Integration of Forest-Climatic Projects into Regional Sustainable Development Strategies: Russian Experience of Central Forest-Steppe

First the aims are clear; the authors examine official policy regarding forestry and sustainable development. This over-arching goal is clearly set out, perhaps there could have been a bit more on sustainable development in Russia as it pertains to forestry. We are not given a clear picture of the situation which leads to the need for sustainability.

text added

There are parts of the paper that need some clarification. On p,2 (of 22) the authors tell us that “Despite the existing positive foreign and Russian experience….”. Which positive experience is this and what is it like? What is the basis for this statement. The authors need to inject a bit more clarity here into their research..

This refers to the experience in the development of forest-climatic projects, and further down the text there are a number of works by both Russian and foreign authors.

A gap in the paper is the concept of implementation of policy, especially environmental policy. To translate ideas into reality that impacts lives requires sound implementation mechan isms, and an understanding of the concept. The authors leave us to assume that implementation of policy in Russia is seamless. I think the authors will enrich their work by drawing attention to work in this field. It need not be copious but an intellectual foray down this path at the start will help burnish what is a good paper

The article includes a sub-section on Policy implications and recommendations for the integration of forest-climate projects into Russia's sustainable development strategy, which highlights the challenges Current policy issues (legislation) and suggestions are listed

In terms of methodology, it would help to be more explicit about how the results will be validated using Earth observation data, and to clarify what steps are planned to expand the long-term monitoring base.

It might also be worth outlining practical ideas for how integrated regional monitoring standards could be established, drawing on both remote sensing (e.g., Sentinel‑2, “Canopus‑B”) and on‑the‑ground measurements.

For the future 2026-2030, a phased formation of a unified federal verification system for forest-climatic projects is proposed, including:

Data processing centers based on leading forestry universities (MGUL, SPbGLTU)

Regional information collection centers (based on Rosleskhoz branches)

Unified cloud storage with API access for market participants

Development of technological potential

Promising areas of technological development:

(a) Satellite monitoring:

Introduction of a group of new Russian satellites of the "REVIEW" series (2026-2028)

Development of specialized algorithms for:

Automatic logging detection

Assessment of the state of forest crops

Fire hazard forecasting

(b) Ground monitoring:

Introduction of autonomous forest pathology drones (starting in 2027)

Deployment of a network of next-generation stationary IoT sensors

Using GLONASS-based mobile labs

Scientific and methodological development

Key promising tasks:

Development of domestic carbon balance models (analogs of CO2FIX)

Creating digital doubles for the main types of forest conditions

Development of machine learning methods for analyzing large amounts of data

International integration

Promising steps:

Creation of the Eurasian Carbon Unit Verification System (by 2028)

Development of cross-border standards with the EAEU countries

Participation in the formation of a global forest cover monitoring system

 The section on biological recommendations could go further. In particular, the case for moving away from low‑efficiency Scots pine monocultures (A1–A2 sites) towards mixed stands with 20–30% birch or aspen could be made more forcefully, with some discussion of the real‑world implications for reforestation practice/

text added

On the policy and economics side, a deeper treatment would strengthen the paper — especially around the legislative gap on abandoned farmland, the way carbon price volatility can undermine project viability, and the rationale for subsidising fire‑reduction schemes that are not financially self‑supporting.

We sincerely thank the distinguished reviewer for his valuable comments, which certainly touch on important aspects of our work. However, we consider it necessary to clarify the following:

The main purpose of our research, as stated in the introduction, was to:

Developing a methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of forest climate projects

Creation of a system of integral indicators for the forest-steppe zone

Testing of the proposed approaches on specific cases

All the assigned tasks have been successfully completed, which is confirmed:

The developed CIC calculation method

The results of GIS modeling

Econometric data analysis

The issues raised by the reviewer are indeed of scientific interest, but:

They go beyond the scope of the tasks set in the work

They require a separate in-depth study

Related to the broader context of forest policy

In future research, we plan to:

To study in detail the legal aspects of the use of abandoned lands

Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the carbon market

To develop economic models of fire prevention measures

In the current version of the article, we:

They pointed out these areas in the "Research perspectives" section

They provided a justification for their importance

Methodological approaches have been outlined

We fully agree that these issues deserve a separate in-depth study and are grateful to the reviewer for bringing them to his attention. In future work, we will definitely take these aspects into account and conduct special research on each of them.

Thanks again for the valuable comments that will help us improve our future research. We are ready to make the necessary clarifications to the text of the article in order to emphasize the importance of these issues for subsequent work.

Finally, I would encourage the authors to tie their suggestions for future research more directly to the specific limitations they identify here, so that readers can see a clear and coherent path forward.

We have included a new section "Political aspects", where: The identified regulatory and legal restrictions were systematized Specific mechanisms have been proposed to overcome them The economic feasibility of the proposed measures has been substantiated The promising areas of research were detailed, clearly linking them with the limitations identified in the work. They also offered a roadmap

In the abstract, the authors additionally used the words, including Relevance, Methodology, Scientific novelty, Practical significance, and Conclusion, to highlight the contents in the abstract. In fact, these words are not appropriate to appear in the abstracts. It would be nice if these words are removed.

corrected

L43, there are a typing error, with double “.” .

corrected

L61, if the green markets can be briefly defined, the expression here would become better.

text added

L146 was not completed. Please check again.

filled in. below, after the colon, there is an enumeration

The data sources of table 1 ,should be offered below the body of the table, instead of current form in the very rear column with source of data

I beg to differ. this is more convenient for perception . you can immediately see which source was used

The study had used scenario analysis. And this suddenly appear in Line 191-4. In the section of introduction, the study methods, processes, the objectives should be neat and clearly provided, in advance.

added to the methodology section (p.8)

In line 113-152, the integration framework is suggested to revised. The 7 portions is suggested to haves a graphical and interfaces interpretations that can help understanding the integrations between the components. The current version is like an inventory listing.

perhaps, but the authors decided to keep it that way.

In line 193, please check “sources 80” interpreting the meanings.

corrected

The coding should be defined before their applications in the scenario analysis. In Line 245-247, the coding suddenly appeared. There are also some codings in table 2 and figure 2. Here in Lin 245 , the authors might have to provide a paragraph to interpreting the coding, and the study designs.

interpretation of forest conditions is given.

After Table 2, a legend is given, where the mixed breeds are indicated.

Species mixtures are prescribed per forest vegetation type (FVT) to match site conditions. Codes denote proportions (out of 10) per hectare: e.g., ‘5P4Ca1E’ = 50% pine, 40% larch, 10% spruce in dry A1 sites. Compositions follow to optimize survival and ecosystem function

These should be provided in a manner consistent with the programs that are currently being implemented in the country. In table 3 the two different coding confused the readers so much. It had better defined instructions if related to the program. If it is defined in the study itself, please defined in the study design and methodology. The information in line 598-602 and many places are not clear enough, too.

The characteristics of the forest-growing conditions of the forest-steppe zone have been clarified, taking into account soil and hydrological features (gray forest soils, podzolic chernozems) and typical tree species (oak, pine, birch, aspen). The encoding of the rocks for planting (for example, 5P4Ca1E) is now accompanied by a detailed legend in table with a transcription of all abbreviations.

In line 265, 394, 417, and 435, as well as 607there are some typing errors.

corrected

The introduction section needs improvement. It is important to clearly state the following aspects in the introduction:

  The main research question

    • Hypothesis, if applicable

    • Main objective of the study

    • Gap in the literature that this study aims to address

    • Motivation behind the research

    • Relevance and significance of the topic

    • Innovations and novel contributions of the study compared to existing work

    • Unique contribution of this study to the field of investigation.

text added

Generally, the literature is limited. It is important to expand the literature.

The authors of the study admit that the number of publications devoted specifically to forest-climatic projects in the Russian forest-steppe zone is really limited. This is due to several factors:

The specifics of the research object

The forest-steppe of the Russian Federation is a unique ecotone where forest and agricultural landscapes are combined, which requires special approaches to assessing the carbon balance.

Most international papers (e.g., Griscom et al., 2017) focus on tropical or boreal forests, but not on transition zones.

The youth of the subject in Russia

The active development of forest climate projects in the Russian Federation began only after 2015 (the Paris Agreement), therefore, a significant part of the data is presented in:

departmental reports (Federal Forestry Agency, regional offices);

methodological recommendations (Orders of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment No. 477, GOST R 59563-2021);

dissertation research (Kuznetsov, 2020; Plotnikova, 2021).

Using adapted sources

The work uses:

International models (CO2FIX, Yasso), but with calibration for Russian forest-steppe conditions (GLR data, field measurements).

Domestic standards for reforestation (calculation and technological maps), which have no analogues in foreign literature.

The balance between scientific and regulatory sources

The list of references combines:

Scientific articles (including recent work on carbon accounting in the Russian Federation, 2020-2023).

State standards (GOST, methods of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment) that are critically important for the practical implementation of projects.

Primary data (Sentinel-2 satellite images, tax descriptions).

Conclusion

Despite the relatively small number of publications directly devoted to forest-climatic projects in the forest-steppe, the authors ensured the representativeness of the sources due to:

Active use of official Russian methods (which is necessary for application implementation).

Compensating for gaps with primary data (field research, remote sensing).

Adapting international experience to regional conditions.

If the reviewer has specific comments on the missing papers, the authors are ready to supplement the list of references, taking into account the recommendations.

At the same time, some of the world's sources have been added

    The absence of global practices on integration of forest climatic projects into regional sustainable development strategies.

The text was added in the context of a response to the same remark. World summaries and reports are marked

To provide more comprehensive and actionable recommendations, the authors should create a dedicated subsection titled "Policy Implications." In this section, they should identify the specific areas where the current policy falls short and explain why their proposed recommendations can help improve the status quo. It's important to keep in mind that policymakers are interested in practical, cost-effective, and socially acceptable solutions, so the authors should address the following questions before presenting their recommendations:

    What specific changes need to be made?

    a/ How will these changes be implemented?

    b/ What resources will be required to implement the changes, and where will they come from?

    c/ What are the overall benefits of the proposed changes for policymakers and society as a whole?

text added (p.5)

Terminologi cal consistency:

Phrases such as “fresh hogs” and “dry hogs” appear to be translation artifacts; they should likely be “fresh forests” and “dry forests”. Please review the entire manuscript for proper and consistent terminology.

manuscript for proper and consistent terminology revised

Overly lengthy and technical method sections:Sections with extensive formula derivations，may be condensed or partially moved to an appendix to improve narrative flow.

The authors have deliberately maintained the current structure of this section, as we consider it methodologically appropriate to present the complete analytical framework in its entirety at this stage. This consolidated presentation offers several substantive advantages:

First, it provides readers with a comprehensive overview of our integrated assessment approach before delving into specific methodological details in subsequent sections. The unified framework allows for better appreciation of how the various data components interact synergistically within our analytical system.

Second, keeping the methodology intact preserves the logical flow and conceptual coherence of our research design. Fragmenting these elements across different sections might obscure the systematic nature of our approach and the carefully designed relationships between methodological components.

Third, this presentation format aligns with established practices in environmental systems analysis literature, where complete methodological frameworks are typically introduced before their constituent elements are examined in detail. It serves to orient readers to our overall analytical strategy prior to exploring technical specifics.

We acknowledge that alternative organizational approaches exist, but maintain that the current structure optimally supports the study's objectives by:

Demonstrating the holistic nature of our assessment system

Highlighting critical interdependencies between methodological components

Providing necessary context for subsequent technical discussions

Maintaining conceptual clarity throughout the methodological exposition

The authors believe this integrated presentation most effectively communicates the study's rigorous approach to evaluating forest climate projects while preserving the intellectual integrity of our research design.

Economic evaluation scope could be expanded: Consider adding a sensitivity analysis related to carbon price volatility.The potential co-benefits (e.g., employment, biodiversity, eco-tourism) may also be briefly addressed.

Although this study did not aim to analyze this aspect, we recognize its essential role in the context of the topic of the article. A full-fledged consideration of this issue would require specific changes in methodology, which is beyond the scope of the current project. However, the results obtained form the basis for future research in this area, especially in terms of Economic evaluation scope.

Improve readability through visual representation: Comparative maps or summary figures across the six regions and forest types would enhance comprehension.

added a pivot table 2. Characteristics of the Forest Fund in the Regions of the Central Forest-Steppe of the Russian Plain

Literature review is dominated by domestic references: Integrate more international studies (e.g., IPCC, FAO, WRI reports) to broaden the paper's relevance and appeal to a global audience.

text added

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable and follows a logical scientific structure. However, the English language requires moderate revision to improve clarity, fluency, and grammatical accuracy. Several sentences contain awkward phrasing, literal translations, and unnecessarily complex constructions that hinder readability. It is recommended that the manuscript be reviewed by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service to ensure it meets the linguistic standards of an international journal.

The text was revised by a native English speaker. Adjustments have been made