iso14000-digest Thursday, December 11 1997 Volume 02 : Number 018
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:52:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [rbl@hal.EPBI.CWRU.Edu (Robin B. Lake)] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:07:03 -0500 (EST)
From: rbl@hal.EPBI.CWRU.Edu (Robin B. Lake)
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Re: Tanker Collision Avoidance
Cc: h1kwan@ns1.umcsd.um.edu.my
Having studied the tanker-iceberg collision situation in
Prince William Sound (pre-Exxon Valdez), the cost-effective
solution appeared to be to place a proper radar system on
a high overlook and broadcast the image over a unused TV
channel. A $100 TV set on the bridge can show the position
and vector of every ship around, "cowboy" or tanker. A GPS
can only show the exact position of YOUR one vessel and you have
no idea who is headed for a collision with you.
Those who propose that ISO operating standards will be effective
on a tanker have never set foot on one, I'd bet!
Cheers,
Robin Lake, Ph.D.
President, Environmental Modeling Inc.
rbl@po.cwru.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:16:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from ["Goodman, Sally" ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:32:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "Goodman, Sally"
To: "'kmeadows@iaccess.com.au'"
Cc: "'iso14000@quality.org'" ,
Subject: Ships
Kay Meadows wrote:
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:52:04 +1000
From: Kay Meadows
Subject: Ships
Chris Kwan wrote about extending ISO14001 to ships. Is there any reason
why the organisation owning the ship can't get a site (i.e. a ship)
certified. If you can certify a power station, or a liquid waste plant,
why not a ship? Maybe there are some spinoffs in terms of port
authorities, or marketing spinoffs.
Kay Meadows
Australia
Email: kmeadows@iaccess.com.au
I have not yet come across an organisation trying to get ISO 14001
certification for a single vessel, but there are some ship management
companies which are considering implementing ISO 14001. As Taran Hewitt
has already mentioned in these pages, ISM (which is mandatory from July
1998 for many shipping companies) does address environmental as well as
safety issues. However, ISM (unless it is interpreted in its widest
sense) does not address the issue of indirect environmental impacts, nor
continuous emissions. It does not require a systematic identification
and evaluation of environmental aspects/impacts, with the setting of
objectives and targets. What it does address is the direct polluting
issues and the prevention of (potential) environmental impacts.
A company with ISM will find they have done a lot of work already
towards meeting the requirements of ISO 14001 but will probably need to
do some additional identification and will almost certainly need to
carry out an evaluation to establish which aspects are significant.
Some parts of their existing ISM management may need to be restructured.
I will be happy to discuss this with anyone who wishes to have further
information on the links between ISO 14001 and ISM.
As part of the ISO 14001 certification of a shipping management company,
the ships managed would be treated similarly as if they were multiple
sites of a land-based company and, as such, would be sampled according
to the environmental risk and types of ship/cargos, routes, etc. There
are many factors to be taken into account. so it is not possible to
predict what would be the typical percentage of ships to be sampled. If
the ships were all of a similar type, carrying similar cargos on similar
routes, the percentage sampled would be lower than if there were many
different types of vessel, carrying a range of cargos over varying
routes and would also depend on the environmental risk associated with
the different cargos.
It seems unlikely that certification could be granted for a single
vessel, independently of the owner or management company, as it would
have to have its own implemented Environmental Management System under
direct control of the Master.
If you need more advice, please respond to me at the address below.
Regards,
Sally L Goodman
Product Manager AESC, DTP 325 (DNV)
Tel: +47 67 57 8213
Fax: +47 67 57 9705
Email: sally.goodman@dnv.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 02:40:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from [CHRIS KWAN ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:49:25 -0500 (EST)
From: CHRIS KWAN
To: "Robin B. Lake"
Cc: iso14000@cyberq.quality.org
Subject: Re: Tanker Collision Avoidance-reply
Actually, l am proposing a scheme very much like the air-traffic
controller with GPS installed in every ship, so that a third party can
monitor them. A remote satellite can also be used to track ships if two
or more comes within certain kms from each other. An alert will go out.
Secondly this system will also incorporate seabed and coastal monitoring
as well as part of the enhanced navigation system. However the problem
here is the cost of this system and that many of the oil spill are not
accidental although those incurred by accidents can be quite significant.
So l wanted a system where we can induce or "force" ships and shipowners to
take interest in ISO 14001 in the hope of catching them with the above
system. IT is a thought. We hope ships with ISO wll be able to help to
monitor illegal dumping as well (this is a big hope-but with some prize
money, it might just do the trick). Afterall who is better to police the
oceans that those that use it ?
So my next problem is how to do it ? Can we influence insurance companies
to make allowance to reduce premium for those with ISO ? Or can we
influence major exporters which are already ISO 14001 registered to use
ships that are certified as well ? Or can we influence bankers to restrict
loan applications for ships to have or will be getting ISO 14001 and
insist exporters (clients) to use them because ships with bad
environmental risk is most likely be bad credit risk as well. This can be
influenced by stricter administrative procedures for LCs with the effect of
delaying exporters which means financial losses etc.
These are the many ways that l am thinking of. ISO is but a mean to it.
And yes, l have been on board of ships. Dad owns a couple himself. l
know it is not easy but l believe it is a small start. Any better ideas
most welcome. Cheers
Chris
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Robin B. Lake wrote:
> Having studied the tanker-iceberg collision situation in
> Prince William Sound (pre-Exxon Valdez), the cost-effective
> solution appeared to be to place a proper radar system on
> a high overlook and broadcast the image over a unused TV
> channel. A $100 TV set on the bridge can show the position
> and vector of every ship around, "cowboy" or tanker. A GPS
> can only show the exact position of YOUR one vessel and you have
> no idea who is headed for a collision with you.
>
> Those who propose that ISO operating standards will be effective
> on a tanker have never set foot on one, I'd bet!
>
> Cheers,
> Robin Lake, Ph.D.
> President, Environmental Modeling Inc.
> rbl@po.cwru.edu
>
>
Chris Kwan
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Lecturer in Environmental Law & Finance Tel: 603-7594602 (OPER)
Institute of Postgraduate Studies and Research Tel: 603-7594410 (DL)
Uni Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur Fax: 603-7594606
Malaysia Email: Worsite@geocities.com
Email: h1kwan@umcsd.um.edu.my
Project WORSITE: http://members.tripod.com/~WORSITE/wos.htm
Project LOSTWORLD : http://members.tripod.com/~MELIAU/meli.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:20:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from ["Teddy Weisz"] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:43:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Teddy Weisz"
To: iso14000@cyberq.quality.org
Subject: Re: iso14000-digest V2 #17
To all members,
We are in the Hytek business ( telecommunications). We are involved now in
the process of certification to ISO14001. However , our major customers
already ask for
design to environment friendliness , for instance :design for environmental
packaging ,
could any of you to lead me to the relevant web site where i can find the
existing assistance in this area .
Thanks in advance
Teodor Weisz
Corporate Compliance Eng.,and EMS coordinator.
ECI Tellecom. Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:56:46 -0500
From: Bryan Gooch Redd
Subject: Wool Production & Processing
The is a second call for information.
I am researching the environmental implications of wool production and
wool processing.
I would greatly appreciate any information, contacts, etc. that might
help in my effort.
Thank you.
Bryan Gooch Redd
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 08:30:16 -0600
From: Phil Rooney
Subject: Re: Non-member submission from ["Teddy Weisz"] (fwd)
Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator) wrote:
>
> NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
> "Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
> the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> Bill
>
> =============================================================================
> Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
> Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
> =============================================================================
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:43:13 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Teddy Weisz"
> To: iso14000@cyberq.quality.org
> Subject: Re: iso14000-digest V2 #17
>
> To all members,
> We are in the Hytek business ( telecommunications). We are involved now in
> the process of certification to ISO14001. However , our major customers
> already ask for
> design to environment friendliness , for instance :design for environmental
> packaging ,
> could any of you to lead me to the relevant web site where i can find the
> existing assistance in this area .
> Thanks in advance
> Teodor Weisz
> Corporate Compliance Eng.,and EMS coordinator.
> ECI Tellecom. Ltd.
One site to begin a search is the following design for the environment
location: http://p2.pnl.gov:2080/DFE/
This site will doubtless get you to other places as well. I am also sure
that the EPA's Enviro$ense would have some locations or leads as well.
Good luck.
Phil Rooney
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department
3140 "N" Street
Lincoln, NE 68510
(402) 441-8644
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 13:09:47 -0500
From: "Michael G. Jacobson"
Subject: Forestry and IS0 14001
ISO 14001 seems geared toward "assessing" facilities, i.e., factories, as
single, seperate units. Are inputs included in the assessment? For example,
can a paper company that purchases wood on the open market, have just its
pulping and paper-making process audited, and not the source of the wood,
i.e., how the forest is managed?
I'd also appreciate knowing whether there are any forestry-related
companies, i.e., producers of wood or forest products that have undertaken
or plan to do an EMS under ISO 14001.
Michael Jacobson
Assistant Professor/Extension Specialist
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida
Box 110410
Gainesville, FL 32611
Tel: 352-846-0883
Fax: 352-846-1277
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 97 09:32:23 +0000
From: Anthony J Lambert
Subject: Re: Forestry and IS0 14001
On 8/12/97 6:09 pm, Michael G. Jacobson wrote:
>ISO 14001 seems geared toward "assessing" facilities, i.e., factories, as
>single, seperate units. Are inputs included in the assessment? For example,
>can a paper company that purchases wood on the open market, have just its
>pulping and paper-making process audited, and not the source of the wood,
>i.e., how the forest is managed?
Inputs are included in an assessment against ISO 14001 to the extent that
a company striving to achieve certification to ISO 14001 should have
determined its significant environmental aspects and impacts from a list
that includes "those it may be expected to have an influence over" as
well as those which it can control. Any certifier should therefore look
to see whether inputs have been included.
>I'd also appreciate knowing whether there are any forestry-related
>companies, i.e., producers of wood or forest products that have undertaken
>or plan to do an EMS under ISO 14001.
I am an environmental consultant and this year I helped a plywood
manufacturer in Asia develop an ISO 14001-based EMS. The company
achieved certification in October of this year. The system that we
developed for identifying and evaluating their significant environmental
impacts found that the source of the wood used in their facility was
actually their most significant environmental impact and, as a result,
they have set themselves an objective to switch supplies from virgin
forest to sustainably-managed plantation. (There is clearly a debate
that could be had around *that* whole issue, which I will refrain from
entering in this mailing.)
I hope this helps. Please forgive me for not being able to divulge the
name or exact location of my client.
Regards
Tony Lambert
THE RUBICON
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:01:32 +0000
From: Matthias Gelber
Subject: Re: Forestry and IS0 14001
Dear Michael
In Indonesia there are 3 forestry-related companies certified to ISO
14001 so far:
PT Wirakarya Sakti, Industrial Forest Plantation
PT Sumalindo Lestari Jaya, Plywood
PT Tungal Agathis Indah Wood Industries, Plywood
Let's appreciate that they have been so proactive to initiate a process
of continual improvement, especially in a context where there is not
such a comprehensive command and control pressure.
An ISO 14001 certificate is never a garantee for an absolute level of
environmental performance, because ISO 14001 does not specify one (this
is outside of the scope of TC 207 and would have most likely excluded
most sites in developing countries to participate), however it contains
the
comittment to compliance to national environmental legislation as part
of the policy requirements, which makes it some kind of "national
environmental performance" entry level.
AS Anthony Lambert indicated, the ISO 14001 definition for aspects
identification:
"The organization shall establish and maintain (a) procedure(s) to
identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products or
services that it can control and over which it can be expected to have
an influence, in order to determine those which have or can have
significant impacts on the environment."
This does not prescriptively tell you exactly what you have to do, but
if you take this requirement serious, then the scope of what you look at
will be very comprehensive and include your inputs, because of your
influence deriving from your purchasing power. This definition in the
standard is actully very powerful in practise, because companies have to
think about what are their influences are, instead of just following the
aspects in a given checklist or a command list from the Regulator.
However we might think about ISO 14001, one thing is sure. Never before
has there been such a big opportunity in developing countries for the
environment to become a part of the decision making process of industry,
due to the market driven interest shown in ISO 14001. Now the challenge
is to work on value adding systems which lead to environmental
performance improvement and internal efficiency gains instead of it just
becoming a certificate hunting.
For that we need capacity building programms. And my experience tells me
that this could start with consultants in developing countries, which
have a massive impact on how companies implement the system (This has
been demonstrated in Germany by empirical data from EMAS research).
Greetings from Jakarta
Matthias Gelber
mgelber@ibm.net
Michael G. Jacobson wrote:
>
> ISO 14001 seems geared toward "assessing" facilities, i.e., factories, as
> single, seperate units. Are inputs included in the assessment? For example,
> can a paper company that purchases wood on the open market, have just its
> pulping and paper-making process audited, and not the source of the wood,
> i.e., how the forest is managed?
>
> I'd also appreciate knowing whether there are any forestry-related
> companies, i.e., producers of wood or forest products that have undertaken
> or plan to do an EMS under ISO 14001.
>
>
>
> Michael Jacobson
> Assistant Professor/Extension Specialist
> School of Forest Resources and Conservation
> University of Florida
> Box 110410
> Gainesville, FL 32611
>
> Tel: 352-846-0883
> Fax: 352-846-1277
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 07:28:49 -0800
From: "Bert P. Krages"
Subject: Re: Forestry and IS0 14001
ISO 14001 applies to organizations, not to facilities per se. However,
companies have the option of certifying (or self-declaring) conformance for
single facilities and most have approached implementation on this basis. A
paper company could have a single mill audited and need not include its
forestry program. Likewise, it could have its forestry program audited and
not its mills. There is no reason why a forestry program could not conform
to ISO 14001, in fact, the elements of the standard seem to be a good fit
for such programs.
I personally am not aware of any forest products operations that have
formally implemented ISO 14001 but I would be surprised if none are
considering doing so.
At 01:09 PM 12/8/97 -0500, Michael G. Jacobson wrote:
>ISO 14001 seems geared toward "assessing" facilities, i.e., factories, as
>single, seperate units. Are inputs included in the assessment? For example,
>can a paper company that purchases wood on the open market, have just its
>pulping and paper-making process audited, and not the source of the wood,
>i.e., how the forest is managed?
>
>I'd also appreciate knowing whether there are any forestry-related
>companies, i.e., producers of wood or forest products that have undertaken
>or plan to do an EMS under ISO 14001.
>
>
>
>
>
>Michael Jacobson
>Assistant Professor/Extension Specialist
>School of Forest Resources and Conservation
>University of Florida
>Box 110410
>Gainesville, FL 32611
>
>Tel: 352-846-0883
>Fax: 352-846-1277
>
>
Bert P. Krages II
Environmental Law and Mediation
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97204
Law:
Mediation:
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:30:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Header line too long (>128) (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:07:16 -0500 (EST)
To: ajl@the-rubicon.demon.co.uk
From: Ngoiso (by way of Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy ) (by way of Mark Ritchie )
Subject: ISO Forestry Group Press Release
Dear Working Group,
On Monday 12/1 I received a copy of a press release from Ken Shirley,
Convenor, ISO/TC207/WG2(Forestry) from Bill Mankin, GFPP and a copy of Bill's
letter to Mr. Shirley and Margaret Kerr, Chair ISO/TC 207 expressing his
concerns with the misinformation contained within the press release. After
reading the release and Bill's letters, we agreed with him and issued our own
letters to Margaret Kerr, as well as Joe Cascio and Mary McKiel. The letter
we wrote is attached. I'm pleased to say that Bill was quite effective in
getting his concerns across to ISO. Joe Cascio called me this morning to say
that he had spoken with Bill and had received our letter as well. He said a
new press release had been issued. He said that he (Joe) was leaving for
London tonight for a meeting of the TC Chairs. He said he will request that
ISO make a formal statement about the press release and give assurances that
this is not an accepted practice. He said he realizes that this will not undo
all the damage, however, it will demonstrate that ISO intends to protect its
participants from misrepresentation. I told Joe that that would be an
important first step from ISO. I also told him that if they will not make
this effort toward protecting its participants that ISO could possibly stand
to lose imput and participation from the public interest sector.
For further information about this event or faxed copies of the press
releases and letters, please contact me through email or call 202-776-0595.
Yours,
Deborah
December 2, 1997
Dr. Margaret Kerr
Chair, ISO/TC 207
Standards Council of Canada
FAX: 1-613-995-4564
Dear Dr. Kerr:
I am writing to express concern about a press release from Mr. Ken
Shirley, Convenor of ISO/TC 207/WG2(Forestry) regarding the "final"
technical report for use of ISO 14001 EMS certification standards. Before
discussing the press release, let me introduce myself and the project I
manage. I am Deborah Siefert and I work for Community Nutrition Institute
(CNI) in Washington, D.C. where I manage the NGO Initiative: ISO 14000
project. The project is a team effort between CNI and ECOLOGIA (C/E Team)
which are both not-for-profit organizations (NGOs) concerned with public
safety, health, and the environment.
The projects goals are threefold: 1) to gain and disseminate information
about ISO 14000, its standards development process, and methods of
implementation; 2) to ensure that the public interest perspective from the
national, regional, and local levels are represented in the ISO 14000
standards development process; and 3) create a network to facilitate
communication between NGOs working on ISO 14000 and related implementation
issues. To date we are linked with a dozen organizations who either
actively participate in the 14000 standards setting process via the U.S.
TAG or monitor activities of the TAG and/or government activities
concerning ISO 14000. Enclosed, please find information about the project
and a list of organizations who are networking on this issue. More
information about the project can be found at www.ecologia.org/ISO14000.
The ISO press release confirms the worst fears of many NGOs regarding
active involvement with the ISO standards setting process. NGOs are
hesitant to participate in the development of ISO 14000 environmental
management system standards because they fear that their organization's
involvement will be used to mislead the public on vital environmental
issues. The press release from Mr. Shirley justifies that concern. His
statement that "an international group" which was "comprised or
representatives from
forest owners associations, forest industry, consumer organizations,
environmental NGOs, ..." had "identified ISO 14,001 Standard for
Environmental Management as the most appropriate tool to improve forestry
practice world wide" is not true.
It is my understanding that at least one of the environmental NGOs named
in the press release was not at the Paris meeting and never saw the final
report. The last draft of the report that the NGO saw did not say (as
reported in the press release) that the group finds ISO 14001 the"most
appropriate tool to improve forestry practice world wide." It is
situations like this where an NGO finds its name linked to a
statement/document which does not adequately represent what the
organization understood the consensus to be, that cause NGOs to be
reluctant to participate in the ISO process.
ISO is a well respected international organization and the standards it
develops should be equally well respected. In the case of the ISO 14000
series for environmental management systems standards, this issue is in
doubt. In the past, ISO always had the top experts in any field
negotiating and developing standards for products and more recently quality
management systems. This cannot be said for the ISO 14000 series of
environmental management system standards because of the glaring lack of
participation by environmental organizations (which comprise a large body
of the world's best environmental experts).
I know there are skilled and dedicated individuals working on the ISO
14000 standards; I have met many of them. However, skill and dedication do
not go far enough. For example, ISO would not turn over the development of
industry testing standards to a group that did not include adequate
representation from important industrial sectors concerned with the testing
procedures; similarly, ISO should not be comfortable with environmental
management system standards which are not developed with the active
participation of environmentalists. ISO's credibility requires its
procedures in developing any standard based on managing environmental
aspects to have broad support, especially the active participation of
environmentalists. ISO should take strong action to rectify situations
which deter NGOs from participating in the standards development process
and jeopardize the continued involvement of the few NGOs who are currently
involved.
The NGO Initiative strives to enable the environmental community to
participate in the development of these very important environmental
management standards. We will not be successful if NGOs believe their
participation in the ISO process can and will be misrepresented. It is our
hope that ISO values the participation of NGOs in the development of ISO
14000 and will continue to support our efforts.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. If you wish to
disseminate information to the NGO community, please contact the C/E Team
and we will be glad to assist. The project can be reached at the following
numbers: ph (202) 776-0595; fx (202)776-0599; and email: ngoiso@aol.com.
Sincerely yours,
Deborah A. Siefert
Project Manager
cc: Joseph Cascio, Chairman, U.S. TAG
Mary McKiel, Co-Chair, U.S. TAG
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:03:56 +0100
From: Deconchat Marc
Subject: RE: Forestry and IS0 14001
I am working in France with a company which has the task to buy, find, cut wood
for a paper mill. The mill will implement ISO 14001 and the forest company will
do too. Their situation is probably quite different from other larger forestry
companies. They don't own forests they cut, they are not the manager of them,
and thus, they can't have any (or little) influence of the environmental care
in forestry operations (sylviculture). It seems that they could consider that
their activity is not only the production of a raw material for mill, but also
to sell a "service" to forest managers and owners which want to put their
products on market. They don't think that they are concerned by forest
management certification which is the problem of forest owners. However, it's
clear that they will prefer to buy wood in certified forests rather than in
non-sustainably managed ones...But the problem is that forests are very very
small and owners are not very concerned by environmental certification.
One of their main difficulty is to separate in environmental impacts that are
caused by forest management and that are caused by their logging practices. For
example, it's clear that if they cross a water and pollute it, they are the
only responsable (even if the manager had said that they could cross it,
because he often doesn't know anything with water legislation!). But, if the
forest manager has decided to do a clearcut where it would have been preferable
to retain standards, for landscape or biodiversity, how evaluate logging
impact?
A part of my research work is to give an help on these questions, in relation
with biodiversity. I am trying to separate manager and logger factors which
influence biodiversity. More precisely, when a patch is logged, we can see very
important modifications in vegetation composition, with reduction of some
species and increase or colonization by other ones. This could be explained by
the combination of 2 main factors: (1): increase in light availability; (2):
disturbance of soil surface by machines. (1) is under the dependance of manager
choices (how many trees to cut), (2) is under the dependance of logger
practices (which season, which machine, etc.).
But biodiversity is a multiscale environmental issue, and I am asking if this
environemental aspect could be integrated in ISO 14001 implementations. Does
one clearcut be dangerous for a rare species (brown bear in Pyrenees) or is it
the patchiness caused by repeated clearcuts, done by several different loggers,
which could be negative? I think that ISO 14001 fit very well with factories
impacts on environment (pollution, noise, etc.) but could be very fuzzy with
activities similar to forest logging, or question related to biodiversity and
landscape esthetic, especially when their is not defined site where to
implement for a long time the certification.
I would be very interested to have information about other similar or completly
different situations in other forestry-related companies and about the use of
biodiversity in ISO 14001 implementations.
- -----Message d'origine-----
De: Bert P. Krages [SMTP:krages@teleport.com]
Date: mardi 9 décembre 1997 16:29
À: iso14000@quality.org
Objet: Re: Forestry and IS0 14001
ISO 14001 applies to organizations, not to facilities per se. However,
companies have the option of certifying (or self-declaring) conformance for
single facilities and most have approached implementation on this basis. A
paper company could have a single mill audited and need not include its
forestry program. Likewise, it could have its forestry program audited and
not its mills. There is no reason why a forestry program could not conform
to ISO 14001, in fact, the elements of the standard seem to be a good fit
for such programs.
I personally am not aware of any forest products operations that have
formally implemented ISO 14001 but I would be surprised if none are
considering doing so.
At 01:09 PM 12/8/97 -0500, Michael G. Jacobson wrote:
>ISO 14001 seems geared toward "assessing" facilities, i.e., factories, as
>single, seperate units. Are inputs included in the assessment? For example,
>can a paper company that purchases wood on the open market, have just its
>pulping and paper-making process audited, and not the source of the wood,
>i.e., how the forest is managed?
>
>I'd also appreciate knowing whether there are any forestry-related
>companies, i.e., producers of wood or forest products that have undertaken
>or plan to do an EMS under ISO 14001.
>
>
>
>
>
>Michael Jacobson
>Assistant Professor/Extension Specialist
>School of Forest Resources and Conservation
>University of Florida
>Box 110410
>Gainesville, FL 32611
>
>Tel: 352-846-0883
>Fax: 352-846-1277
>
>
Bert P. Krages II
Environmental Law and Mediation
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97204
Law:
Mediation:
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:23:06 -0500
From: Connie Glover Ritzert
Subject: RE: Forestry and IS0 14001
In response to Michael Jacobson's query, see comments below, based on my participation in the development of ISO 14001 and work with companies implementing it.
C.G. Ritzert
- ----------
From: Michael G. Jacobson [SMTP:mgj@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 1:10 PM
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: Forestry and IS0 14001
ISO 14001 seems geared toward "assessing" facilities, i.e., factories, as
single, seperate units.
ISO 14001 is an environmental management system (EMS) specification designed to provide a framework for building an EMS and demonstrating that such an EMS is in place and functioning. It is specifically not a "facility" standard - it is a management syst
em for the activities, products, and services, including physical property, of an organization. ISO 14001 does allow an EMS to be designed for an entire organization or for some unit of an organization. Such a "unit" could be a "facility", as long as i
t meets the ISO 14001 definition of organization:
"organization - company, corporation, firm, enterprise, authority or institution, or part or combination thereof, whether incorporated or not, public or private, that has its own functions and administration. NOTE - For organizations with more than one o
perating unit, a single operating unit may be defined as an organization."
In the U.S., most environmental regulations and programs are focused on the "facility". ISO 14001 requires an adjustment to move beyond the facility to the broader concept of "organization".
Jacobson: Are inputs included in the assessment? For example,
can a paper company that purchases wood on the open market, have just its
pulping and paper-making process audited, and not the source of the wood,
i.e., how the forest is managed?
Once the organizational unit is chosen, the EMS is designed to manage the environmental aspects of that unit - those over which it has control or can be expected to have influence. Audits verify that this is being done. In your example, the key question
s are: How is the organization defined? Where does the management responsibility for sourcing wood lie?
Jacobson: I'd also appreciate knowing whether there are any forestry-related
companies, i.e., producers of wood or forest products that have undertaken
or plan to do an EMS under ISO 14001.
There is a great deal of activity around ISO 14001 in forestry-related industries. As you may know, an ISO Technical Report is being developed by a Working Group in ISO/TC207 ( the committee responsible for the 14000 series standards) on information rele
vant to application of ISO 14001 in forestry companies. Several companies in this industry are pursuing ISO 14001. For example, International Paper, on of the largest, has recently developed corporate guidance on implementing ISO 14001 and has a corporat
e goal to have at least one Business Site in each of its Business Sectors registered to ISO 14001 by the end of 1998.
Connie Glover Ritzert critzert@fyi.net
Principal, Meredith-EMC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:50:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: Non-member submission from ["Robert Clifford, Jr." ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see BELOW line reading
"Forwarded Message") and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in
the posting, but definitely NOT to me.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill
=============================================================================
Bill Casti, CQA Email: help@quality.org
Domain Owner, QUALITY.ORG Pager: +1 800 604 6149
=============================================================================
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:11:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert Clifford, Jr."
To: ISO14000-L
Subject: ISO for SMEs
Many SMEs are coached through ISO 9001/2 implementation in small groups of
4 or 5, often under the auspices of a regional MEP. Cost-effectiveness
outweighs the disadvantage of a "generic" presentation -- and the SMEs can
interact and share "best practices" during implementation, a big plus in
many cases.
Has this approach been used yet for ISO 14001 ?
Robert Clifford, Jr.
ISO Environmental Consultancy Inc
Schenectady NY
clifford@quality.org
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #18
*****************************