Proceedings of the Biennial International Symposium ...

FOREST AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Braşov 2015

Proceedings of the Symposium

ISSN 1843-505X

“TRANSILVANIA” UNIVERSITY OF BRASOV

UNIVERSITATEA “TRANSILVANIA” DIN BRASOV

Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering

Facultatea de Silvicultură şi Exploatări Forestiere

Proceedings of the Biennial International Symposium FOREST AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TRANSILVANIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 2015

“TRANSILVANIA” UNIVERSITY OF BRASOV Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering

Proceedings of the Biennial International Symposium FOREST AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT


©2015 TRANSILVANIA UNIVERSITY PRESS Adress: 500091 Braşov B-dul Iuliu Maniu 41A Tel:0268-476050 Fax: 0268 476051 E-mail: [email protected] Printed by: Transilvania University Publishing House B-dul Iuliu Maniu 41A Tel: 0268 - 476050

Editorial Board:

Prof.dr. Ioan Vasile Abrudan, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Braşov, Romania Assoc. Prof.dr. Stelian Alexandru Borz, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Braşov, Romania Prof.dr. Alexandru Lucian Curtu, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering , Braşov, Romania Prof.dr. Vasileios C. Drosos, Democritus University of Trace, Greece Prof.dr. Gheorghe Ignea, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering , Braşov, Romania Assoc. Prof.dr. Adrian Indreica, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Braşov, Romania Prof.dr. Ovidiu Ionescu, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Braşov, Romania Prof.dr. Florin Ioraş, Buckinghamshire New University, United Kingdom Assoc. Prof.dr. Victor Dan Păcurar, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Braşov, Romania Prof.dr. Dieter Peltz, University of Freiburg, Germany Prof.dr. Iosif Vorovencii, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Braşov, Romania

“TRANSILVANIA” UNIVERSITY OF BRAŞOV

UNIVERSITATEA “TRANSILVANIA” DIN BRAŞOV

Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering

Facultatea de Silvicultură şi Exploatări Forestiere

Proceedings of the Biennial International Symposium FOREST AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT th

Braşov, 24-25 th of October 2014


CONTENTS

1. FORESTS AND BIODIVERSITY Henn KORJUS, Ruth MÄNDMA, Diana LAARMANN, Allan SIMS: Assessment of Tree Mortality on the Estonian Network of Forest Research Plots Ruben BUDĂU, Adrian Ioan TIMOFTE: Observations and Measurements of Morphological Traits in Two Varieties of Black Locust: Robinia Pseudoacacia Var. Rectissima and Var. Oltenica Cristian Mihai ENESCU, Cosmin LOGHIN, Paula IVANOV: Leaf and Twig Morphological Variability of Romanian Linden Species (Tilia; Tiliaceae): a Case Study Raluca-Elena ENESCU, Lucian DINCĂ, Gheorghe SPÂRCHEZ: Mineral Nutrition of Pedunculate Oak (Quercus Robur L.) from Prejmer Natural Reserve and Persani Foothills Branislav KOVAČEVIĆ, Zoran TOMOVIĆ, Ivana VASIĆ, Saša ORLOVIĆ, Marina KATANIĆ, Milan DREKIĆ: Leaf Morphological Variation of Populus Nigra in the Danube Basin Miroslav MARKOVIĆ, Vladislava GALOVIĆ, Dragan KARADŽIĆ, Predrag PAP, Miroslava MARKOVIĆ, Milan DREKIĆ: Diversity of Parasitic and Saprophytic Fungi on Wild Cherry (Prunus Avium L.) in Republic of Serbia Milan MATARUGA, Zvjezdana TOPIĆ, Branislav CVJETKOVIĆ: Variability of Morphophysiological Traits of Checker Tree (Sorbus Torminalis (L.) Crantz.) Fruits and Seeds in the Republic of Srpska (B&H ) Georgeta MIHAI, Mihai DAIA, Ionel MIRANCEA, Ştefan TANASIE: Genetic Variation and Heritability in a Breeding Seedling Orchard of Resonance Norway Spruce Kristi NIGUL, Ahto KANGUR, Henn KORJUS, Diana LAARMANN, Allan SIMS, Marek METSLAID, Andres KIVISTE: Assessment of Tree Diameter Distributions for Describing Structural Legacies in Hemiboreal Forest, in Estonia Robert PACHE, Alin BIRDA, Bogdan POPA: On the Way to Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Romania – Possible Solutions to Fill the Financing Gaps by Internalization of Ecosystem Services Values

2-7 8 - 13

14 – 19 20 – 25 26 – 35

36 – 42

43 – 48

49 – 56 57 – 62

63 – 68

Branislav TRUDIĆ, Boban ANĐELKOVIĆ, Saša ORLOVIĆ, Vele TEŠEVIĆ, Mirjana CVETKOVIĆ, Jovana STANKOVIĆ: Preliminary Biochemical Analysis of M1 (Panonnia) Poplar Clone Surface Resins

69 – 74

2. FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Branislav CVJETKOVIĆ, Milan MATARUGA, Vojislav DUKIĆ, Vanja DANIČIĆ, Aleksandar LUČIĆ: The Variability of Scots Pine (Pinus Sylvestris L.) in the Provenance Test in Bosnia and Herzegovina Marian DRĂGOI, Vasile RUSU: Methodological Linkage Between Balanced Scorecards and Analytic Network Process – Means to Improve the Forest Management Milan DREKIĆ, Leopold POLJAKOVIĆ - PAJNIK, Verica VASIĆ, Branislav KOVAČEVIĆ, Miroslav MARKOVIĆ: Investigation of Efficacy of Some Insecticides for Control of Stereonychus Fraxini de Geer Vladislav GRATI, Eric PROSII: The Analysis on the Implementation of Forest Planning in Moldova Republic Aureliu - Florin HĂLĂLIȘAN, Mihai MARINCHESCU: Forest Certification in Romania: the View of the Experts Andres KIVISTE, Maris HORDO, Ahto KANGUR, Anton KARDAKOV, Henn KORJUS, Diana LAARMANN, Ando LILLELEHT, Sandra METSLAID, Allan SIMS: Monitoring and Evaluating Forest Dynamics: the Estonian Network of Forest Research Plots Andrej PILIPOVIĆ, Milan DREKIĆ, Saša ORLOVIĆ, Leopold POLJAKOVIĆ-PAJNIK, Nataša NIKOLIĆ, Milan BORIŠEV: Growth and Physiological Response of Different Poplar Clones on Herbivory Induced Stress Ciprian - Valentin SILVESTRU - GRIGORE, Gheorghe SPÂRCHEZ: Dimensional and Qualitative Characteristics of Scots Pine and Black Pine Stands on Degraded Lands in Buzău’s Sub-Carpathians Cezar UNGUREAN, Andrei ADORJANI, Nicu Constantin TUDOSE, Adriana Agafia DAVIDESCU, Dorin DAVID: Characteristics of Forest Plantation Installed on Degraded Lands from Central Dobrogea

76 – 85

86 – 93 94 – 97

98 – 103 104 – 109 110 – 117

118 – 123

124 – 129

130 – 135

FOREST CERTIFICATION IN ROMANIA: THE VIEW OF THE EXPERTS

Aureliu- Florin HĂLĂLIȘAN*, Departament of Silviculture, Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania, [email protected] Mihai MARINCHESCU, Departament of Silviculture, Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania

Abstract: FSC certification has become a topic of interest for the forest managers and companies in Romania. Using NVivo 10 software in coding and organizing data from the questionnaires provided by specialists in forest certification (auditors/consultants), we tried to make a qualitative analysis regarding the perception of the forest certification process in Romania. Thus, after the qualitative analysis, the result was that the main reason for the adoption of FSC certification in Romania, indicated by experts, is the demand for certified products, especially on external markets. The main problems in obtaining FSC certificate can be grouped into three categories: lack of information about the forest certification scheme, financial problems and FSC standard requirements (infringement of legal provisions may result in noncompliance with the FSC standard). Specialists, frequently, consider that certification needs recognition from authorities. The interviewed experts consider FSC certification a concept in the short and medium term development, and the simplification of procedures and incentives, is as basic conditions for the expansion and for the qualitative evolution of this voluntary tool. Keywords: FSC certification, qualitative analysis, experts.

1. INTRODUCTION In 1993, the organization WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), together with other NGOs and companies, support the setting of the non-governmental and non-profit organization FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), to launch a comprehensive program of forest certification, developing standards in this sense (Meidinger, 2006). The initial scope of the forest certification was represented by rainforests, but it extended to temperate and boreal forests too (Perera and Vlosky, 2006). Forest certification has its origins in concerns over deforestation in the 80s-90s (Elliott and Sturm, 1996; Merry and Carter, 1996; Meidinger, 2002 Meidinger et al., 2003; Bartley, 2003; Kiekens, 2003; Nussbaum and Simula, 2005; Stringer, 2006; Meidinger, 2006). Certification was designed as a means of identifying the origin of tropical timber, trying to convince the customers that, purchasing certified products, they do not contribute to illegal logging in that area (Meidinger, 2002; Meidinger et al., 2003). Organizations like Greenpeace, Friends of Earth and WWF highlighted the issue of logging in the tropics, organizing numerous campaigns to boycott tropical timber trade (Bartley, 2003; Overdevest, 2009). FSC certification is the only forest certification scheme in Romania that allows performance evaluation in the case of forest management. Currently, there are 2.55 million ha of FSC certified forests, out of which 1.6 million hectares belonging to the state (FSC, 2014). Interest in marketing FSC certified products is high, 276 FSC certificates being awarded to companies (FSC, 2014). The aim of this study was to underline the FSC certification process in Romania. Therefore, we evaluated the perception of auditors and consultants (experts) in the area of FSC certification in Romania,

considered factors directly involved in this process, and the information provided can lead to achieving an overview about FSC certification.

2. METHODOLOGY In order to obtain the image on FSC certification in Romania, a group of experts, by applying a structured interview, with open questions, was consulted. All experts consulted, participate actively, providing advice or conducting audits, for the certification of forest management and chain of custody in Romania. Due to the relatively new concept of forest certification, only 12 experts have been identified in our country. Among the experts identified, only 7 wanted to participate in this study. The main objective of this qualitative analysis is not to interview as many respondents as possible, but to identify those experts who can explain the situations encountered. The questionnaire applied to specialists was made of an introduction, where it is required expertise in forest certification, and a part with 11 general questions about FSC certification. The questionnaire was sent via e-mail, method used because of the impossibility of meeting them, because of the auditors’ / consultants’ schedule. In sending the questionnaire, the guidelines of the method Total Design Method (TDM) proposed by Dillman (1978) were followed. Thus, the experts were sent via email a note about this study and about the questionnaire. Subsequently, respondents were sent a reminder e-mail for sending the questionnaire. The questionnaires were processed using the software Nvivo 10 (Demo version), made by QSR (QSR, 2014). Nvivo software can be used to check trends, to test and build theories, to manage, encode or interpret data qualitatively (Sorensen, 2008). With this software, data supplied by experts were encoded. Once any piece of information in the questionnaire was encoded, the text, associated to a code, can be viewed (in the Nvivo software these codes are called nodes). Qualitative analysis is a method of processing data without converting them into digital format. With this software, expert responses were encoded and analyzed to form a wiew on the forest certification in Romania. In the qualitative analysis of the responses, the names of the experts were encoded out of confidentiality reasons.

3. RESULTS 3.1. Reasons to adopt the FSC certification The need for certified products is increasing; a proof is the number of certified companies and forestry departments in the process of obtaining this type of certification. One of the goals of forest certification was to provide marketing incentives for effective management (Gullison, 2003; Karna et al., 2003; Cahore et al., 2004; Zakreski et al., 2004). The main reasons for the adoption of FSC certification in Romania, indicated by experts, have pointed to economic aspects as crucial in the decision of adopting FSC certification. For example, the expert 7 says: ’’Companies in Romania want to obtain FSC certification out of economic reasons’’. Regarding the certification of forest management, the expert no. 3 and the expert 6 explain: ”Forest units are certified for their image, to meet dependant customers’ requirements and as a result of this influence, through information and support (including financial) from NGOs. When market requirements increased, the number of certified companies increased as well, significantly.’’ The role of NGOs is highlighted by the expert 2: "The certification decision is made due to the influence of NGOs and of important manufacturers." Benefits of FSC certification are disputable. Hălălişan et al. (2013) indicated that the main benefits of FSC custody chain certification in Romania are to keep the customer and to improve the image of the company. This result shows that FSC certification is a response to the market requirements, a proactive strategy adopted especially for keeping customers on the foreign market. FSC certification, based on a performance standard, allows products labelling and their recognition on the market. ,,An additional advantage is of marketing through the use of FSC certification marks on the product and promotion’’ said the expert 7.

3.2. The FSC certification and ISO certification The role of system certification is important for the adoption of FSC certification. Forest certification is based on performance standards, but it is based on system standards (Vallejo and Häuselmann, 2002). The ISO 14000 series includes system standards that consider environmental issues and the impact of the activities upon the environment (IIDS, 1996). Companies that have a system certification adopt FSC certification more easily (Humphries et al., 2001; Ratnasingam et al., 2008, Roberge et al., 2011). Although a large proportion of FSC certified companies do not have system certification (probably because customers do not require this certification), it has an important role in organizing, planning and operation of the company. ISO certification, like FSC certification is adopted at the customer's requirement (Jiang and Bansal, 2003). Most often, experts noted that FSC certification is a higher performance level, complementing ISO certification. In addition, they consider that FSC certification facilitates access to new markets or brings economic benefits. Experts 1 and 6 show the performance standards value and the impact upon the company management: ,,With FSC certification we can reach a higher performance level. FSC certification can improve productive processes too in every company especially in the case of companies that are not ISO certified.We can accurately assess the current position of the management compared to the minimum acceptable requirements.” 3.3. Problems in obtaining and maintaining FSC certificate Problems indicated by specialists in obtaining and maintaining FSC certificate can be grouped into the following categories: financial, informational and problems in achieving FSC standard (standard difficulty). The cost of certification is the main problem identified by experts in the initiative for adopting FSC certification. In addition, in general, lack of information on the purpose of certification is also often indicated. All these problems are exacerbated by the lack of authorities’ interest in this topic. Certification costs are the main obstacles for its adoption. Forest certification involves direct costs, related to the assessment of the forest unit by third parties, independent, and indirect costs of adaptation to the requirements of the standard. FSC certification costs vary by type of certification (forest management or custody chain), and company size, or the distance which auditors have to cover (Bass et al., 2001). The demand of customers for FSC certified products lead companies to invest in obtaining FSC certification. Experts 2 and 7 explain the companies' efforts in investing to meet the requirements of FSC standard: ’’Companies are not willing to spend to implement certification unless it is absolutely necessary. During certification and thereafter, compliance with ILO norms and conventions bring considerable expenses to the certified unit and to the agents it works with”. Costs for forest management certification are much higher than in the case of the custody chain certification. Indirect costs due to meeting FSC standard, represented by rules related to work safety, identifying HCVF (High Conservation Value Forests) or developed information systems are impediments to FSC requirements. FSC certification is associated with changes in the management practiced. FSC certification in Romania faces problems related to understanding the concept. Lack of information sources and promotional actions makes the certification organization the only source of information about FSC certification. Experts 5 and 7 highlight this problem stating: ’’There are few sources of information about the true purpose of FSC certification. There is a lack of information about FSC Principles in the forest districts.’’ Low level of development of a company emphasizes issues related to the adoption of FSC certification. FSC standard contains requirements that involve major efforts from forest units in Romania. The expert 3 highlights the frequent problems faced by units (companies) in Romania: ’’Failure to comply with laws and regulations or lack of monitoring is a problem faced by forestry units wishing to obtain FSC certification.’’

3.4. Measures to stimulate the FSC certification in Romania All the experts who participated in this study indicated the need to stimulate FSC certification in Romania by involving authorities. FSC certification had a chance to be supported by the state. Law 105/2006 mentioned that all economic operators pay 1% of standing timber mass sale value or of crude timber types obtained after exploitation (Romanian Parliament, 2006). Unfortunately, law 105/2006 is no longer in force and FSC certification is adopted to obtain other benefits on short and medium term. Lack of incentives is stressed by most experts interviewed. Most often experts indicated that FSC certification in Romania needs authorities’ support and granting tax facilities. Specialists 5 and 7 state: ’’FSC certification can be encouraged through direct financial incentives (financing a percentage of the actual costs of certification (information, consulting and certification) and indirect (reduced fees))’’. 3.5. National forest legislation and FSC certification FSC certification is a voluntary tool available to forest units or companies. The decision to adopt FSC certification is made in order to get some benefits. Specialists consider that forestry legislation in Romania is sufficient for a sustainable management practice, but the way the law is applied is emphasized, expert 4 notice: ’’Forestry legislation is in most cases more stringent than the requirements of FSC standard’’. FSC certification based on evaluation by an independent part, external, can confirm compliance with forestry legislation in force. In addition, expert 4 argues: ’’Given the perception level of corruption and the low level of implementing existing legislation, involvement of a "third party" is still appropriate, to monitor the forest management process’’. Besides, FSC certification regulates certain aspects that are not required by Romanian law, as experts 1 and 2 underline: ’’There are some issues, especially in environmental protection (ecosystems, species, habitats, benefit from forests, relations with local communities etc.) where standards are more advanced than legislation. If national law were applied correctly, it would be very easy to obtain a FSC certificate.’’ 3.6. The future of FSC certification Experts interviewed indicated that FSC certification in the future depends a lot on the market demand. In general, they consider that FSC certification will have a short-term uptrend. Expert 7 justifies: ’’I think that soon in the case of export to the European market we will compete only with FSC certified products’’. FSC national standards development will contribute to the understanding of the concept of forest certification. In 2014, the Association for Forest Certification began the development of the national standard for forest management (ACF, 2014). Development of national standards and simplification of procedures may lead to the development of this concept. Expert 1 refers to the importance of developing standards adapted to the Romanian conditions: ’’Development of national standards should be a priority, because the development process of these standards leads to creating a platform for consultation, participation and consensus that generally has positive effects on the functioning of the forestry sector.’’

4. CONCLUSIONS Auditors and consultants have an important role in promoting and implementing FSC certification, representing the main informational support in Romania. Their perception is important in understanding the concept of forest certification. In general, experts believe that adoption of forest certification is achieved in order to obtain economic benefits, often with the support of NGOs, in the case of forest units or because of customers’ pressure, for companies that are FSC certified. Thus, FSC certification becomes a proactive strategy adopted to the market demand. System certification is considered useful in FSC certification. Regulating the unit performance, ISO certification can be supplemented with elements of performance through the adoption of FSC certification. General problems faced by FSC certification in Romania are related to financial, informational issues and to complying with FSC standard. Experts point out the lack of recognition of

forest certification by the authorities. Besides, lack of sources of information and promotion actions make the certification unit the main promoter of FSC certification, paying more attention to auditors and consultants. Unanimously, the experts indicated that forest law in Romania is sufficient for practicing sustainable management, but they outlined the way it is applied. Once adopted, FSC certification complements the legislation with some additional requirements not covered by national legislation. Future certification, according to experts, is closely related to product demand. In the short and medium term, experts indicated increased interest in marketing products that are FSC certified. Development of national FSC standards would be a more suitable certification process adapted to the specific conditions of the forestry sector in Romania.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is supported by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD), ID134378 financed from the European Social Fund and by the Romanian Government. The authors wish to thank to the experts who contributed to this study and provided explanations on the topics discussed.

REFERENCES 1. Bartley, T., 2007. How Fundation Shape Social Movements: The Construction of an Organizational Field and the Rise of Forest Certification. Social Problems, Vol. 54, No.3, p. 229-255. 2. Bass, S., Thornber, K., Markoupoulos, M., Roberts, S., Grieg-Gran, M., 2001. Certification`s impacts on forests stakeholders and supply chains. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. 3. Cashore, B., Auld, G., Newsom, D., 2004. Governing through markets: Forest Certification and the emergence of non-state authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 4. Dillman, D. A., 1978. Mail and telephone surveys (Vol. 3). Wiley Interscience. 5. E.C, 2010. Regulation No. 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010R0995:EN:NOT 6. Elliott, C., Sturm, J., 1996. Gestion durable et écocertification des bois. Revue Forestière Française, fascicule thématique" La gestion durable des forêts tempérées". 7. FSC, 2013. Questions & Answers about FSC and the EU Timber Regulation, available at: www.fsc.org. 8. Gullison, R.E., 2003. Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx, Vol.37, No.2. 9. Hălălișan, A. F., Marinchescu, M., Popa, B., Abrudan, I. V., 2013. Chain of Custody certification in Romania: profile and perceptions of FSC certified companies. International Forestry Review, 15(3), 305-314. 10. Humphries, S., Vlosky, R.P., Carter, D., 2001. Certified wood products merchants in the United States: a comparison between 1995 and 1998. Forest Products Journal, No.51 (6), p.32-38. 11. IIDS, 1996. Global Green Standards: ISO 14000 ans Sustainable Developments. Canada, p.106. 12. Jiang, R. J., Bansal, P., 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 1047-1067. 13. Karna, J., Steineck, F., Juslin, H., 2001. Green marketing of sawn timber and wood based panels in Finland and Sweden. Journal of Forest Economics , No.7 (2), p.145-168. 14. Kiekens, J., 2003. Forest certification in North America: selected developments. 12th World Forestry Congress, Canada. 15. Meidinger, E., 2002. The New Environmental Law: Forest Certification. Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, Vol.10, p.214-303.

16. Meidinger, E., 2006. The administrative Law of Global Private-Public Regulation: The Case of Forestry. The European Journal of International Law, Vol.17, no.1, p.47-87. 17. Meidinger, E., Elliot, C., Oesten, G. 2003. The fundamentals of Forest Certification. Social and Political Dinensions of Forest Certification, p.3-27. 18. Merry, D.F., Carter, D.R.,1996. Programs and markets for ecologically certified wood products. Southern Forest Economics Workshop, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, 1996. 19. Nussbaum, R., Simula, M., 2005. The forest certification handbook. Second Edition. Earthscan, London, p. 301. 20. Overdevest, C., 2009. Comparing forest certification schemes: the case of ratcheting standards in the forest sector. Socio-Economic Rewiew, Nr.8, p.47-76. 21. The Romanian Parliament, 2006. Legea 105/2006 pentru aprobarea Ordonanţei de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 196/2005 privind Fondul pentru mediu. 22. Perera, P.,Vlosky, R., 2006. A history of Forest Certification. Working Paper No.71, Louisiana Forest Products Development Center. 23. Ratnasingam, J., Macpherson, T.H., Ioraș, F., 2008. An assessment of Malaysian wooden furniture manufacturers readiness to embrace chain of custody (CoC) certification. Holz Roh Werkst, No.66, p.339-343. 24. Roberge, A., Bouthillier, L., Boiral, O., 2011. The influence of forest certification on environmental performance: an analysis of certified companies in the province of Quebec (Canada). Canadian Journal Forest Resources, No.41, p.661-668. 25. Sorensen, A., 2008. Media Review: NVivo 7. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 106-108. 26. Stringer C., 2006: Forest Certification and changing global commodity chains. Journal of Economic Geography, No.6, p.701-722. 27. Vallejo, N., Hauselmann, P., 2002. Institutional Requirements for Forest Certification. A manual for stakeholders. GTZ-Programme Office for Social and Ecological Standards. Forest certification Working Paper No.2, Eschborn. 28. Zakreski, S., Doak, S.C., Evertz, M., 2004. Matching business values with forest certification systems. Metafore, Portland, OR. 31. 29. *ACF, 2014. www.certificareforestiera.ro 30. *FSC, 2014. www.info.fsc.org 31. *QSR, 2014. http://www.qsrinternational.com