Wrong premises mislead the conclusions by Kallio et al. on forest reference levels in the EU
Wrong premises mislead the conclusions by Kallio et al. on forest reference levels in the EU
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.forpol.2018.07.002
复制
发表时间：
2018-10-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Vizzarri, M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grassi, G.;Camia, A.;Vizzarri, M.
Kallio等人（2018年）最近的一篇论文试图评估实施最近批准的欧盟LULUCF法规中的“森林参考水平”（FRL）方法可能产生的经济影响。FRL是国家预测的森林温室气体净排放量基线，未来的净排放量将与之进行比较，以便于核算（即评估为实现气候目标而进行的入计量或扣减）。Kallio等人认为，他们认为FRL的结果是收获限制会减少就业机会，并危及欧盟政策的气候缓解效益。在我们的评论中，我们回应说，虽然Kallio等人的论文可能对分析设定约束性限制对收获的影响具有普遍意义，但它不应被视为对实施FRL的经济影响的评估。他们的结论在很大程度上是由于对FRL方法的一些误解而无效的。我们首先澄清，FRL不是对采伐量的约束性限制，而是会计基线，确保森林管理变化（相对于历史时期）的温室气体后果在与其他部门类似的框架中得到核算。其次，我们解释说，FRL不是基于“冻结”的历史收获率，如Kallio等人的主要分析所假设的那样，而是由预测的历史森林管理做法的延续、与年龄有关的森林动态和现有的生长蓄积量之间的相互作用决定的。这种方法实际上允许随着森林年龄的增长而增加森林砍伐量，而不会产生会计借方。我们希望这些澄清有助于正确理解FRL方法，并鼓励反映不同观点的研究界之间进行建设性对话。
A recent paper by Kallio et al. (2018) attempts to assess economic impacts that could result from the implementation of the "Forest Reference Level" (FRL) approach included in the recently approved EU LULUCF Regulation. FRLs are country-projected baselines of net emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from forests, against which the future net emissions will be compared for accounting purposes (i.e. to assess credits or debits towards complying with a climate target). Kallio et al. argue that the harvest limits that they assume to be a consequence of the FRLs would decrease the employment opportunities and jeopardize climate mitigation benefits of EU policies.In our comment, we respond that while the paper of Kallio et al. may be of general interest in analysing the impact of setting binding limits on harvest, it should not be considered as an assessment of the economic impacts of implementing FRLs. Their conclusions are largely invalidated by some misunderstandings on the FRL approach. We first clarify that FRLs are not binding limits on harvest volumes, but rather accounting baselines that ensures that the GHG consequences of changes in forest management (relative to a historical period) are accounted for in a framework comparable to that of other sectors. Second, we explain that FRLs are not based on "frozen" historical harvest rates, as assumed in the main analysis of Kallio et al., but rather are determined by the interaction between the projected continuation of historical forest management practices, the age-related forest dynamics and the available growing stock volume. The approach actually allows for increasing harvest in the FRL as forests age, without incurring an accounting debit. We hope that these clarifications contribute to a correct understanding of the FRL approach and encourage a constructive dialogue between research communities reflecting different perspectives.