How Does Carbon Trading Impact China’s Forest Carbon Sequestration Potential and Carbon Leakage?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My major remark and comment devoted to the Table 4. “Projection of roundwood exports from major countries in the world to China compared with the baseline scenario.” 

First, I couldn’t find references to the Table 4 in the text (probable reference in the line 317 Table 7 should be Table 4).

Nevertheless, major problem for me is that list of countries in the Table 4 are not include majority of major timber-related products exporting to China countries: Brazil, Russia, USA, Indonesia, Vietnam, Chili, Thailand  - data from UN Comtrade database: Timber and products from timber (44), pulp (47); paper and paperboard (48); printed materials (49); furniture and building structures (94). Why we deal with only with roundwood and forest carbon leakages connected with roundwood?

 Even if speaks only about Timber and products from timber (44) – Russian share is 16,2%; Vietnam – 10,4%; USA – 7,8%; Thailand – 6,1%). All mentioned countries are absent in the Table 4, that produced serious doubts about the reliability of the conclusions from the study in a whole.

 Authors should clarify, why champions in “Timber and products from timber (44)” export are not included in the Table 4.

At the same time in Chapter 3.1. Data (lines 213-214) mentioned that China has timber trade with 37 other countries. Probably Brazil, Russia, USA, Indonesia, Vietnam, Chili, Thailand included in "Other countries" in the Table 4 – would you be so kind to clarify reasons?

 Minor remarks:

 -        Abbreviations LFCSP and HFCSP should be added to Chapter 4.2. “Alternative scenarios” – otherwise it will difficult to find what it means.

 -        Section of the Journal should be changed - there are not any connections and references to “Forest Biodiversity” at all. It should be other Section of the Journal - something like "Forest Economics and Market Links"

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work, and we are committed to addressing your concerns to improve the clarity and quality of our paper. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article raises an important issue that was previously not paid much attention to in one of the largest economies in the world and one that emits the most CO2. This is an important voice in the discussion and efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and fight global warming. The review lacks even a brief mention that, in addition to forests, CO2 is also absorbed by other ecosystems, where some meadow ecosystems are very important, more important than forests. Meadows periodically wet and rush meadows accumulate large amounts of carbon in soil, on average 148.7 and 172.4 g kg -1 . These  values  significantly  exceed  the  average  values  for  arable  land  and forest ecosystems of temperate climate.  (e.g. DOI: 10.5601/jelem.2019.24.2.1849).

 

The authors rightly note that limiting wood harvesting in one place where a CO2 absorption policy has been implemented results in an increase in harvesting in another place where there are no such restrictions. Therefore, in the global balance sheet we break even? It should be noted that in developed countries that fight climate warming by reducing CO2, planned and sustainable forest management is carried out. In such a case, the harvested wood is immediately replaced by a new generation of forest. However, in countries that have not joined the policy of combating CO2 reduction, the economy is often predatory and deforestation occurs when harvesting wood.

Moreover, this balance should include harvested wood that was intended for the production of durable items such as wooden houses, furniture, windows and doors, stairs, etc. In such a case, coal is deposited for many years.

Does the model take into account CO2 emissions associated with transporting wood over long distances? Limiting harvesting in one place causes the length of the wood transport distance.

It should also be mentioned that after a certain age the forest left behind (no logging) dies and begins to emit CO2 from decaying wood. Has this been taken into account in the model?

Table 1 is redundant, it fully repeats the simple information contained in the text.

The work is an important voice in the international discussion on the global reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. I believe that the work should be of interest to international opinion.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work, and we are committed to addressing your concerns to improve the clarity and quality of our paper. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It seems to me that a few sentensis with explanations why Germany is presented in current table 3 (increase of export obviously just result of increase of sanitary cuttings due to the death of coniferous forests as a result of an epidemic of pests), but Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam, Chili and Thailand are not included into Table 3. At the same time I am ready to accept improved current text for publication

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions. Regarding the GFPM model, we acknowledge that, as an economic model incorporating various costs such as transportation, logging, and tariffs, it might not cover all real-world scenarios. Your feedback has provided us with an excellent explanation for certain issues, for which we are deeply grateful.

Following your valuable advice, we have included this perspective in the explanation for Table 3, specifically in Section 4.4, lines 317-318."We can see that Germany is presented in Table 3, likely due to the increase of export just result of increase of sanitary cuttings due to the death of coniferous forests as a result of an epidemic of pests."

 

Your contribution has significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful guidance and support.

Best regards,