Derivation and Evaluation of a Business Model to Promote Carbon Farming That Generates Valid Carbon Removal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a comprehensive examination of carbon farming projects and their capacity to produce dependable carbon removals. The study becomes especially relevant in the context of the European Commission's EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), launched in November 2022, which aims to establish a standardized and reliable certification process for carbon removals from nature-based approaches.

 

The methodology employed in this research is notable for its thoroughness. It encompasses a literature search, an expert-based online survey, and an expert-based online workshop to evaluate the adherence of four carbon farming practices and 26 global carbon farming projects to the requirements outlined by the CRCF and other certification standards. This multi-faceted approach provides a robust basis for assessing the effectiveness of carbon farming as a climate change mitigation strategy.

 

One of the key findings of this study is the limitation of carbon farming in meeting certain CRCF requirements, particularly in terms of ensuring additionality, permanence, and preventing leakage effects. These shortcomings raise crucial questions about the viability of carbon farming as a standalone solution for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions removal. The research also highlights issues related to project resilience and reliability, primarily stemming from unreliable baseline determination, inadequate non-permanence measures, and unsuitable reimbursement mechanisms.

 

The conclusion that carbon farming may not be a suitable method for GHG emissions removal is a significant and thought-provoking assertion. However, the authors provide a compelling alternative perspective by suggesting that carbon farming should not be discounted altogether but rather be directed toward promoting sustainability through improving soil fertility, reducing wind speed, enhancing biodiversity, and contributing to food security. This nuanced approach reflects a broader understanding of the multifaceted benefits of carbon farming beyond GHG emissions reduction.

 

To enhance the comprehensiveness of this research, it would be valuable to explore the potential economic implications of redirecting carbon farming efforts towards the mentioned sustainability goals. Additionally, the paper could delve into the challenges and opportunities associated with securing private and state funding for such initiatives.

 

In terms of future directions, the study could investigate case studies or examples of successful carbon farming projects that have effectively addressed the identified challenges. Analyzing best practices and success stories could offer insights into how carbon farming can be optimized to meet sustainability objectives.

 

In conclusion, this article provides a thought-provoking analysis of carbon farming projects and their potential for generating reliable carbon removals. The research's multidimensional approach and critical findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on climate change mitigation strategies. The proposed shift in focus towards sustainability aspects demonstrates a holistic perspective on carbon farming's role in addressing environmental challenges. Further exploration of economic implications and successful case studies would enhance the depth and applicability of the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all your comments on our draft. 

We have processed each of your comments to the best of our knowledge and hope that our revision has adequately addressed them.

Please see the attached document for all comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, authors discussed about “Review and Evaluation of Carbon Farming Projects and their Ability to generate reliable Carbon Removals”. The work is interesting to both academia and industry. But, this Ms. is not acceptable in its present form. I have suggestions to improve this Ms. before further processing.

 

Comments

1.       Abstract can be more structured and constructive.

2.       Introduction must be elaborated including research gap and novelty of this study. the appropriate relevant recent references.

3.       Discussion can be more elaborative by adding latest studies.

4.       Figures quality should be improved.

5.       Authors must check all the data presented in Tables. Tables 3 & 4 are not clear. Font size should increase for clarity.

6.       Conclusion should be more constructive along with future directions.

7.       Authors must check typological and grammatical mistakes.

8.       References should be cross checked.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author must check complete Ms. through an English expert.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all your comments on our draft. 

We have processed each of your comments to the best of our knowledge and hope that our revision has adequately addressed them.

Please see the attached document for all comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering me to review this manuscript. The article presented strong interest in the field but still has the following problems.

 

ü  It will be very interesting if you give more details about Verra, the Gold Standard, and Plan Vivo standards.

ü  The abstract misses the data sources and methods used in this study. Moreover, the main objective of the investigation has not been a clear description. It should be improved.

ü  The abstract doesn't support the most important results and should be rewritten concisely.

ü  Add the study's main implications, policy, and limits in the abstract section.

ü  The introduction part should include why this study is essential. What is missing? What is needed?

ü  All the Figures in the text need to be improved.

ü  Figure 3 should have more details.

ü  Table 3 is unclear, and please improve it.

ü  What is the theoretical contribution and significance of this paper?

ü  What are the policy implications of the study?

ü  What is the innovation of the study?

ü  English is not very smooth, and please improve it.

ü  The methodology section is long and complex.

ü  What is the leading software used during this research?

 

ü  In the discussion section, the findings of this research need to be compared with similar work. It would help if you mentioned other studies, what results they got, and why you are getting better/different results. Improve the discussion section and consider the contribution and research prospect of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is not very smooth, and please improve it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all your comments on our draft. 

We have processed each of your comments to the best of our knowledge and hope that our revision has adequately addressed them.

Please see the attached document for all comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors examined if carbon farming activity can meet the requirements under Carbon Removal Certification Framework. The manuscript is written well. However it requires following improvement  before it can be considered for publication: 

 

1.     The conclusion that the carbon farming should not be used to remove greenhouse gases should be relooked at.  Perhaps the incentives to use to promote carbon farming may be real issue but not the carbon farming itself.

2.     What it takes to develop a reliable baseline determination should be recommended since it is identified as one of the major challenge in the effective implementation of the proposed framework.

3.     The authors may propose a modified model for CRCF.

4.     The authors should align the title, abstract and the conclusion.

5.     I see double Figures (Figure 1), one should be removed.

The narrative such as “we” should be avoided in the article

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all your comments on our draft. 

We have processed each of your comments to the best of our knowledge and hope that our revision has adequately addressed them.

Please see the attached document for all comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper should be accepted now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ü  The research gap is not enough; please improve it.

ü  Figure 1: what is the meaning of “determine & are implemented by”

ü  Check the sentence. All the phases must start with a capital letter. For instance, Table 1. The same goes for all the tables.

ü  Figure 5 or Table? Kindly check it.

ü  Clarify which software you have used for collecting survey data.

ü  (see also [20] on page 270? What is the meaning? Same on line 489.

ü  The introduction and discussion sections are very long. Please resume it.

 

ü  Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, hints and questions, that, again, helped us to further improve the manuscript. We revised it and hope that we have given due consideration to all your comments. Please find our responses in the document below. 

 

Kind regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx