Confirmed: discrepancies in audit reports AJA

Acrobat Reader highlights (in blue) the “signature” above separate from the other text in this Package Submission Checklist – IFCC. The “signature” is a separate file, added to the text without my explicit consent, and thus is falsified.
Acrobat Reader highlights (in blue) the “signature” above separate from the other text in this Package Submission Checklist – IFCC. The “signature” is a separate file, added to the text without my explicit consent, and thus is falsified.

Feb 3rd – almost 4 months after the initial complaint – Accredia finally confirmed the discrepancies in AJA’s audit reports. It responds:
Concerning your first complaint, please note that we have asked to the CAB to give us clarifications for the facts described into your complaint and to inform us about the actions that they intend to adopt in order to address it and avoid that similar facts could happen again.
The actions that the CAB’s proposed us seems acceptable. Nevertheless, as their implementation should have been effectively completed within December 2015, because of your update of yesterday, I ask you to give me further details about it.
We will deeply analyze the effective implementation of the action proposed during our next assessment at their offices.

While the reply is not explicit, it acknowledges the issues raised (discrepancies in audit reports; see complaint below) and that AJA was required to present corrections, corrective actions and preventive actions. Acrredia has so far not clarified how many reports contain discrepancies, and how many contain my “signature”. It also remains unclear if and how these discrepancies were addressed.

Bart W van Assen
bart[at]auditor[dot]id
5 February 2016

Original complaint (see also here)

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

Herewith I raise a complaint against one of your accredited certification bodies, PT AJA Indonesia (part of AJA Registrars/Europe?), for discrepancies in Package Submission Checklists (PSC) and audit reports related to PEFC/IFCC audits. Attached to this email are the following files:

  1. PSC for Arara Abadi (Draft) prepared by me, and containing several negative decisions;
  2. PSC for Arara Abadi (Final) edited by AJA Indonesia, in which all negative decisions were changed to positive decisions;
  3. PSC for SPA Serapung prepared by me, containing several negative decisions;
  4. PSC for SSL Pasir Pangaraian prepared by me, containing several negative decisions;
  5. PSC for Wananugraha Bimalestari prepared by me, containing several negative decisions;
  6. PT AA_Report Format IFCC_Issue B.pdf, the final IFCC Stage 2 Audit Report for PT Arara Abadi prepared by AJA Indonesia, and containing 15 CARs;
  7. PT AA_Report Format IFCC- Public Report.pdf, the Public Summary for PT Arara Abadi prepared by AJA Indonesia, and containing 8 CARs; and
  8. An email from AJA Indonesia, dated 22 July 2015, in which AJA Indonesia acknowledges my concerns regarding files 1&2.

Changes made in file #2 were made with neither prior communication to me nor my approval. I strongly suspect that similar changes were made in files #3-5. (I cannot prove this as I never received the final versions of these files.)

In all cases my signature was added to the files without my approval! Likely AJA Indonesia similarly added the signatures in file #6, and later changed these findings without consent/approval from all auditors involved.

I’ve tried to address this issue informally with PT AJA Indonesia for several months (see file #8), however without any significant follow-up by AJA Indonesia on this matter to date (almost 3 months later)! As I consider this case damaging to my reputation as well as to (forest) certification in general, I see no other alternative than to report this to you.

Kindly confirm receipt of this email, and inform me of proposed follow-up at your earliest convenience!

Warm regards,

Bart W van Assen
Bogor, Indonesia
(email 17 October 2015)

 

Update 4 July 2016:
Some claims have emerged that I have failed to inform AJA Indonesia of the release of this post. Hence, herewith evidence that the designated lawyer (Mirza Chaidir) and his assistant (Heru) at GWA & Partners were informed prior to the release of this post:
2016-07-04-11.27.42 2016-07-04-11.29.53

 

4 thoughts on “Confirmed: discrepancies in audit reports AJA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *