Economic Evaluation of Different Implementation Variants and Categories of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 Using Forestry in Germany as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Old growth forest stands are stands in primary or secondary forests that have developed the structures and species normally associated with old primary forest of that type have sufficiently accumulated to act as a forest ecosystem distinct from any younger age class.

 

First, I would like to thank the authors for the effort made trying to analyze the consequences derived from the European Biodiversity Strategy 2030 in their country. However, the manuscript is far from meeting such expectations. In fact, the manuscript is presented as an application of what is proposed in the European strategy but in reality it is more a comparison with what has been done by other authors (Timm et al. (2022) and Schrier et al. (2022)).

Overall, the document is too long and you need to reduce some of its parts (like the introduction, but mainly the discussion with an extension of 5 pages). However, in Material and Methods a specific description of the case study has not been included and the description of the model is not enough to be able to follow the calculations shown below. Besides, some tables should be moved Appendix (as Tables 3-5) and consider the same for some figures. On the other hand, there are numerous citations in the manuscript that do not comply with the format proposed by the journal.

In line 48, I totally agree when you said that the definition of old-growth forest is too vague (Old growth forest stands are stands in primary or secondary forests that have developed the structures and species normally associated with old primary forest of that type have sufficiently accumulated to act as a forest ecosystem distinct from any younger age class).

Continuing with Material and Methods, although the selected species are presented ( spruce, pine, beech and oak) and their rotation length is specified, the silviculture used in each case is not commented. In addition, in Table 2, it is very shocking that all the species have the same pre-commercial thinning costs of 500 eur/ha and also have the same average felling costs (BAU) of 24.7eur/m3.

Regarding coarsy woody debris (CWD), despite the fact that the calculation methodology has been presented, it is not specified where it is obtained from or how the “k” factor varies. On the other hand, they could have considered introducing non-declining restrictions by period, for example, since in theory the paper focuses on this criterion…

In line 349, I would recommend the use of “categories” instead of “elements”

The use of terms like “unutilized timber” (line 615) or “unused timber” (line 645) is not suitable at all, maybe you should use “remaining or retained trees, uncut timber”  for example.

There are concepts explained more than once (SCM in lines 421-428 and then in lines 517-520), while others like “liquidation value” suddenly appears as a main result (lines 578-607).

Despite the authors try to justify the fact of not having included an intermediate scenario between MSC and ISC, I consider that it would be necessary to include it to increase the relevance of this work.

In Table 3, it has not been explained where or how the columns “Status quo”, “Scenario changes” and “Objective” for MSC and ISC are obtained.

In table 4, there are two negative areas for ISC (Scenario changes) and if this is correct, it should have an explanation.

Finally, in my opinion, this manuscript needs further work to be able to be published. On the one hand, its extension must be reduced, detailing the study area, and selecting the variables to be analyzed and presenting a clear methodology for all of them. In addition, and above all, generate an intermediate scenario between MSC and ISC and highlight more issues from among the proposals in the European Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report “Economic evaluation of different implementation variants and elements of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 using forestry in Germany as a case study”

This manuscript is an extension Dieter et al. (2020) and Schier et al. (2022) studies which includes better estimates on Germany timber harvests under EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (EUBDS) based on FESIM forest simulation model. The article is well written and model suitable for analyzing underlaying problem, so nothing to remark here. I have only some general comments about interpretation of EUBDS and extending model results to cover the whole EU27:

1) It is good to point out that protecting 30% of land area does not necessary mean that each land-cover type need full fill this target separately. For example, Germany can protect less than 30% of non-forest land and compensate this by protecting more than 30% of protected area. However, my question is why Germany should scarify its forest sector production by protecting more than 30% of its forest area (up to 67% =6.5 Mha/11.4 Mha where protected forest 6.5 Mha in ISC scenario and 11.4 total forest area)  to compensate agriculture sector. I would hope some discussion on this issue and the system boundaries of this study. Applying the compensation principal we could equally do to opposite, i.e., scarify agriculture sector production by protecting more than 30% of Germany agriculture area. Of course, to analyze impacts of this alternative protection policy would require not just a forest simulation model but also an agriculture sector simulation model.

2) It would be good to mention Germany total land area 35.8 Mha. 30% out of 35.8 Mha is 10.7 Mha with is considerable lower than the protected land area 14.7 Mha in ISC scenario. So why Germany is protecting 41% (=14.7/35.8) instead of 30% in the ISC scenario ?     

3) Extending FESIM model to cover the whole EU27 is not as easy as the manuscript claims, since NFI data is not public available in many EU27 countries and the quality of NFI data in some EU27 countries is not as good as in Germany. Some discussion on this could be added in the manuscript.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I read your work with great interest. The chosen topic is extremely interesting and very topical. However, in some places, I found it difficult to follow due to the lack of concision. In my opinion, the work is well structured, the methods are correct, but the presentation of the results needs to be improved. Also, the conclusions need to be adjusted. Point-wise, my observations are:

Introduction.

I believe that the paragraph contained between lines 137-159 refers to methodological aspects and should be moved to the method.

The paragraph between lines 159-164 must be taken into account when drawing up the conclusions, so please move it there.

Section 3.1.1 Total fellings

Placing figure 1 immediately after the title is too abrupt. Please add a paragraph between the two.

Much of the information between lines 488-496 should be moved from here and added to the figure caption. ...Same observation for all figures. Please add essential and relevant information for understanding the figures in captation; the rest of the results will be kept in the main text.

Conclusion

 

I have not been able to see the paragraph between lines 954-967 as a conclusion resulting from your study; so, I suggest removal or reformulation. Same for lines 977-983.

Best,

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I would like to express my congratulations after evaluating the changes you have made from your first version of the manuscript. Here are some minor comments.

About the new version of the manuscript

Lines 67-69: But it is also not clear if even with integative or integrated approaches would be necessary.

Lines 155-156: "Different studies exist on the policy impact assessments of various nature conserva-155 tion laws or proposed laws" Please include citation

The case study is now well defined and allows the reader to better understand the EUBDS impacts on German forestry.

In relation to deadwood, it must be clarified if you are considering both standing and lying deadwood. Then, calculations would be different for both cases. Besides, you would include more references about the diferences of the targets or the amount recomendations for CWD since they are very different between countries and in relation to the pursued objective. You can also check the results of the total deadwood in relation to the growing stock (%) (Forest Europe, 2020).

You should present the planning horizon of your study (200 years in 20-year steps) in Methods, before Figure 1 (lines 770-771). I also recommend you the use of "periods" instead of "steps".

 

Regarding the way of presenting the scenarios, the text is quite extensive and, in my opinion, it would be more appropriate to use a table in order to define them.

To calculate NPV, what discount rate did you use?

Discussion is still quite long, I recommend you shorten it a bit more highlighting only the most relevant points of your study. 

Finally, the conclusions must match to the objectives pursued. Then, conclusions should be related to these two main points but not to repeat the objectives (lines 1440-1442, 1499-1500 (but you should include it before in lines 197-205 where you are presenting the objectives))

 

 

 

 

1. "Therefore, the objective of the study at hand is to fill the gap of these publications, by analyzing the economic effects on forestry in Germany by the two EUBDS implementation-scenarios developed there."

2. "What are the long-term economic impacts of different implementation variants and categories of the EU-BDS 2030 on German forestry with special regard to coarse woody debris?"

However, you should develop the conclusions about CWD beyond your comment: "This finding of our study also clarifies the need for an economically efficient implementation of biodiversity protection issues in the forest, e.g. by considering the quality of the CWD for biodiversity protection (e.g. tree species, standing or lying CWD or degrees of decay) and not only the definition of quantitative thresholds." (lines 1458-1461)

In relation to the table you have prepared to answer my comments

About Comment 10: "We must admit that we are unclear about the specific suggestions you are making. Could you please provide us with more information or clarification on what you mean by "introducing non-declining restrictions by period"? We would be happy to consider your suggestions and incorporate them into our study if they are appropriate and feasible." That is to say, to ensure a larger amount of CWD by period. In your study, it would be to progressively increase the amount of CWD every 20 years.

About Comment 14: "We appreciate your input and understand your point of view. However, we purposely decided not to include an intermediate scenario between MSC and ISC in order to highlight the range of possible implementation frameworks given the definitional ambiguities surrounding the EUBDS. Moreover, Schier et al. have already provided a rationale for why the "golden middle" approach may not be the most appropriate in certain situations. Nonetheless, we have clarified and revised our reasoning in the manuscript to avoid any confusion (Line 781-788)." Despite the fact that you have not included this intermediate scenario, I appreciate your answer in this regard.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf