Dilemmas and Exits: Compliance Risks and Future Paths for Land-Based Emission Reduction Projects in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract, I suggest that the authors condense the policy-oriented expressions and add a summary sentence highlighting the paper’s theoretical contribution.
2. The literature review in the introduction is thorough. However, the introduction would benefit from a more focused formulation of the research questions and a clearer statement of the theoretical contribution.
3. A clear definition or differentiation of the two types of compliance dilemmas should be provided in the paper to give readers a clearer conceptual foundation. These definitions should also be reflected in Figure 1.
4. In Section 2, the rationale for selecting these cases should be made more transparent. In addition, the logical connection between the chosen methods and the research questions should be clarified.
5. The transition to Section 5.2 feels abrupt and could be better connected to the preceding discussion.
6. Overall, the paper relies heavily on normative argumentation but lacks sufficiently robust empirical support. In addition, the speculative statements regarding the motivations of international institutions are overstated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely and policy-relevant issue concerning compliance challenges of land-based emission reduction projects in China under international carbon standards.The topic is important and potentially suitable for Land. However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication.

- The manuscript lacks a well-defined conceptual or theoretical framework. It would benefit from engagement with literature on: Transnational private governance, Voluntary carbon market integrity, Polycentric climate governance, and Regulatory legitimacy of non-state standard-setters
- The contribution currently appears descriptive rather than theoretically grounded.
- The central research question is not clearly stated.
- A concise statement of the paper’s novel contribution to the literature
- The methodology section describes normative, case, and comparative analysis but lacks methodological soundness.
- The case selection criteria are not clearly justified.
- The study relies heavily on publicly available statements from Verra without independent empirical verification.
- There is no discussion of limitations.
- The methodological approach should be clarified and strengthened.
- The analysis appears to lean toward attributing responsibility primarily to Verra.
- A more balanced and critical assessment of both international standard-setters and domestic project governance is needed.
- The manuscript suggests broader relevance for developing countries but does not provide comparative international evidence.
- Some sections adopt a policy-advocacy tone rather than an analytical academic tone.
- The discussion of “systemic crisis” and “shielding” should be moderated or supported by stronger evidence.
- The argument should be reframed in a more academically neutral style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is interesting, and here are my comments: 

1. Introduction: The section describing the current status of voluntary carbon markets is relatively long. The authors may consider shortening this background discussion and instead expanding the paragraph beginning with “existing literature largely focuses on …” to more clearly emphasize the need for legal scholarship in this field. Strengthening the articulation of the legal research gap would enhance the contribution of the study.
2. Table 1: Table 1 is difficult to follow in its current format. The authors may consider moving it to the Appendix, where it can serve as supplementary reference material without interrupting the flow of the main text.
3. The authors should clarify why these two cases were selected. Are they representative or leading examples of VCR issuance failures and credit withdrawals by Verra? Providing justification for case selection would enhance the methodological rigor and credibility of the study.
4. Discussion of the Silt Retention Dam in Section 5.2
   The introduction of a new case (the silt retention dam) in this section is somewhat unclear. The rationale for introducing this case at this stage of the paper should be better explained.
   b. If this case is part of the outcomes derived from the methodology outlined in Section 2.2.3, it would be more appropriate to present it earlier in the Results section, ensuring better structural coherence.
5. The manuscript is often lengthy and difficult to follow. The authors are encouraged to simplify the language, reduce repetition, and break up long paragraphs to improve clarity and readability.
6. The English requires further refinement. For example, usage such as “Overall” on page 4 could be improved for academic tone and precision. There are also minor typographical errors throughout the manuscript that should be carefully corrected.
7. Conceptual Framing of the Two Cases: The two cases effectively illustrate the “nested compliance dilemma” and the “iterative compliance dilemma.” The authors could further strengthen the manuscript by deriving broader principles from these cases that may be applicable to other developing countries facing similar regulatory conflicts.
8. The Discussion could be strengthened by more concretely addressing:
   • How China’s legal and regulatory framework could be improved to better manage voluntary carbon reduction (VCR) projects; and
   • How Verra might adopt greater flexibility in accepting VCRs during periods of methodological transition, particularly when rule changes create retroactive compliance challenges.

I hope that these comments help strengthen the manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This research is timely, and thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The case studies of Verra’s sanctions and China’s Silt-Retaining Dam Carbon Sequestration Methodology provide solid empirical finding, but some causal claims and normative judgments need stronger evidence support and more cautious phrasing.

In addition, the authors should check the language carefully and polish tables and figures before submission to improve the readibility.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been addressed 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the valuable time and effort you have devoted to our manuscript.

We would like to thank the experts again for their review comments on this study, and we hope that this revision will better address your concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. I remain concerned about the article’s arguments regarding international non-state actors. Verra is one of the leading organizations involved in carbon credit accreditation, and several other organizations also employ different methodologies. However, the article’s discussion of these actors remains insufficiently analytical, and the conclusions appear highly subjective.

I am also concerned that the theoretical framework related to co-governance has not been clearly or consistently applied throughout the research. The concept appeared in this revision, but it has not been sufficiently operationalized or integrated into the analysis. As a result, the manuscript does not clearly demonstrate its theoretical contribution.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for explaining the disciplinary approach in the legal context and for emphasizing co-governance as a positive influence from both actors. I still have some concerns regarding the methodological approach, but the limitations and future research directions, including the potential for interdisciplinary approaches involving economics and policy, were clearly stated.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback. During our multiple conversations with you, we not only revised the article based on your valuable suggestions, but also realized that our research has considerable potential for interdisciplinary collaboration. During this revision process, we followed the opinions of other reviewers and added some additional evidence, as well as using more cautious expressions. Please refer to the revised version. Thank you very much for your valuable time and effort spent on our manuscript. We hope this revision can better address your concerns.