is within the company FMU.

Coastal Lowland Forest 23% of the total land area of SQF falls under Coastal Lowland Forest

.

List of Timber Product Categories Select one option for each field and delete what is not applicable. Please note: a separate line must be created for each separate Product class, Product type and Category: Product Class Product Type Trade Name Category Species

Wood in the rough

Logs of hardwood. Eucalyptus pulp.

Hardwood

Eucalyptus species

Wood in the rough.

Logs of coniferous wood

Pine pulp

Conifer

Pinus species

Annual Timber Production Maximum Annual Sustainable Yield (m3) Species (botanical name) Species (common name) Area (ha)

Projected Actual

Eucalyptus clones Gum various clones 15870.9 356,502 tons (2007)

343 586 tons

Pinus species Pine 5853.8 12 000 10 000 tons

Other Various trials 37.5 0

Total plantable area 21817.1

Totals 21817.1

List of Timber Product Categories Product Notes

Eucalyptus pulp

Pulp designated for Mondi Richards Bay mill and Silvacel chipping plant. Cut on 8 year rotation.

Pine sawlogs Sold to local sawmills. Pine rotations will be converted to Eucalyptus plantings by mid 2008 and sawlog production will end.

Pine Pulp Sold to Mondi BP Richards Bay Pulp Mill. Will end mid 2008 when pine conversion is complete.

AD 36-A-05 Page 7 of 40

List of Timber Product Categories Product Notes

Totals

Approximate Annual Commercial Production of Non-Timber-Forest-Products Species Product

Botanical Name Common Name)

Unit of measure Total units

Firewood Euc/pine slash Tons ±336

Isundu Palms Isundu Palms Head loads ±36

Thatching grass Thatch grass Head loads ±8

Building poles Eucalyptus clones Eucs Head loads ±30

Fishing Fish 13 permits@R20ea

Grazing Head of cattle 1193

2. COMPANY BACKGROUND 2.1 Ownership

SiyaQhubeka Consortium - the majority shareholder of SiyaQhubeka Forests - is an association between forests products group Mondi and its black empowerment partner Imbokodvo Lemabalabala Holdings (I.L. Holdings). I.L. Holdings is the first black empowerment company, other than a community trust, to acquire shares in a significant forestry enterprise in South Africa.

Together as SiyaQhubeka Consortium, Mondi and I.L. Holdings own 75% of the shares in SiyaQhubeka - with Mondi holding 65% and I.L. Holdings, holding 10%. Mondi will reduce its shareholding to 51% by facilitating the acquisition by small-scale black timber farmers, traditional leaders and neighboring communities of a further 14%. Government, through Safcol, the National Empowerment Fund and employees, will hold 25% of the shares.

I.L. Holdings counts traditional leaders and black businessmen among its shareholders.

The company has some 70% of all land holdings under land claims. However this is not seen as a stumbling block as the local communities are involved as shareholders and claims currently being assessed are planned to be incorporated as shareholders with SiyaQubeka as caretakers. There is a 70 year lease in place from SAFCOL in which there is a clause which prevents claimants from opting for exit forests for 50 years. Leases collected annually from Siya Qubeka are paid into a trust fund which will be paid out to shareholders annually when final settlements have been reached on land claims

2.2 Company Key Objectives

Objective Notes

Commercial To develop the SiyaQhubeka lease area as the worlds leading Eucalyptus plantation in respect of management, social responsibility, sustainability and profitability.

The company has embarked on a conversion plan from long term pine rotation to short term gum pulp rotations. This plan is expected to be complete in 2008. There are approximately 450ha left to convert.

Social Practice sustainable plantation forestry on land that it owns, leases, or manages on behalf of others while honouring and respecting the customary tenure or rights of use of local communities.

The company has multiple local stakeholders and more local stakeholders are envisioned for the future. There is a strong bias towards

AD 36-A-05 Page 8 of 40

Objective Notes local stakeholder involvement.

Environmental Manage appropriately areas worthy of conservation.

A conservation forester has worked extensively and produced long term and short term action plans for the conservation of several Bionomes. Not least is a considerable budget for the eradication of aliens in conservation areas (in excess of R500,000 for 2007 alone) Areas worthy of consideration as world heritage sites or ASI’s are worked on, management plans drawn up and budgets for their retention as areas of special interest sought.

Monitor the impacts of its own and contracted operations on the natural and social environments and integrate the results into a programme of continual improvement.

Continual monitoring is ongoing, outside experts are called in regularly for advice and contracts extended to some for projects considered outside the realm of SiyaQubeka personnel. There is a water table monitoring system with boreholes located at various strategic points. This project is ongoing from Safcol’s time and water table levels are measured throughout the St.Lucia Section by the University of Natal.

2.3 Company History The consortium acquired the plantations from the state after some four years of negotiations. The sale of the package was announced in March 1999 and SQF was announced as the preferred bidder in November of the same year. The transaction was concluded in July 2001 and SQF commenced operations on 1 October 2001. The company was officially launched on 6 December 2001. SQF has a 70-year lease agreement with the state to manage the forestland. The company has numerous land claims which are currently being negotiated, and these stakeholders will be included in the SQF shareholding. There is a clause in the 70 year lease that protects plantations from being converted from forestry use to other uses by claimants for a period of 50 years.

The company is based on the northern KwaZulu-Natal coast with its regional office in Richards Bay. The company is structured into three plantation offices:

• St Lucia plantation

• Kwambonambi plantation

• Port Durnford Plantation

The total landholdings constitute 26879. ha of managed area stretching from Nyalazi in the north to Port Durnford in the south. (September 2007 Management report)

This re-assessment is for the company’s 2nd certificate.

2.4 Organisational Structure The company has a Regional Manager in Richards Bay. The plantation manager for each plantation has harvesting and silviculture managers under him, who in turn manage the workers and contractors responsible for executing the operations infield. SQF has 2 silvicultural foresters, 2 harvesting foresters and one SHE coordinator and an environmental coordinator. There are an additional nine administrative support staff and accounting personnel. There are 1200 contractor staff and contractors account for all levels of operational work duties.

2.5 Ownership and Use Rights

The land is owned by the South African government and leased to SQF with a one rotation notification period. Certification is a pre-condition to this lease.

There are other use rights by the military. These are not exercised at this time. Full ownership rests with SQF.

AD 36-A-05 Page 9 of 40

2.6 Other Land Uses

The northern section (ST.Lucia) is fenced into the Greater St.Lucia Wetland Park and animals such as Elephant, Hippo, Crocodile and numerous other specie roam at will through the FMU. The eastern boundary is on the coast, whilst the southern and western boundaries are next to urban, peri-urban and agricultural land-uses. Local residents from these areas are able to obtain limited permits for fishing, collecting firewood, palm oil and mushrooms from the company.

2.7 Non-certified Forests The total area of SQF is certified and the company does not own or lease any uncertified land.

The majority shareholder of SQF controls other significant areas of certified plantations within South Africa.

3. FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

3.1 Bio-physical setting

Geography:

The SiyaQhubeka plantations are situated on the southern extremity of the Mozambique coastal plain, which occurs on the eastern seaboard of southeastern Africa. This portion of the plain is characterized by a very gently undulating, flat, sandy landscape (5-60 meters above sea level). It has an impeded drainage due to the low topography and a relatively high rainfall regime (800-1200mm per annum). These features give rise to a fine mosaic of higher lying dune remnants and dune slack wetlands, the latter being supported by a high water table. Peripherally to this, mosaic drainage lines occur. These drainage lines are poorly developed in their upper reaches and resemble seepage zones.

Ecology:

The vegetation coverage consists predominantly of Maputuland Coastal Belt which includes: Maputuland Wooded Grassland Northern Coastal Forest Swamp Forest

Natural vegetation patterns occurring on the Zululand coastal plain are primarily controlled by moisture and disturbances such as fire and grazing (Conlong & van Wyk 1990, Van Wyk 1991a&b; van Wyk 1992). A general description is that herbaceous communities can broadly be categorised into two main groups, depending on their respective position in the local drainage. These herbaceous communities are dwarf shrub lands occurring on the interfluve dune ridges, and hydromorphic grasslands/sedge lands occurring in lower-lying catenal positions. Woody communities can be divided into coastal lowland thickets and forests, which predominantly occur on well-drained sandy dune ridges, and swamp forests, which occur in wetland areas which have some lateral drainage (ie seep zones and drainage channels).

The average rainfall for the region varies between 800-1200mm per annum. Some 30% of the national swamp forests occur within the SQF cadastre.

Soils:

The soils within the SiyaQubeka managed area, indeed the whole region are sandy, typical of coastal dunes. It is part of SiyaQubeka policy to burn as little as possible to retain as much cover from waste material as possible to encourage humus content.

3.2 History of use

The plantations represented here have been planted for at least the past 50 years on land that previously would have been primarily used for grazing. Europeans that had immigrated to southern Africa settled on these farms in the 18th century. Very little is known about the land use prior to this period, but it is most likely that the indigenous African people would have used the land mainly for grazing and limited dry land agriculture.

The eastern seaboard of Southern Africa formed the route for the migration of the Nguni peoples from south central Africa to the KwaZulu -Natal coastal areas. The Nguni people were a notoriously warlike

AD 36-A-05 Page 10 of 40

nation who either decimated or assimilated opposition. The advance of the Nguni finally came to a halt in Northern Zululand where the combination of fertile soils, nutrient rich grasslands and the proximity of the ocean persuaded them to settle.

Adjacent properties are planted to plantations of Eucalyptus and sugar cane. The Greater St.Lucia Wetland Park borders on the Eastern boundary with SQF.

3.3 Planning process

The company has a 30 year management plan that is progressively updated annually. This forecasts highs and lows in volumes based on current data as an aid for long term sustainability. Based on these forecasts on volumes, financial sustainability and the sustainability of product for the Richards Bay pulp mill can be determined.

This 30 yr plan is broken down into 8 year cycles for harvesting – all eucalypt species (clones and hybrids) are on an 8 year rotation – this is the medium term plan of operations. With this plan decisions are made on compartments for replant giving the research and nurseries time for their own planning schedules.

Annual plans of operations are taken from the medium term plan and put into practice. The overall financial management plan is also based on the medium term plan, forecasting future income and expenditure to provide insight to sustainability on financial and volume sustainability.

Monitoring is done continuously from volumes per ha recorded at felling, labour costs budgeted against vs used for all silvicultural operations and work in conservation areas vs budget. These fall into a monthly reporting scenario followed by management meetings with contractors and other senior staff.

The PSP Programme

Long term growth monitoring in SQF makes use of permanent sample plots. The 1:500 rule is used (i.e. 1 PSP per 500ha, by species). These PSPs are stratified by broad productivity classes (from good to poor sites), and more recently by detailed environmental variables such as MAP, MAT, altitude and physiographic region. At the beginning of each year the programme is reviewed and updated to ensure that clearfelled PSPs are replaced so that data from consecutive rotations can be collected.

At present most of r the PSPs are still in the first rotation with some moving into the second rotation. As the collection of data from consecutive rotations takes place it will be possible to monitor changes in productivity (ultimately volume and possibly timber quality) over time. The two major advantages of the PSP programme are the collection of data for:

modelling forest growth and the monitoring of forest dynamics and health

Pulp PSPs are measured every year. Data is captured and checked thoroughly before modeling takes place. Currently all major modeling takes place through the Mensuration and Modelling Research Consortium (MMRC). All members of the MMRC pool their data and new models are developed on this data. Old models are replaced with new ones only once testing has been done. If the new model proves to be a more realistic representation of the growth of a species it will be replaced. All model changes are documented.

In the past models were developed for broad physiographic regions. The focus now is to look at the development of models for specific species based on specific environmental/climatic variables.

Information gleaned from PSPs will be used as part of the new Mondi Site Classification system for site productivity.

3.4 Harvest and regeneration

With silvicultural operations close networking between clonal nurseries, delineation contractors and silvicultural contractors are maintained. Compartments are analysed with regard to volume produced, clonal specie to be used regarding soil and climatic types, whether post harvesting trash should be burnt (usually only if the compartment is bordering a boundary that could prove dangerous during the dry months ie fires spreading from neighbouring areas to reduce the fuel load) fertiliser requirements, spacing of trees, herbicide usage – CP3 back packs are used in conjunction with cones with 2 – 3

AD 36-A-05 Page 11 of 40

applications in the first year to maintain a weed free environment thereafter as required upon inspection.

Maintenance phases are normally restricted to brashing for access for fires and some follow up of spot spray for Chromoleana infestation. Yields are predicted on stem counts and average tree volumes during the cycle of growth. These predictions are compared to 30 yr and medium term plans for updating of these plans on completion of harvesting.

A Roads Management System (RMS) has been developed to ensure that the forester has a tool to facilitate proper management of our roads network. The RMS caters for roads, stream crossings, depots and borrow pits. The main objectives of the RMS are as follows:

The identification, defining and recording of all roads (i.e. an inventory). Recording, on a regular time basis, the condition of all aspects of existing roads (e.g. drainage, surface

defects, gravel condition etc.). Planning of maintenance activities including related major works of regravelling and upgrading existing

roads to improve standards. The selection of cost effective treatment alternatives and the timing of the implementation thereof. Physical implementation of the maintenance decisions. The formulation of a roads APO and tactical plan

Roads are assessed according to condition and defect. Based on the severity and frequency of the defect, fire protection, silvicultural and harvesting requirements, plans are drawn up to cater for different operations over different points in time.

Stream crossings, depots and borrow pits are evaluated using an impact assessment rating, which will aid maintenance and upgrade decisions by prioritizing those with the highest impact.

Road planning attempts to mitigate environmental impacts and ensure that the road network is optimal and the conditions suitable for the type of transport that will use it.

The planning and design of major road construction/upgrade is done with the assistance of road engineers considering the functional requirements of the transport vehicles and volume of timber to be moved. An impact assessment procedure is followed for all new roads and the upgrading of existing roads.

3.5 DESCRIPTION OF HARVESTING TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT

Guidelines for harvesting & extraction

All harvesting and transport activities in the SQF will follow the guidelines as included in the following documents:

Mondi Forests Harvesting Self Assessment. FESA Guidelines for Forest Engineering Practices (May, 1999). Forestry South Africa: Environmental guidelines for commercial forestry plantations in South Africa. August

2002 The following influences the selection of the most appropriate harvesting system:

Type, volume and dimension of products harvested Environmental conditions – terrain & climate Available equipment options Economic conditions Social conditions Road, rail and depot infrastructure Silvicultural requirements

Harvesting tactical planning is the method used whereby the terrain conditions are identified to ensure that the equipment used is suitable. Terrain conditions evaluated include slope, soil sensitivity and ground roughness. This ensures that the equipment is productive over its useful life. The tactical plan is drawn from the long term felling plan, which ensures that the yields are sustainable.

Operational harvesting planning involves the detailed planning of each compartment before harvesting. This consists of a map, a planning docket and pre and post harvesting assessments.

AD 36-A-05 Page 12 of 40

Special management consideration is applied to all special management zones and the natural visual character of the land use pattern is considered. When the compartment has been harvested, the site is rehabilitated.

All harvesting and transport activities in SQF will follow the guidelines as included in the following documents:

Mondi Forests Harvesting Self Assessment. FESA Guidelines for Forest Engineering Practices (May, 1999). Forestry South Africa: Environmental guidelines for commercial forestry plantations in South Africa. August

2002 Post Harvest

On completion of the harvesting operation a post harvest assessment is carried out to ensure required standards have been met.

Rehabilitation requirements are assessed for the site, extraction routes, roads, depots and landings. Where damage has occurred measures are put into place to stop any further degradation.

The site is inspected to ensure all marketable timber has been removed and that unnecessary breakages and off-cuts caused by poor utilization are investigated.

Forest inventory

The forest inventory module is designed to provide management with information essential to the long and short term development of the timber holdings. It is based on estimates obtained from well planned sampling techniques and all sampling is undertaken according to standardised procedures. This enables management to evaluate the short and long term timber availability situation on any given plantation.

The module design is the following: Basic compartment report – is developed from details collected during field enumerations. Summaries of static details – the generation of summaries of static information at all levels. Use of growth models – manipulate static details to provide future estimated yields Role of yield regulation models – current & future yield estimates are arranged to ensure regulated or

sustained yield is achieved. Utilisation modelling – utilisation models are used to refine the global volume estimates into details on

specific products. Trials and other research

The advancement of tree breeding, biotechnology and propagation programme s stem from the strong information wheel, which exists in Tree Improvement Research Department (TIR). There are two-way links between Central American and Mexican Coniferous Resource Co-operative (CAMCORE), the Tree Pathology Co-operative Programme (TPCP), the Institute for Commercial Forestry Research (ICFR), local and international universities and International Union of Forest Research Organizations.

Below can be seen the yield prediction for SQF over the next 30 years in tabulated form and graph.

YEAR VOLUME TONS YEAR VOLUME TONS

2003 563257 2019 600555

2004 739399 2020 603426

2005 760451 2021 595728

2006 367600 2022 600219

2007 356502 2023 601119

2008 328642 2024 598536

2009 462555 2025 601756

2010 515586 2026 600127

2011 528174 2027 601354

AD 36-A-05 Page 13 of 40

2012 561434 2028 599591

2013 581791 2029 600361

2014 599482 2030 596544

2015 601168 2031 598900

2016 606103 2032 601771

2017 600616 2033 601146

2018 606681

3.6 Monitoring processes

Two levels of monitoring activities are carried out in SiyaQhubeka Forests.

The first level is operational monitoring such as audit activities, which monitor whether operations are being carried out according to plan and as part of normal management process. This auditing takes place on three basic levels:

The Self Assessment Programme (SAP) serves as a First Party Assessment (FPA). It is conducted by Line Management based on the Controlled Self Assessment (CSA) manuals for silviculture (pine, eucalyptus & wattle), harvesting and roads. Each SAP manual is a combination of “best practice” and “self assessment” which enables the forester and area manager to systematically assess the quality of their operation against the Mondi Forest Environmental Management System (EMS) which includes policies and procedures for occupational health, safety, environment and social responsibility

Second Party Assessments (SPA) are conducted annually and serve the purpose of ensuring that processes and procedures are effective in providing the required results, processes are understood and well established and procedures are appropriate for activities being conducted.

Third party assessment is an annual assessment undertaken by an independent accredited organization currently SGS using the Qualifor-system as approved by FSC.

AD 36-A-05 Page 14 of 40

The second level is strategic monitoring aimed to provide information about the results of management, which can be fed back into planning and management systems. The key areas for environmental monitoring include:

Grassland monitoring (5 sites done in 2006) Indigenous Forest monitoring Water Quality monitoring (4 sites done in 2006) Faunal Baseline Surveys (2 sites done in 2007)

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

4.1 Social aspects

Number of own workers 21

Number of contract workers 1200

Minimum daily wage for agricultural/forestry workers R41

Infant mortality rates (under 5 years) 0

Proportion of workers employed from the local population (%) 100%

Current employees and contracted employees are South African by nationality. The major cultural and linguistic grouping are the Ama- Zulu this being the heartland of the Zulu people. There are social problems in the region, unemployment and resultant poverty being the biggest. This extends itself to problems in safeguarding conservation areas most notably the Dukuduku forest. In this respect the company has engaged the services of an outside expert begin formal talks with the community to resolve the ongoing issues in that area. The principle sources of employment in the area are SQF, Sappi Forests, The Greater St.Lucia Wetland Authority, the Richards Bay industrial complex and private farmers.

Social problems in the surrounding region are poverty from unemployment.

4.2 Environmental aspects

A total of 2360 ha of indigenous forests occurs in 225 individual patches on Siya Qhubeka’s plantations. Coastal lowland forests comprise 48% of this total, while 52% (1230 ha) is swamp forest (Table 1). This means that 30% of swamp forests in South Africa occur on Siya Qhubeka’s plantations. A total of 54 forest patches was selected for monitoring of which 11 are on Port Durnford, 15 on Kwambonambi, nine on Dukuduku and 19 on Nyalazi.

Grassland represented between plantation compartments require special protection and management, not only due to its richness in diversity but also because it serves an important water catchment function. The long-term conservation and sustainability of these grasslands is dependent on the maintenance of an optimum condition with respect to species composition and the basal cover within the grass layer. Veld condition, including basal cover and volume of grass are monitored as these parameters are directly related to the water-catchment ability of the grass layer.

Protection of indigenous forest and swamp forest are an important facet of SQF’s conservation efforts. Water table monitoring through the observation and recording via boreholes drilled at strategic points is carried out and a study is ongoing through the University of Natal. This is a long term project stared before the purchase and creation of SQF. The vegetation communities on SiyaQhubeka have been described as dwarf shrublands, hydromorphic grass/sedgelands, coastal lowland forest and thicket and swamp forest. Of these vegetation types, the dwarf shrublands and grassland are poorly represented, with only remnant patches remaining. Fire is a necessary management tool to maintain these communities. Indigenous forests are threatened by the human impacts of local communities utilizing these forests for fuelwood, woodcarvings and medicinal plants. Greater control and community liaison is necessary to ensure the sustainable use of these natural forests. There has, however, been some initiative with the cultivation of indigenous species in nurseries for such use.

The Langepan Vlei has been declared a Natural Heritage Site due to the presence of the critically endangered Kniphofia leucocephala, as well as Asclepias gordon-grayae (red data species). Monitoring of this vlei is carried out annually by KZN-NCS and results have indicated that the numbers

AD 36-A-05 Page 15 of 40

of K.leucocephala have increased substantially. This is potentially due to the exclusion of cattle and the increase in size and buffer area of the wetland. This area is currently well protected.

The St Lucia Plantation is adjacent to the greater St Lucia Wetland Park World Heritage Site. Portion of St Lucia Plantation on Western Shores area, encroaches on the sensitive wetland zone. To rectify this, a delineation line, based on detailed soil surveys and wetland delineation criteria, was determined. This was a requirement in the structuring of the bid for the area, and a special management committee was selected to define this ecotone. A further fundamental requirement, was that this proposed boundary also be suitable for road construction, primarily for ease of management. This resulted in the proposed construction of the 158km “Eco-Track” forming the boundary between SiyaQhubeka and the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park buffer zone. Work is currently still in progress, and SAFCOL have been tasked to remove the commercial trees infringing on the defined area on behalf of the Lebombo Spacial Development Initiative (LSDI), and restore the area to natural vegetation.

In terms of the planting of hydromorphic soils in Zululand. Caution needs to be exercised in the view that most of the groundwater drains into the sea, and that this use of groundwater by forestry is beneficial, since it is a resource that would otherwise be “lost” to the oceans. This approach does not account for the ecological use of water in the estuaries, which depend upon freshwater input to maintain the fluctuating salinity, so vital to estuarine systems. Given the World Heritage status of the St Lucia Estuary and wetland, as well as the other coastal estuaries, this issue should be followed up on in subsequent surveillance visits.

4.3 Administration, Legislation and Guidelines

The following table lists the key national legislation, regulations, guidelines and codes of best practice that are relevant to forestry in the commercial, environmental and social sectors. This list does not purport to be comprehensive, but indicates information that is key to the forestry sector.

Legislation and regulation

A Forestry, Agriculture and Environment:

Advertising On Roads And Ribbon Development Act (No. 21 of 1940)

Agricultural Pests Act (No. 39 of 1983)

Animal Disease Act (No. 35 of 1984)

Constitution of South Africa (1996)

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (No. 43 of 1983), as amended 2001.

Environment Conservation Act (No. 73 of 1989)

Fencing Act (No. 31 of 1963)

Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act (No. 36 of 1947).

Hazardous Substances Act (No. 15 of 1973)

Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (No. 28 of 2002)

National Building Regulations and Building Standards (No. 103 of 1977)

National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)

National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (2004)

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004)

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (No. 57 of 2003)

National Forests Act (No. 84 of 1998)

National Road Traffic Amendment Act [No. 21 of 1999]

National Veld and Forest Fire Act (No. 101 of 1998)

National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998)

Plant Breeders Rights Act (No. 15 of 1976)

Plant Improvement Act (No. 53 of 1976)

AD 36-A-05 Page 16 of 40

B Cultural And Social

Animal Protection Act (No. 71 of 1962)

Basic Conditions of Employment Act (No. 75 of 1997)

Communal Land Rights Act (No. 11 of 2004)

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (No. 130 of 1993)

Employment Equity Act (No. 55 of 1998)

Extension of Security of Tenure Act (No. 67 of 1997)

Labour Relations Act (No. 66 of 1995) and Labour Relations Amendment Act of 1997.

Land Reform Act (No. 3 of 1996)

National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999)

Occupational Health and Safety Act (No. 85 of 1993)

Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful occupation of Land Act (No. 19 of 1998)

Protection of Informal land Rights Act (No. 31 of 1996)

Restitution of Land Rights Act (No. 22 of 1994)

SA Schools Act (No. 84 of 1996)

Security Officer’s Amendment Act (1997)

Skills Development Act (No. 97 of 1998)

Skills Development Levies Act (No. 9 of 1999)

Unemployment Insurance Act (No. 30 of 1966)

C Regulations pertinent to forestry related to and emerging from National Legislation and other National Atlases:

Barnes, K. N. (ed.) 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg - ISBN number 0-620-25499-8

Bromilow, C. 2001. Problem Plants of South Africa. A guide to the identification and control of more than 300 invasive plants and other weeds. Briza Publications.

Draft Lists of Threatened and Protected Species issued in terms of Section 56 (1) of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004.

Friedmann Y. and Daly B, (editors) 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa - ISBN number 0-620-32017-6

Golding, J. (ed) 2002. Southern African Plant Red Data Lists. South African Botanical Diversity Network report No 14.

Henderson, L. 2001. Alien Weeds and Invasive Plants: A complete guide to declared weeds and invaders in South Africa. Plant Protection Research Institute handbook No12, Agricultural Research Council.

Hilton-Taylor, C. 1996. Red Data list of Southern African Plants. NBI. Strelitzia 4.

Minter, L.R., M. Burger, J.A. Harrison, H.H. Braak, P.J. Bishop and D. Kloepfer, eds, 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9.

National List of Declared Weeds and Invader Plants: Table 3 of Regulation 15 of Conservation of Agricultural resources Act (43 of 1983).

National Principles, Criteria, Indicators and Standards (PCI&S) of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). Section 3 of the National Forest Act (84 of 1998). Version 30 March 2005.

Scott-Shaw, C. R. 1999. Rare and Threatened Plants of KwaZulu-Natal and Neighbouring Regions. KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service.

The South African Red Data Book Series (National Scientific Programmes Report Series published by the CSIR: No 7 and 11 in 1976, 14 and 18 in 1977, 23 in 1978, 45 in 1980, 97 in 1984 and 117 in 1986. These cover birds, small mammals, fishes, large mammals, reptiles and amphibians and

AD 36-A-05 Page 17 of 40

vascular plants.

D International Agreements pertinent to forestry South Africa is a signatory to the following, however, current South African legislation encapsulates the obligations of these international agreements:

Convention on Biological Diversity

Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

International Labour Organisation (ILO)

E Guidelines and Codes of Best Practice

A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas. Final draft: February 2003. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

Best Management Practices for Preventing and Controlling Invasive Alien Species. Symposium Proceedings, The Working for Water Programme, 22-24 February 2000.

Engelbrecht, G. v. R. and Warkotsch, P.W. 1994. Chute Operating Manual – FESA Chute Project Group

Environmental Guidelines for Commercial Forestry Plantations in South Africa (Forestry South Africa, Second Edition, August 2002).

Guidelines for Forest Engineering Practices in South Africa. Forest Engineering Working Group of South Africa (FESA), May 1999.

Protective Device for users of sharp bladed tools: Requirements for leg protectors. FESA standard FESA 001:1998.

Relevant ICFR Bulletins and handbook series.

Responsible Use Guide. AVCASA Crop protection and Animal Health Association, October 2001.

South African Forestry Handbook, Volumes 1 & 2. The South African Institute of Forestry, 2000.

The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (SIRA) Regulations.

The South African Cable-yarding Safety and Operating handbook (FESA).

The South African Chainsaw Safety and Operating handbook January 2000. (FESA).

The South African Forestry Road Handbook. FESA Working Group, August 2004. (Available on CD, and currently in publication – available from Francois Oberholzer 082 850 4330).

5. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT, HARVESTING, SILVICULTURE AND MONITORING The following table shows significant changes that took place in the management, monitoring, harvesting and regeneration practices of the certificate holder over the certificate period.

Description of Change Notes

SURVEILLANCE 1

The company had a shareholding restructuring during the year with a formal signing ceremony in July 2007. Shareholding: Mondi SA 51% SAFCOL 25% I.L.Holdings 13% SQF Community Trust 5,4 % Khulanathi Trust 5,4 %

SURVEILLANCE 2

No Changes

AD 36-A-05 Page 18 of 40

Description of Change Notes

SURVEILLANCE 3

SURVEILLANCE 4

6. PREPARATION FOR THE EVALUATION

6.1 Schedule

The Evaluation was not preceded by a pre-evaluation by SGS QUALIFOR .

6.2 Team

The table below shows the team that conducted the main evaluation and the independent specialist(s) that were selected to review the main evaluation report before certification is considered.

Evaluation Team Notes

Team Leader Has matric, 19 years experience in forestry nationally, 181 days FSC CoC auditing, speaks English and the local language Isi Zulu.

Local Specialist Has a BLC.LLB.LLM.Dip ADR, 5 years experience a related field < social and legal specialist, forestry> internationally and regionally.

Lead Auditor Trainer

Has a M Sc in Forestry/Nature Conservation, 33 years experience in forestry, involved with the FSC process since 1995, speaks English and Afrikaans, qualified lead auditor since 2004.

6.3 Checklist Preparation

A checklist was prepared that consisted of the documents listed below. .

This adaptation included canvassing comments from stakeholders 4 weeks before the field evaluation. Comments were received from 2 number of stakeholders that included 1 ENGOs, 1 Government Departments and 0 Academics. A copy of this checklist is available on the SGS Qualifor website, www.sgs.com/forestry.

Standard Used in Evaluation Effective Date Version Nr Changes to Standard

SGS Qualifor: Generic Forest Management Standard (AD33) adapted for South Africa

1st September 2005

AD-ZA-33-02

No changes

6.4 Stakeholder notification

A wide range of stakeholders were contacted 4 weeks before the planned evaluation to inform them of the evaluation and ask for their views on relevant forest management issues, These included environmental interest groups, local government agencies and forestry authorities, forest user groups, and workers’ unions. The full list of stakeholders that were contacted is available from SGS. Responses received and comments from interviews are recorded under paragraph 13 of this Public Summary.

AD 36-A-05 Page 19 of 40

7. THE EVALUATION The Main Evaluation was conducted in the steps outlined below.

7.1 Opening meeting

An opening meeting was held at SQF Regional office Richards Bay. The scope of the evaluation was explained and schedules were determined. Record was kept of all persons that attended this meeting.

7.2 Document review

A review of the main forest management documentation was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of coverage of the QUALIFOR Programme requirements. This involved examination of policies, management plans, systems, procedures, instructions and controls.

7.3 Sampling and Evaluation Approach

A detailed record of the following is available in section B of the evaluation report. This section does not form part of the public summary, but includes information on:

Sampling methodology and rationale;

FMUs included in the sample;

Sites visited during the field evaluation; and

Man-day allocation.

All three sections of the FMU were visited. Port Durnford on the first day, St.Lucia area (Nyalazi and Dukuduku) on the second day and Kwambonambi on day 3. The regional office and all other district offices were seen and records checked, all chemical stores, harvesting and silvics operations in all three districts were visited. Conservation areas and delineations were covered in St.Lucia area as well as social projects funded by Mondi in neighbouring communities, stakeholder meetings with several stakeholders were also undertaken. One auditor, one social specialist totalling 6 mandays in the field were used.

7.4 Field assessments

Field assessments aimed to determine how closely activities in the field complied with documented management systems and QUALIFOR Programme requirements. Interviews with staff, operators and contractors were conducted to determine their familiarity with and their application of policies, procedures and practices that are relevant to their activities. A carefully selected sample of sites was visited to evaluate whether practices met the required performance levels.

7.5 Stakeholder interviews

Meetings or telephone interviews were held with stakeholders as determined by the responses to notification letters and SGS discretion as to key stakeholders that should be interviewed. These aimed to:

clarify any issues raised and the company’s responses to them;

obtain additional information where necessary; and

obtain the views of key stakeholders that did not respond to the written invitation sent out before the evaluation.

Nr of Interviews with Nr of Stakeholders contacted

NGOs Government Other

MAIN EVALUATION

31 1 1 3

SURVEILLANCE 1

6 0 1 3

SURVEILLANCE 2

3 1 2

SURVEILLANCE 3

AD 36-A-05 Page 20 of 40

Nr of Interviews with Nr of Stakeholders contacted

NGOs Government Other

SURVEILLANCE 4

Responses received and comments from interviews are recorded under paragraph 13 of this Public Summary.

7.6 Summing up and closing meeting

At the conclusion of the field evaluation, findings were presented to company management at a closing meeting. Any areas of non-conformance with the QUALIFOR Programme were raised as one of two types of Corrective Action Request (CAR):

Major CARs - which must be addressed and re-assessed before certification can proceed

Minor CARs - which do not preclude certification, but must be addressed within an agreed time frame, and will be checked at the first surveillance visit

A record was kept of persons that attended this meeting.

8. EVALUATION RESULTS Detailed evaluation findings are included in Section B of the evaluation report. This does not form part of the public summary. For each QUALIFOR requirement, these show the related findings, and any observations or corrective actions raised. The main issues are discussed below.

8.1 Findings related to the general QUALIFOR Programme

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 111::: CCCooommmppplll iiiaaannnccceee wwwiiittthhh lllaaawww aaannnddd FFFSSSCCC PPPrrriiinnnccciiipppllleeesss

Criterion 1.1 Respect for national and local laws and administrative requirements

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance There was no evidence of non-compliance with legal requirements. Delineation of wetlands are ongoing, taxes and lease payments paid timeously, workers operating within national safety guidelines(PPE, training operating practices etc)

Criterion 1.2 Payment of legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance All taxes, fees, annual rents, etc, are paid up to date

Criterion 1.3 Respect for provisions of international agreements

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance The Management plan and public summary include international agreements as part of SQF policy.

Criterion 1.4 Conflicts between laws and regulations, and the FSC P&C

Strengths

AD 36-A-05 Page 21 of 40

Weaknesses

Compliance There is no evidence of any conflicts.

Criterion 1.5 Protection of forests from illegal activities

Strengths

Weaknesses An observation was raised in this respect due to cattle seen grazing in the Langepan vlei area, an area of special interest.

Compliance There is a security company that patrols forests and conservation areas in addition to company personnel that monitor on a day to day basis.

Criterion 1.6 Demonstration of a long-term commitment to the FSC P&C

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance There is definite commitment to the FSC. Long , medium and short term plans are structured to include SC as part of company policy.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 222::: TTTeeennnuuurrreee aaannnddd uuussseee rrriiiggghhhtttsss aaannnddd rrreeessspppooonnnsssiiibbbiii lll iii ttt iiieeesss

Criterion 2.1 Demonstration of land tenure and forest use rights

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance There are lease agreements with goverment and relevant shareholders’ agreement is available.

Criterion 2.2 Local communities’ legal or customary tenure or use rights

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance There are substantial land claims on SQF property. The company is negotiating with all parties to resolve them amicably. There is no intention on the part of the company to challenge any claims and will include the claimants as stakeholders within the SQF group. The legal process with the claimants is in process, and paperwork relating to the process was seen by the team specialist.

Criterion 2.3 Disputes over tenure claims and use rights

Strengths

Weaknesses The complaints register when inspected was found to be inconsistent. Although complaints and resolutions thereof were logged, it was difficult to follow processes. Minor CAR 01 was opened.

Compliance The legal process regarding land claims is still progressing. The claimants will receive royalties/fees’ paid by SQF and received by the Dept of Land Affairs once the land claims are settled and receive the title deeds to the land. They will also become shareholders.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 333::: IIInnndddiiigggeeennnooouuusss pppeeeooopppllleeesss’’’ rrriiiggghhhtttsss

Criterion 3.1 Indigenous peoples’ control of forest management

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance N/A - There are no indigenous people with any rights to the FMU.

Criterion 3.2 Maintenance of indigenous peoples’ resources or tenure rights

Strengths

AD 36-A-05 Page 22 of 40

Weaknesses


Criterion 3.3 Protection of sites of special cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance to indigenous peoples

Strengths

Weaknesses There are sites available that could be added to the register for sites of special interest. The Old Agathus stand and the CCT trials should be considered. Car #05 was opened in this respect.

Compliance IImportant sites are mapped and registered and afforded protection in terms of the FSC P&C.

Criterion 3.4 Compensation of indigenous peoples for the application of their traditional knowledge

Strengths

Weaknesses


PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 444::: CCCooommmmmmuuunnniiitttyyy rrreeelllaaatttiiiooonnnsss aaannnddd wwwooorrrkkkeeerrrsss rrriiiggghhhtttsss

Criterion 4.1 Employment, training, and other services for local communities

Strengths

Weaknesses Although local communities receive preference in employment a local Induna expressed concern in this area. However regular reports are submitted regarding local labour utilisation to SQF and this is monitored.

Compliance Only people from local communities are employed. This fitted in with the companes transparent scheme of awarding contracts, favouring local communities above other areas and peoples. Records checked at office level and with contractors on contracted staff employed showed only local residents working.

Criterion 4.2 Compliance with health and safety regulations

Strengths

Weaknesses CAR’S 02 and 06 were opened against this criterion( 4.2.5 and 4.2.2). Forest management have not assessed adequately all risks associated with all tasks. Asbestos sheeting in the villages need assessment for replacement, some electrical wirings in unused houses were not of a safe condition and vehicles infield had tyres that did not reach provincial road safety standards.

Compliance Other areas checked for safety, at silvicultural, mechanical harvesting and chemical storage showed levels of compliance.

Criterion 4.3 Workers’ rights to organise and negotiate with employers

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Unions are not prevalent in the area but workers have the right to join unions.

Criterion 4.4 Social impact evaluations and consultation

Strengths

Weaknesses . See car #01 on minutes of stakeholder meetings. The records book on meetings held were disjointed and difficult to follow. After careful scrutiny it was found that follow up actions were taking place but not recorded properly.

Compliance . There is a stakeholder list available and responsibilities assigned. Liaison with local conservancies and meetings with The management of the Greater St.Lucia Wetland park conducted 6 weekly, local communities and other stakeholder meeting are held and minutes

AD 36-A-05 Page 23 of 40

kept. Other meetings with local stakeholders are of a monthly nature and recorded.

Criterion 4.5 Resolution of grievances and settlement of compensation claims

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance SQF has a strong bias towards settling complaints or grievances. Regular meetings are held with stakeholders to achieve settlement. ie the water problem at Nyalazi whereby a dam on SQF property has run dry.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 555::: BBBeeennneeefffiii tttsss fffrrrooommm ttthhheee fffooorrreeesssttt

Criterion 5.1 Economic viability taking full environmental, social, and operational costs into account

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance The company shows strong viability economically with good growth projected for the future taking into account social environmental and operational costs. With the completion of the conversion from Pine specie to Eucalyptus clones and the resulting shortened rotation that will accompany the completion of the project will ensure long term growth.

Criterion 5.2 Optimal use and local processing of forest products

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Pine harvested is sold to local sawmills in addition to supplying their mill at Richards Bay. Also oversize Eucaluptus are sold to local companies for export.

Criterion 5.3 Waste minimisation and avoidance of damage to forest resources

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Compliance is reached, strategic and tactical plans are in place for the minimisation of waste at plantation level. Damage to forest resources is monitored carefully.

Criterion 5.4 Forest management and the local economy

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Although some Pine forest resources are available to the local economy this will diminish as the FMU is primarily concerned with short term pulp rotation for the Richards Bay Mill. Oversize gum will continue to be sold locally to export agents and local sawmills.

Criterion 5.5 Maintenance of the value of forest services and resources

Strengths .

Weaknesses

Compliance Conservation areas, riverine and swamp areas and ASI’s are mapped and budgeted for maintenance against invasive aliens. Local experts in conjunction with SQF have drawn up comprehensive lists of RTE and identified areas of significance.

Criterion 5.6 Harvest levels

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance There is a strong information wheel with long and medium term forecasts on harvest levels giving credence to sustainable harvesting. Harvesting is conducted on an 8 year rotation with

AD 36-A-05 Page 24 of 40

coppicing or replanting as immediate follow up. The temporary unplanted area or TUP, is on par with the size of the FMU under harvest. This is below 600ha’s and represents pine areas awaiting replanting to Eucalyptus species . Pine is being replaced by Eucalyptus and this programme should be completed in the coming year. See the 30 year table of harvestable timber above under 3.5 trials and research. From 2007 to 2014 there is a steady rise in harvestable timber from 236,000 tons/annum to 599,496 tons/annum thereafter and the totals level off around this mark.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 666::: EEEnnnvvviiirrrooonnnmmmeeennntttaaalll iiimmmpppaaacccttt

Criterion 6.1 Environmental impacts evaluation

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance All operations are guided by company and national best operation practices (BOPs) This environmental impact process is followed for all site disturbing activities, operational activities, current infrastructure and activities identified under Section24(5) of the National Environmental Management act of 1998 (act no. 107 of 1998). This is to minimise negative impacts, ensure conservation of important features, identify sensitive environments and enhance positive aspects of projects. Strong compliance with impact evaluation due to proximity to SLGWP.

Criterion 6.2 Protection of rare, threatened and endangered species

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance RTE species are well catalogued and mapped, areas they are found in are known to all staff and a natural heritage site has been set up at Langepan Vlei. Conservation experts play an important role in studies and long term monitoring.

Criterion 6.3 Maintenance of ecological functions and values

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Work in this area includes studies regarding plant distribution by species, faunal baseline surveys, water testing and control of invasive alien species etc. Slash burns are only conducted for replant from Pine to Eucalyptus and carried out under cool weather conditions to ensure minimal damage to the humus layer. Slash from eucalyptus felling is scattered and not burnt.

Criterion 6.4 Protection of representative samples of existing ecosystems

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance All representative samples of existing ecosystems are mapped and catalogued, with staff well informed of their whereabouts and ecological functions.

Criterion 6.5 Protection against damage to soils, residual forest and water resources during operations

Strengths

Weaknesses Wetland delineation at Nyalazi J13 was completed and marked by the contracted company but planting carried out was well within the restricted area. Minor Car 03 was opened. Photographic evidence was supplied of the areas cleared of young trees within the restricted area This to be followed up at the next surveillance as time restraints did not permit physical inspection the next day.

Compliance There are BOPs drawn up and available to all contractors and staff detailing guidelines on the above. Overall compliance is evident with the solitary exception outlined under weaknesses above.

AD 36-A-05 Page 25 of 40

Criterion 6.6 Chemical pest management

Strengths

Weaknesses The banned chemical Caligan 240EC containing the banned substance oxyfluron was found in the chemical storeroom. Major Car 04 was opened and then closed on removal of the chemical by the company that supplied it.

Compliance All storage facilities had up to date lists of chemicals on hand with appropriate information sheets detailing active ingredients etc. records of issues, stock balance etc were in each store.

Criterion 6.7 Use and disposal of chemicals, containers, liquid and solid non-organic wastes

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance All chemicals and containers not required by the FMU are returned to the company that they were purchased from for safe disposal. Regulations are in place for the safe disposal of spilt fuels and oils and the company uses the services of Wastetech. Chemical use permits by contractors were in order.

Criterion 6.8 Use of biological control agents and genetically modified organisms

Strengths

Weaknesses No biological agents used. More effort into research in this direction needs to be done.

Compliance No GMO’s are used, and all seedlings planted are from the clonal nursery either at Mountain Home (Hilton KZN Midlands) or Zululand.

Criterion 6.9 The use of exotic species

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Exotic species are planted on the FMU. These are Eucalyptus and Pinus species. These have been assessed for soil nutrition depletion and water table loss and a report on this is available. Continuing research is conducted in the use of alien species in terms of the clonal programme.

Criterion 6.10 Forest conversion to plantations or non-forest land uses

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance No forest conversion takes place.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 777::: MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt ppplllaaannn

Criterion 7.1 Management plan requirements

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance There is a management plan in place which is also available publicly on the company website. The management plan is comprehensive, starting with a brief outline to the beginnings of SQF, the company’s vision and mission statements, a description of the forest resources to be managed broken down by species and areas, the conservation areas, management thereof with details of current and future plans for these areas. Management objectives, operational guidelines, monitoring of open areas, operational areas and impacts, socio – economic conditions involving SQF and harvest rates and rationale are all covered.

Criterion 7.2 Management plan revision

Strengths

Weaknesses

AD 36-A-05 Page 26 of 40

Compliance The management plan is revised periodically and staff are identified that fulfil this function.

Criterion 7.3 Training and supervision of forest workers

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Training is ongoing, records and certificates for different categories of workers are readily available.

Criterion 7.4 Public availability of the management plan elements

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance The management plan is available on the company website. It is also available to any body who requests a hard copy.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 888::: MMMooonnniiitttooorrriiinnnggg aaannnddd eeevvvaaallluuuaaatttiiiooonnn

Criterion 8.1 Frequency, intensity and consistency of monitoring

Strengths

Weaknesses . Although this monitoring is widespread and continuous an observation was raised in connection with internal procedures(Observation #01) for corrective actions. When a CARshear was closed out but not correctly closed procedurally.

Compliance Programmes relating to the monitoring of HVCF Forests, rare and endangered species, forest dynamics and health, waste management, open area management harvesting and silvicultural impacts are ongoing and involve SQF, Mondi Forests (holding 51% of the shares in SQF) and external specialists Recording and monitoring of a wide range of potential impacts is consistently and frequently carried out using personnel from within and outside of the company.

Criterion 8.2 Research and data collection for monitoring

Strengths A comprehensive system of monitoring using outside expertise as well as SQF personnel is used.

Weaknesses

Compliance A comprehensive system of monitoring using external expertise as well as SQF personnel, is in place. Recording of RTE specie was done in conjunction with experts from the University of Natal, water and biodiversity sampling in conjunction with various other professionals.

Criterion 8.3 Chain of custody

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Product is tracked adequately from forest to client by use of delivery notes which includes a unique client coding system that identifies the FSC status of the client amongst other data ensuring integrity of the system.

Criterion 8.4 Incorporation of monitoring results into the management plan

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Research and incorporation of results is a strong feature of the information wheel used to promote and increase forest benefits. The information wheel mentioned above is a nucleus of specialists based at the major shareholders business that are involved in research and development, nursery clonal research, forest inventory, conservation, pest management and other important facets of forestry. This information and the use of individual specialists is available to the other companies that the major shareholder has business interests with.

AD 36-A-05 Page 27 of 40

Criterion 8.5 Publicly available summary of monitoring

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Summaries are published on the company website. These include water quality monitoring, operational monitoring i.e. internal and third party audits, identification and protection of conservation areas using the Environmental Conservation Database whose standards in methodology include eco-region databases and indigenous forest monitoring with structured parameters designed in consultation with local conservation experts. Results of this monitoring can be found on the company website.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 999::: HHHiiiggghhh CCCooonnnssseeerrrvvvaaatttiiiooonnn VVVaaallluuueee FFFooorrreeessstttsss

Criterion 9.1 Evaluation to determine high conservation value attributes

Strengths Considerable effort has been placed on the mapping and recording and protection of HCVF’s.

Weaknesses

Compliance Considerable effort has been placed on the mapping and recording and protection of HCVF’s. Maps of HCVF areas and areas of special interest are available to all staff and contractors.and for use during planning of operations.

Criterion 9.2 Consultation process

Strengths Considerable input has been done by outside agencies and experts.

Weaknesses

Compliance HCVF monitoring is done in conjunction with acknowledged experts and local conservation organisations (eg KZN Wildlife and other private consultants.

Criterion 9.3 Measures to maintain and enhance high conservation value attributes

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Indigenous Forests on SQF have been assigned conservation importance using the KwaZulu – Natal Nature Conservation Services Bio-base. This has been done to highlight those forests that are high priority conservation areas. Steps taken include buffer insertion of a minimum of 5m, monitoring and proactive action to alien weed infestation in the buffer and conservation zone, protection from unauthorised harvesting, honey collection (fires) and controlled burning according to CARA.

Criterion 9.4 Monitoring to assess effectiveness

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Monitoring is performed by the company’s own environmental foresters in conjunction with external experts and follows the four attributes consistent with the HCVF’s as defined by the FSC P&C. A total of 54 forest patches have been selected for monitoring, a report is available showing the salient HCV features actions required for safeguarding of these values. identified HCVF’s.

PPPRRRIIINNNCCCIIIPPPLLLEEE 111000::: PPPlllaaannntttaaatttiiiooonnnsss

Criterion 10.1 Statement of objectives in the management plan

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance This is covered in the management plan and is also publicly available.

AD 36-A-05 Page 28 of 40

Criterion 10.2 Plantation design and layout

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance The plantations are planted according to the old pine stands they are replacing. Differences occur where some compartments have been consolidated or re sized for convenience or to suit the geographical setting. Age classes are varied to ensure diverse age groups to avoid large scale felling in contiguous areas and devalued landscape vistas.

Criterion 10.3 Diversity in composition

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Diversity in composition is accomplished by using multiple clone species (up to 5 different species per year) with compartments spread by age class. Pine species trial and reseach compartments intersperse with the Eucalyptus. The Coastal swamp forests and grasslands are interspersed between the Eucalyptus and Pine compartments adding to the diversity in composition.

Criterion 10.4 Species selection

Strengths Up to 5 or more new clones are introduced annually. Continuing site trials and PSPs, soil sampling etc are all part of the research equation.

Weaknesses

Compliance Up to 5 or more new clones are introduced annually. Continuing site trials and site specie matching through PSP’s and soil sampling etc are all used to ensure the best possible results.

Criterion 10.5 Restoration of natural forest

Strengths 21% of the managed land is natural forest. Original plantation areas are being replanted with no increase of plantation area into natural forest areas. This precludes any restoration of natural forest areas ie those areas standing will be maintained according to national guidelines for HCVF’s.

Weaknesses

Compliance Continuous effort is placed in managing Natural Forests (coastal swamp forests) by alien plant eradication programmes and annual budgets are drawn up and implemented. There is a permanent team that is allocated to this task.

Criterion 10.6 Impacts on soil and water

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance There are soils maps available and soil sampling takes place before all replants to ascertain soil fertility and suitability for species to be planted.

Criterion 10.7 Pests and diseases

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Staff are aware of potential disease or pests and monitor the forest regularly. Alien infestations are monitored and required actions taken to remove or reduce them to a manageable state.

Criterion 10.8 Monitoring of impacts, species testing and tenure rights

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance Potential impacts were assessed before conversion to Eucalyptus, Quote” It was a legal requirement of the State, the previous landowners, for SQF to convert the pine sawlog areas to

AD 36-A-05 Page 29 of 40

Gum pulpwood. This was stipulated by the landlord(government) in the business plan agreement. “

Criterion 10.9 Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994

Strengths

Weaknesses

Compliance None+-.5,000ha of Pine was removed from areas deemed unfit for planting and the land is being rehabilitated back to grasslands and Coastal forest.

9. CERTIFICATION DECISION SGS considers that Siya Qubeka’s forest management of Nyalazi, Dukuduku, Kwambonambi and Port Durnford forests, Zululand, Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa can be certified as:

i. There are no outstanding Major Corrective Action Requests

ii. The outstanding Minor Corrective Action Requests do not preclude certification, but SQF is required to take the agreed actions before 01/09/2008. These will be verified by SGS QUALIFOR at the first surveillance to be carried out about 12 months from the date of the issuance of the certificate. If satisfactory actions have been taken, the CARs will be ‘closed out’; otherwise, Minor CARs will be raised to Major CARs.

iii. The management system, if implemented as described, is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation;

iv. The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate.

10. MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION During the surveillance evaluation, it is assessed if there is continuing compliance with the requirements of the Qualifor Programme. Any areas of non-conformance with the QUALIFOR Programme are raised as one of two types of Corrective Action Request (CAR):

.01 Major CARs - which must be addressed and closed out urgently with an agreed short time frame since the organisation is already a QUALIFOR certified organisation. Failure to close out within the agreed time frame can lead to suspension of the certificate.

.02 Minor CARs - which must be addressed within an agreed time frame, and will normally be checked at the next surveillance visit

The full record of CARs raised over the certification period is listed under section 11 below.

The table below provides a progressive summary of findings for each surveillance. A complete record of observations demonstrating compliance or non-compliance with each criterion of the Forest Stewardship Standard is contained in a separate document that does not form part of the public summary.

SURVEILLANCE 1

Issues that were hard to assess

None

Number of CARs closed _3_ Outstanding CARs were closed.

Nr of CARs remaining open _2_ Outstanding CARs from previous evaluations were not closed.

New CARs raised _2_ New Major CARs and _2_ Minor CARs were raised.

Certification Decision The forest management of the forests of SiyaQubeka remains certified as: The management system is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements

AD 36-A-05 Page 30 of 40

of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation; and

The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate.

SURVEILLANCE 2


Number of CARs closed 2 Open CARs were closed.

Nr of CARs remaining open No CARs remain open

Nr of New CARs raised 2 new minor CARS are raised.

Certification Decision The forest management of the forests of SiyaQubeka remains certified as: The management system is capable of ensuring that all of the requirements

of the applicable standard(s) are met over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the evaluation; and

The certificate holder has demonstrated, subject to the specified corrective actions, that the described system of management is being implemented consistently over the whole forest area covered by the scope of the certificate.

SURVEILLANCE 3


Number of CARs closed

Nr of CARs remaining open

Nr of New CARs raised

Certification Decision

SURVEILLANCE 4


Number of CARs closed

Nr of CARs remaining open

Nr of New CARs raised

Certification Decision

AD 36-A-05 Page 31 of 40

11. RECORD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS (CARS) Cars remaining from the previous evaluation:

Date Recorded> 2006/09/14 Due Date> Re-

assessment 2007

Date Closed> 20/09/07

Non-Conformance:

The goal of a reduction in the use of chemicals is inadequately pursued and progress is not properly monitored.

Objective Evidence:

Despite this being a stated goal of the company, chemical usage on a litre/ha basis was only actively monitored between 2002-2004. Records of usage on a litre/ha basis then ceased. At this stage only total chemical usage per plantation per month is recorded and no trend analysis over time is undertaken.

Close-out evidence:

19 6.6.3

The company has started recording chemical usage on a lt/ha basis again. This to be monitored as ongoing in future assessments.

Date Recorded> 2006/09/14 Due Date> Re-

assessment 2007

Date Closed> 20/09/2007

Non-Conformance:

Worker accommodation does not always comply with generally accepted safety standards in forestry.

Objective Evidence:

Some worker accommodation of Iningi contractor on Kwambonambi had examples of unsafe open electrical wiring that presented a real safety hazard to its occupants.

Close-out evidence:

20 4.2.9

The wiring found to be faulty had been repaired and was inspected by the audit team.

New cars opened for the re-assessment:

CAR # Indicator CAR Detail

Date Recorded> 20/09/07 Due Date> 01/09/08 Date Closed> 27/8/2008

Non-Conformance:

Appropriate records of disputes and the status there of are not properly maintained

Objective Evidence:

The complaint register is inconsistent and it is difficult to systematically ascertain the status of disputes and progress made.

Close-out evidence:

01 2.3.2

The register has been revised and in its current format fulfils the objective of the indicator. Both the status as well as the progress made can easily be determined. CAR closed.


Non-Conformance:

All necessary machines and equipment, were not in a safe and serviceable condition

02 4.2.5

Objective Evidence:

AD 36-A-05 Page 32 of 40


Tractor trailer unit was seen at the mechanised felling at Port Durnford FMU. The left rear left hand tyre did not meet safety requirements, the tyre was showing canvas. The other tyres were smooth.)

Close-out evidence:

CAR escalated to M10.


Non-Conformance:

Buffer zones are not maintained along watercourses.

Objective Evidence:

Compartment J13 was burnt and replanted to Gum. The wetland was delineated, marked with sticks with white paint and stumps next to the markers clearly painted with a white cross. Despite this clear demarcation planting continued well within the restricted delineated area. Nyalazi J13

Close-out evidence:

03 6.5.3

Bufferzones Z11a and Z19 at Nyalazi selected from the APO, were verified and were cleaned from alien vegetation. Heavy Chromolena investment was cleaned up. Z19 received a biannual burn. Planted trees within the delineation marks were removed. CAR closed.


Non-Conformance:

Prohibited pesticides are present on the FMU.

Objective Evidence:

An inspection of the pesticides room at Dukuduku revealed the banned chemical Caligan 240EC with the ingredient Oxyflurofen. The chemical is not on the TIPWG list and Oxyflurofen is listed on the FSC banned chemicals list.

Close-out evidence:

M04 6.6.2

Proof of removal was given to the team. The chemical representative who sold the chemical to the company removed them in the presence of the team. This car is closed and will not reflect on the certification status of the company.


Non-Conformance:

Sites of special cultural, historical, ecological, economic or religious significance are not consistently identified, described and mapped in co-operation with affected or interested stakeholders.

Objective Evidence:

Potential sites were observed such as Old Agathus stand on Port Durnford and the CCT trial on Kwambonambi (that receives international visitors annually) that should receive serious consideration for identification as sites of special significance and a full survey is required.

Close-out evidence:

05 3.3.1

A survey was done to identify sites of special interest. These sites are registered and the action plan for their management exists. The eagle nest site at Nyalazi and the Agathus stand at port Durnford were visited and all management prescriptions adhered to. CAR closed.

Date Recorded> 20/09/07 Due Date> Next

surveillance Date Closed> 27/8/2008

Non-Conformance:

Forest Managers have not systematically assessed the risk associated with all tasks and equipment and have not prescribed appropriate safe procedures.

06 4.2.2

Objective Evidence:

AD 36-A-05 Page 33 of 40


Asbestos sheeting and its application on the FMU needs a risk assessment and appropriate management plan. Light Injuries sustained at the harvesting operations are of a frequency that begs investigation. Wiring in the Dukuduku FMU Village needs attention. (the building is unoccupied) This has not been raised to a major car because they were either isolated instances or their significance could not be clearly established at this point.

Close-out evidence:

Escalated to Major CAR M07


Non-Conformance:

Forest Managers have not systematically assessed the risk associated with all tasks and equipment and have not prescribed appropriate safe procedures. Where located and provided on the FMU, worker accommodation and nutrition comply, as a minimum, with the ILO Code of Practice on Safety and Health in Forestry.- The Langepan village does not comply.

Objective Evidence:

The light injuries and injury frequency rate issues were addressed. Incidents are reported on monthly basis. The wiring of the Dukuduku village has been fixed. Invoices are available. The langepan village where the asbestos issue were raised were not addressed as was decided. At the time of the main assessment the action plan was to decommission this village within 3 months. During the surveillance audit the village was still used and was found in an even worst state than before. The cooking facilities were removed and tables partly demolished. This issue on its own was moved to clause 4.2.9 and should have been a Major before as it was an open CAR 20 from the previous certificate period.

Close-out evidence:

M07 4.2.2 4.2.9

Langepan village was visited. SQF have adopted an action plan on the village ito upgrading. The action plan has been 2 months in implementation. Various quotations have been obtained in relation to i.e: painting of buildings, electrical repair, building of kitchens, and other maintenance. The necessary authorisations were in place to commence with labour. At the time of the visit, electrical maintenance was completed. Buildings (accommodation) have been painted and various asbestos materials have been disposed of. Removal & disposal was done by authorised contractors and to an authorised disposal site. Documentation in this regard was verified. DWAF further gave the relevant authorisations to demolish an accommodation unit which was beyond repair. During the visit, kitchen units were being installed. M07 was closed.



Non-Conformance:

Forest management operations that may damage soil and vegetation are not mitigated or avoided.

Objective Evidence:

In the mechanical harvesting compartment Port Durnford D21, timber was stacked at the bottom end of the road against the indigenous forest.

Close-out evidence:

8 6.5.1

Harvesting operations were sampled at Port Durnford, DukuDuku and KwaMbonambi and all stacking of timber was correctly done according to company procedures. CAR Closed.

AD 36-A-05 Page 34 of 40




Non-Conformance:

Activities are not supervised and monitored sufficiently to ensure that plans, policies, procedures and contract specifications (for contractors) are adequately implemented.

Objective Evidence:

At Kwambonambi compartment H25 post harvest forms were completed and the compartment replanted, but edge trees around the small forest patch in the middle were left standing. The compartment was converted from pine to gum.

Close-out evidence:

9 7.3.3

All completed harvesting compartments visited at Port Durnford and Duku Duku was cleared and all edge trees removed. The actions listed in the pre and post harvesting agreements were done. Compartments were correctly signed off. CAR closed.


Non-Conformance:

All necessary tools, machines, substances and equipment, including appropriate PPE, are available at the worksite, but are not all in safe and serviceable condition.

Objective Evidence:

This CAR was escalated to Major from CAR 2 which also refer to unsafe equipment. Tractor trailer unit was seen at the mechanised felling at Port Durnford FMU. The left rear left hand tyre did not meet safety requirements, the tyre was showing canvas. The other tyres were smooth.) (2007) Harvesting operations at compartment D21 Port Dunfort were done by contractor and several unsafe conditions were noted. The harvester’s door panel was damaged by a log, yet no near miss was reported. The operator was operating the machine with the door open, despite the fact that the previous “near miss” done substantial damage to the door and protected him from the impact. There was also no fire extinguisher. The machine was PHEPHA certified (11/8) yet failed to identify these risks and therefore questions the adequacy of the PHEPHA and or the monitoring controls over contractors. Car#02 have been raised to a Major. The statement in CAR 6 of 2007 “Light Injuries sustained at the harvesting operations are of a frequency that begs investigation”, is also an indication of problems in this area and although the investigation part of that statement is now reported and the car on that closed the root cause is still a point of concern in this instance.

Close-out evidence:

M10 4.2.5

A site visit was conducted on 28 October 2008. Compartment 029A (Kwambonambi) was visited – manual operations. All personal on site wore PPE appropriate to their respective tasks. In addition tractor and trailer were in a serviceable and safe condition and operator wore relevant PPE. Compartment 028A (Kwambonambi) was visited. Mechanical harvesting. The harvester was in a safe and serviceable condition. Operator had the necessary competency certificate. (A broken window damaged by the machine’s design was in the process of being replaced.) Compartment D25 (Port Dunford) was also visited. Mechanical harvesting. The harvester operated by Sobalili Logging was in a safe and serviceable condition. Operator had the necessary competency certificate provided by Bell. M10 closed.


Surveillance Date Closed> 20/10/2009

Non-Conformance:

11 10.8.2

Off site impacts resulting from the re-growth of exotic plantation species (Eucalyptus) not adequately addressed.

AD 36-A-05 Page 35 of 40


Objective Evidence:

Eucalyptus re-growth in the excised area that went to conservation at Nyalazi is not adequately addressed.

Close-out evidence:

Information was provided post audit that gave more insight into the actual agreements between the parties that indicate how the trees from the buffer zones should be treated. It is in the SQF – Park agreement and mentioned in some liaison meetings between SQF, SAFCOL and the park. SQF has done its part in respect of the agreement and any further weeding on the transferred section becomes the full responsibility of the park. The evidence is sufficient to withdraw the CAR.


Surveillance Date Closed> dd mmm yy

Non-Conformance:

SiyaQhubeka is not making optimal use of the potential annual yield of forest products.

Objective Evidence:

Extensive elephant damage was observed in the Duku duku and Nyalazi FMUs. The extent of the damage is not quantified and no process is in place to recover the loss.

Close-out evidence:

12 5.1.1

AD 36-A-05 Page 36 of 40

12. RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS OBS # Indicator Observation Detail

Date Recorded> 20/09/07 Date Closed> 27/8/2008

Observation:

An internal SHEAR 1PA Shear OBS 1-2007 Ref 1.1 at Kwambonambi was raised for rubbish seen at fire tower on Port Durnford. At Esara there was an Oil spill and visible oil spills around. Shear indicated that the rubbish was cleaned up but no reference to the oil spill being cleaned up. The SHEAR was signed off as closed without the necessary oil spill being recorded as being cleaned up.

Follow-up evidence:

01 8.1.5

The electronic internal SHEAR system is relatively new and the recording of all the different items on the SHEAR was not right but are now corrected.


Observation:

Measures are not in place to prevent any form of damage or disturbance, to sites of special ecological significance. Despite management prescriptions cattle were observed grazing in a natural heritage site dedicated to the preservation of a rare threatened and endangered species. This is not raised to a car because significant progress has been made in the past few years in conservation of this species and good progress has been made with expanding its population and extending it to other areas.

Follow-up evidence:

02 3.3.4

There is a system of heard boys in place where cattle are being herded to prevent them from damaging ASIs.


Observation:

.Although the company has a comprehensive HIV/AIDS policy the policy is only aimed at employees and excludes the bulk of the workforce (Contractors) affecting the operations.

Follow-up evidence:

03 4.2.10

The current activities of the company in this regard extend to contractors. Currently it reaches 500 + employees of contractors per month.


Observation:

The list of stakeholders can be improved. Many stakeholders listed do not have any contact details. Major stakeholders such as GSLWLP should be prominently shown.

Follow-up evidence:

04 4.4.3

The stakeholders list have been extended and updated. Contact details sampled were up to date.

Date Recorded> 20/10/2009 Date Closed> dd MMM yy

Observation:

The public summary that is available for 2009 covers all the aspects listed in criterion 7.1 but the content is vague.

Follow-up evidence:

5 7.4


Observation:

6 4.2.2

Observations at various operations indicate that there could be a lack of understanding of the different signs displayed on site.

AD 36-A-05 Page 37 of 40

OBS # Indicator Observation Detail

Follow-up evidence:


Observation:

The Depot near Compartment C13 on Kwambonambi has a build up of old material that is hampering the optimal use of the planted area or depot size. There are also signs of dumping of rubble on the edge.

Follow-up evidence:

7 7.3.3


Observation:

The research trial of SAFCOL that is on the DukuDuku FMU is not delineated and not compliant with planting restrictions.

Follow-up evidence:

8 6.5.3


Observation:

The APO contain an expression “unplanned” in the compartment field that is misleading.

Follow-up evidence:

10 7.1.1

Date Recorded> dd MMM yy Date Closed> dd MMM yy

Observation:

Follow-up evidence:

11

13. RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND INTERVIEWS Nr Comment Response

Main Evaluation

AD 36-A-05 Page 38 of 40

Nr Comment Response

Main Evaluation

01 Planting of Eucalyptus Species in the vicinity of the Nyalazi dam has caused the dam to dry up. The water from this dam is used by the neighbouring offices and visitors camp. The alien Chromoleana Odorata from nearby plantations is creeping into the neighbouring property. A meeting was held with the complainant and stakeholder and an opportunity was given to state their views.

From discussions with local inhabitants of the area it would appear that the dam dried up in the past when Pine species were present in the affected area. Zululand has been the subject of prolonged drought over several years – Fanie’s Island a popular fishing spot, has been closed for nearly 3 years now as the water has receded far from the original shoreline. The mouth of the estuary was closed by the local Parks Board nearly 3 years ago to prevent the lake from drying up. There was no evidence that Eucalyptus planting caused this to happen. Records show the dam drying up previously whilst the same catchment area was under Pine. The dam has been dry since 1998 and Eucalypt planting only started in 2002. An inspection of neighbouring compartments mentioned by the complainant did not turn up significant infestations of Chromoleana Odorata or compartments mentioned by number in the stakeholder complaint. The assessment team checked records of silvicultural operations for the areas concerned and noted normal silvicultural alien weed eradication operations, as per the plans and budget.

Surveillance 1

No negative or substantial comments were raised stakeholders.

Honey farmers were satisfied with the cooperation with the company.

Notice taken

School teachers confirm good cooperation and open communication channels.

Notice taken

Surveillance 2

The headmaster of a local nursery school was interviewed. The headmaster raised a number of positive contributions made and assistance provided by SQF.

The positive response is noted By SGS

A senior member of the local community in Kwambonambi was consulted. He also made positive contributions on SQF’s management, the post land claim initiative (including positive spinoffs) and the relationship between SQF and the community

The positive response is noted By SGS

Surveillance 3

Surveillance 4

AD 36-A-05 Page 39 of 40

14. RECORD OF COMPLAINTS Detail Nr

Complaint: Date Recorded > 16/08/07

That the length of time required for stakeholder input was not sufficient nor did it comply with FSC standards for stakeholder input.

Objective evidence obtained:

The stakeholder input time period was found to be lacking.

Close-out information: Date Closed > 17/09/2007

01

The audit was delayed by 30 days to accommodate the complainant. This was 2 weeks more than the minimum time allowed from the time the initial stakeholder forms were sent out. The complainant was informed via e-mail of the decision to delay the audit. No further communication in this regard has been received by the complainant.

Complaint: Date Recorded > 28/07/07

Planting of Eucalyptus Species in the vicinity of the Nyalazi dam has caused the dam to dry up. The water from this dam is used by the neighbouring offices and visitors camp. In discussions with SQF it was requested that the area known as I block be changed from Eucalypts to Pinus specie. The alien Chromoleana Odorata from nearby plantations is creeping into the neighbouring property. A site inspection was carried out by the Audit team and members of SQF. The dam was seen to be dry and the plantations on the neighbours boundary were inspected for Chromoleana infestation. According to local information the dam dried up in 1998 when the catchment area was planted to pine and had happened previously during the 1980’s also whilst under Pine. No infestation of Chromoleana could be seen. There is ongoing discussion between the parties on a regular basis on this and areas of common interest.


There was no evidence that Eucalyptus planting caused this to happen. Records show the dam drying up previously whilst the same catchment area under Pine. The dam has been dry since 1998 and Eucalypt planting only started in 2002.


02

Ongoing discussions between the parties are taking place alongside other matters of importance between the two organisations on a regular basis.

Complaint Date Recorded > 1/10/2009

A complaint was receive regarding the allocation of tenders. A physically handicapped person applied for the tender and was not considered.


Expression of interest documents. Attendance register. Application documents of various applicants.


3

During the evaluation, consideration was given to SQF and the relevant tender process. The complainant’s tender application as well as other tender application was evaluated and in total 21 applications was received for the particular tender. The applications were considered in line with the SQF tender process and the SQF ‘Non-binding Expression of Interest’ for this particular call for service providers. Applications met the requirements and also complied with the relevant BEE criteria. No evidence suggested that the complainant was treated unfairly during the said tender process.

SGS will again evaluate the tender process as well as the actual implementation of the said process during future audits.’

2009 follow up: The complaint was revisited during the audit and several employees as well as the complainant himself were interviewed. It was noted that there was still a feeling that the tender process was biased and that there might have been racial undertones.

AD 36-A-05 Page 40 of 40

End of Public Summary

FOREST MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION REPORT · Doc. Version date: 24 May 2007 SGS QUALIFOR (Associated Document) Page: 1 of 40 SGS South Africa (Qualifor Programme) 58 Melville Road, Booysens

Documents