基于耦合效应的林业碳汇项目风险

doi:10.11707/j.1001-7488.20220517

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 基于林业碳汇项目风险耦合效应的视角，对其风险水平进行测算与评价，以期为项目经营主体和政府部门的风险监管提供决策参考。方法: 利用113位林业碳汇专家对林业碳汇项目风险类别、风险发生概率及其影响程度的认知信息调查问卷，首先对项目风险进行具体划分，形成项目风险清单，包括自然、技术、市场和政策等4个风险子系统，共计22个风险因子；再依据文献并结合林业碳汇项目特点，对林业碳汇项目风险子系统内部与风险子系统之间风险因子的耦合关系进行详细剖析，在确定项目风险耦合关系图和风险积流图的基础上，构建林业碳汇项目风险评价的系统动力学模型，获得系统动力学运行全部参数，并利用VENSIM软件通过情景模拟方法对项目整体风险水平与耦合效应进行测算与评价。结果: 1) 耦合效应对林业碳汇项目风险评价结果有明显影响，同质耦合效应要强于异质耦合效应。考虑全部耦合效应时，项目的整体风险水平为6.784，风险等级为Ⅲ；在不考虑耦合效应、同质耦合效应及异质耦合效应时，项目整体风险水平分别为0.355、0.929和3.102，风险等级分别为Ⅰ、Ⅰ和Ⅱ；2)不同风险子系统的耦合效应强弱有明显差异。具体来看，在仅考虑同质耦合效应、仅考虑异质耦合效应以及同时考虑2种耦合效应3种不同情景下，各风险子系统的耦合效应强弱排序均为市场风险>政策风险>技术风险>自然风险；3)在仅考虑同质耦合情景下，“碳汇价格变动与碳市场供给变动”耦合效应最强。在仅考虑异质耦合效应情景下，“国家减排政策变化与碳市场供给变动”耦合效应最强。在同时考虑2种耦合效应情景下，“国家减排政策变化与碳市场供给变动”耦合效应最强。4)风险水平和耦合效应方面，市场和政策风险较大，而技术和自然风险相对较小，但异质耦合效应会使得项目整体风险被逐渐放大。结论: 在林业碳汇项目风险监管中，不仅要关注风险水平本身大小，更要重视风险间的耦合效应，需从源头上防范风险之间的演化与整体风险水平的上升。

关键词: 林业碳汇项目, 耦合效应, 风险, 系统动力学

Abstract:

Objective: Based on the perspective of the risk coupling effect of forestry carbon sink projects, the risk level was measured and evaluated in this study, in order to provide decision-making reference for the risk supervision of project operators and government departments. Method: A questionnaire of 113 forestry carbon sink experts from different fields was conducted on the risk categories, risk occurrence probability and influence degree of forestry carbon sink projects. Firstly, the project risks were classified concretely, and the project risk list was formed, including 4 risk subsystems such as nature, technology, market and policy, with a total of 22 risk factors. Then, according to the literature and combined with the characteristics of forestry carbon sink project, the coupling relationship between risk factors within and among risk subsystems of forestry carbon sequestration projects was analyzed in detail. A system dynamics model for risk assessment of forestry carbon sequestration projects was constructed on the basis of risk coupling diagram and risk stock-flow diagram. All parameters of system dynamics operation were obtained, and VENSIM software was used to measure and evaluate the overall risk level and coupling effect of the project by scenario simulation method. Result: 1) The coupling effect had a significant impact on the risk assessment result of forestry carbon sink projects, and the intensity of homogeneous coupling effect iwasgreater than heterogeneous coupling effect. When both homogeneous coupling and heterogeneous coupling effects were considered, the overall risk level of forestry carbon sink projects was 6.784, and the risk level is III. However, when both homogeneous coupling effect and heterogeneous coupling effect were not considered, only heterogeneous coupling effect or homogeneous coupling effect was considered, the overall risk level of forestry carbon sink projects decreased to 0.355, 0.929 and 3.102 respectively, and the risk levels changed to I, I and II respectively. 2) The coupling effects of different risk subsystems were obviously different. Specifically, under three different scenarios, in which only homogeneous coupling effect, heterogeneous coupling effect and two coupling effects were considered simultaneously, the order of coupling effect of each risk subsystem was market risk > policy risk > technology risk > natural risk. 3) Only considering the homogeneous coupling scenario, the coupling effect of "carbon sink price change and carbon market supply change" was the strongest. Only considering the heterogeneous coupling effect, the coupling effect of "the change of national emission reduction policy and the change of carbon market supply" was the strongest. Considering the two coupling effects at the same time, the coupling effect of "the change of national emission reduction policy and the change of carbon market supply" was the strongest. 4) In terms of risk level and coupling effect, the market and policy risks were relatively large, while the technical and natural risks were relatively small, but the heterogeneous coupling effect can gradually enlarge the overall risk of the project. Conclusion: In the risk supervision of forestry carbon sink projects, we should not only pay attention to the risk level itself, but also attach importance to the coupling effect between risks, and guard against the evolution between risks and the rise of the overall risk level from the source.

Key words: forestry carbon sink project, coupling effect, risk, system dynamics

中图分类号:

S7-9
F322

卢峰,顾光同,曹先磊,吴伟光. 基于耦合效应的林业碳汇项目风险[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(5): 161-176.

Feng Lu,Guangtong Gu,Xianlei Cao,Weiguang Wu. Risk of Forestry Carbon Sink Project Based on Coupling Effect[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2022, 58(5): 161-176.

图/表 18

表1

表2

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

表3

林业碳汇项目风险权重参数"

风险子系统 Risk subsystem R_i	风险因子 Risk factor R_ij	均分 Mean score	绝对权重 Absolute weight ω_{R_ij}^*	相对权重 Relative weight ω_{R_ij}
自然风险 ω_R₁^=0.286 Natural risk R₁ ω_R₁^=0.286	干旱灾害 Drought R₁₁	1.602	0.033	0.116
	洪涝灾害 Flood R₁₂	1.602	0.033	0.116
	森林病害 Forest disease R₁₃	1.991	0.041	0.144
	森林虫害 Forest pest R₁₄	1.991	0.041	0.144
	大风灾害 Windstorm R₁₅	1.558	0.032	0.112
	森林火灾 Forest fire R₁₆	2.133	0.044	0.154
	冰雪灾害 Ice and snow R₁₇	1.558	0.032	0.112
	地质灾害 Geological hazard R₁₈	1.434	0.030	0.103
技术风险 ω_R₂^=0.172 Technical risk R₂ ω_R₂^=0.172	项目未能获得备案 The project was not filed R₂₁	2.168	0.045	0.263
	项目参与者未按作业设计实施 Project participants failed to follow the operation design R₂₂	1.973	0.041	0.239
	项目参与者中途退出项目 Project participants withdrew from the project halfway R₂₃	1.920	0.040	0.233
	项目未能获得签发 The project was not issued R₂₄	2.195	0.046	0.266
市场风险 ω_R₃^=0.322 Market risk R₃ ω_R₃^=0.322	利率变动 Interest rate changed R₃₁	2.611	0.054	0.168
	林地租金变动 Forest land rent changed R₃₂	2.761	0.057	0.178
	劳动力价格变动 Labor price changed R₃₃	3.027	0.063	0.195
	碳汇价格变动 Carbon sink price changed R₃₄	2.460	0.051	0.158
	木材价格变动 Timber price changed R₃₅	2.212	0.046	0.142
	碳市场供给变动 Carbon sink market supply changed R₃₆	2.469	0.051	0.159
政策风险 ω_R₄^=0.217 Policy risk R₄ ω_R₄^=0.217	国际气候谈判进程不确定性 Uncertainty of international climate negotiation process R₄₁	2.743	0.057	0.264
	国家减排政策变化 National emission reduction policies changed R₄₂	2.628	0.055	0.253
	林业碳汇项目认定标准变化 Identification standards of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₃	2.407	0.050	0.231
	林业碳汇项目交易规则变化 Trade rules of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₄	2.628	0.055	0.253

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

表9

表10

表11

表12

参考文献 0

	曹先磊, 张颖. 落叶松碳汇造林项目CCER开发成本动态核算研究. 统计与信息论坛, 2019, 34 (3): 43- 49.
	Cao X L , Zhang Y . Dynamic accounting on the costs of China certified emission reduction issued by Larix gmelinii (Rupr.) Kuzen. afforestation and reforestation project. Statistics & Information forum, 2019, 34 (3): 43- 49.
	冯帅. 应对气候变化能力建设行动的国际进展与中国策略—以前《巴黎协定》时期为中心. 中国科技论坛, 2017, (5): 174- 179.
	Feng S . International developments of capacity-building action for response to climate change and China's countermeasures—Taking the period of Paris Agreement's Preimplementation for example. Forum on Science and Technology in China, 2017, (5): 174- 179.
	高沁怡, 潘春霞, 刘强, 等. 基于贝叶斯网络的林业碳汇项目风险评价. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45 (4): 210- 218.
	Gao Q Y , Pan C X , Liu Q , et al. Risk assessment of forestry carbon sequestration projects based on Bayesian network. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition), 2021, 45 (4): 210- 218.
	龚荣发. 2019. 退耕农户参与森林经营碳汇项目行为研究. 成都: 四川农业大学.
	Gong R F. 2019. Study on behavior of farmers of returning farmland to forests participation in forest management carbon sequestration project. Chengdu: Sichuan Agricultural University. [in Chinese]
	胡卸文, 金涛, 殷万清, 等. 西昌市经久乡森林火灾火烧区特点及火后泥石流易发性评价. 工程地质学报, 2020, 28 (4): 762- 771.
	Hu X W , Jin T , Yin W Q , et al. The characteristics of forest fire burned area and susceptibility assessment of post-fire debris flow in Jingjiu Township, Xichang City. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2020, 28 (4): 762- 771.
	黄宰胜, 陈钦. 我国林业碳汇成本影响因素研究—基于土地利用机会成本的实证检验. 价格理论与实践, 2015, (11): 73- 75.
	Huang Z S , Chen Q . Study on influencing factors of forestry carbon sequestration cost in China—an empirical test based on opportunity cost of land use. Price: Theory & Practice, 2015, (11): 73- 75.
	金婷, 吴伟光, 刘强, 等. 林业CCER碳汇项目风险评估模型与应用——以安吉竹林经营碳汇项目为例. 世界林业研究, 2018, 31 (4): 91- 96.
	Jin T , Wu W G , Liu Q , et al. Risk assessment model of forestry-based CCER project and its application: a case study of Anji bamboo forest sink project. World Forestry Research, 2018, 31 (4): 91- 96.
	金婷, 高沁怡, 曹先磊, 等. 林业碳汇项目风险测度及其影响研究. 林业经济问题, 2021, 41 (3): 304- 310.
	Jin T , Gao Q Y , Cao X L , et al. Research on risk measurement and impact of forestry carbon sink project. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2021, 41 (3): 304- 310.
	梁林恒, 周幼吾. 大兴安岭阿木尔森林火灾区积雪分布特征调查. 冰川冻土, 1992, 14 (2): 134- 140.
	Liang L H , Zhou Y W . An investigation on the distribution of snow cover in the burned forest region of Amue of Da Hinggan Ling. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 1992, 14 (2): 134- 140.
	刘凌燕, 王慧敏, 刘钢, 等. 供需视角下水—能源—粮食系统风险的驱动机理与政策仿真—面向东北三省的系统动力学分析. 软科学, 2020, 34 (12): 52- 60.
	Liu L Y , Wang H M , Liu G , et al. Driving mechanism and policy simulation of water-energy-food risks from the perspective of supply and demand: a case study of northeast china for system dynamics analysis. Soft Science, 2020, 34 (12): 52- 60.
	祁龙. 冰川、积雪及泥石流灾害研究的回顾与设想. 冰川冻土, 1998, 20 (3): 57- 65.
	Qi L . Review and prospect of research on disasters from snow, glaciers and debris flow. Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology, 1998, 20 (3): 57- 65.
	钱柯君. 2016. 基于森林小气候的火险等级预警模型的探究. 长沙: 湖南农业大学.
	Qian K J. 2016. The research of the fire danger rating prediction model based on the forest microclimate. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University. [in Chinese]
	石柳, 唐玉华, 张捷. 我国林业碳汇市场供需研究——以广东长隆碳汇造林项目为例. 中国环境管理, 2017, 9 (1): 104- 110.
	Shi L , Tang Y H , Zhang J . Supply-demand analysis of the forest carbon sink market in China——illustrated by the Guangdong Chimelong carbon sink afforestation project. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 9 (1): 104- 110.
	孙丹萍, 徐睿, 梁铁旺, 等. 锈色粒肩天牛生态学特性研究. 西北林学院学报, 2007, 22 (5): 114- 116.
	Sun D P , Xu R , Liang T W , et al. A study on ecological characteristics of Apriona swainsoni population. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2007, 22 (5): 114- 116.
	王孟钧, 唐晓莹, 邱琦, 等. 重大基础设施工程技术决策风险因素作用机理研究. 铁道科学与工程学报, 2021, 18 (6): 1640- 1649.
	Wang M J , Tang X Y , Qiu Q , et al. Research on the interaction mechanism of technological decision-making risk factors in mega projects. Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, 2021, 18 (6): 1640- 1649.
	武曙红, 张小全. CDM林业碳汇项目的非持久性风险分析. 林业科学, 2007, 43 (8): 123- 126.
	Wu S H , Zhang X Q . Analyses on non-permanence issues of CDM forestry project. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2007, 43 (8): 123- 126.
	徐鲲, 张驰, 鲍新中. 基于电商平台自有资金的供应链融资风险系统分析与仿真. 系统科学学报, 2021, 29 (2): 100- 104. 100-104+115
	Xu K , Zhang C , Bao X Z . Analysis on the risk formation mechanism of supply chain financing based on the self-owned funds of e-commerce platform. Journal of Systems Science, 2021, 29 (2): 100- 104. 100-104, 115
	张静娉, 高岚. 我国碳汇林经营风险的识别研究. 中南林业科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2016, 10 (2): 14- 18.
	Zhang J P , Gao L . Research on Identification of the forest carbon sinks business risk in China. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology(Social Sciences Edition), 2016, 10 (2): 14- 18.
	张文勤, 纪成俭, 王文烂, 等. 福建省森林灾害的发生情况与主要成因分析. 林业经济问题, 2001, 21 (3): 175- 178.
	Zhang W Q , Ji C J , Wang W C , et al. Analyzing reason and status quo of forest disaster in Fujian. Issue of Forestry Economics, 2001, 21 (3): 175- 178.
	张益玉, 祁慧博, 徐秀英, 等. 林业碳汇市场需求响应政策组合效应研究. 林业经济问题, 2021, 41 (3): 311- 319.
	Zhang Y Y , Qi H B , Xu X Y , et al. Research on the policy combination effect of the demand response of the forestry carbon sink market. Issue of Forestry Economics, 2021, 41 (3): 311- 319.
	朱添金, 赵庆建, 杨慧, 等. 基于VAR模型的碳汇价值对我国木材价格的影响. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42 (5): 191- 195.
	Zhu T J , Zhao Q J , Yang H , et al. Influence of carbon sink value on China's wood price based on VAR model. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition), 2018, 42 (5): 191- 195.
	Chandra P H . Structural equation model for investigating risk factors affecting project success in Surabaya. Procedia Engineering, 2015, 125, 53- 59. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.009
	Christopher S G , Robert B . Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, 257 (11): 2209- 2216.
	Fan D , Lo C K , Zhou Y . Sustainability risk in supply bases: The role of complexity and coupling. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2021, 145, 102175.
	Forrester J W . Industrial dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1997, 48 (10): 1037- 1041.
	Huettner M . Risks and opportunities of REDD+ implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility. Environmental Science and Policy, 2011, 15 (1): 4- 12.
	Hurst N, Willams D R, Marshall P. 1998. Risk assessment: The Human Dimension. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry, 1-101.
	Marchisio C , Cescatti A , Battisti A . Climate, soils and Cephalcia arvensis outbreaks on Picea abies in the Italian Alps. Forest Ecology & Management, 1994, 68 (2/3): 375- 384.
	Qiao W G . Analysis and measurement of multifactor risk in underground coal mine accidents based on coupling theory. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2021, 208, 107443.
	Richards K R , Moulton R J , Bridsey R A . Cost of creating carbon sinks in the U.S. Pergamon, 1993, 34 (9/11): 905- 912.
	Xue Y T , Xiang P C , Jia F Y , et al. Risk assessment of high-speed rail projects: a risk coupling model based on system dynamics. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17 (15): 5307.

风险子系统 Risk subsystem	风险因子 Risk factor
自然风险 Natural risk R₁	干旱灾害Drought R₁₁
	洪涝灾害Flood R₁₂
	森林病害Forest diseases R₁₃
	森林虫害Forest pest R₁₄
	大风灾害Windstorm R₁₅
	森林火灾Forest fire R₁₆
	冰雪灾害Ice and snow R₁₇
	地质灾害Geological hazard R₁₈
技术风险 Technical risk R₂	项目未能获得备案The project was not filed R₂₁
	项目参与者未按作业设计要求实施 Project participants failed to follow the operation designR₂₂
	项目参与者中途退出项目 Project participants withdrew from the project halfway R₂₃
	项目未能获得签发 The project was not issued R₂₄
市场风险 Market risk R₃	利率变动Interest rate changed R₃₁
	林地租金变动Forest land rent changed R₃₂
	劳动力价格变动Labor price changed R₃₃
	碳汇价格变动Carbon sink price changed R₃₄
	木材价格变动Timber price changed R₃₅
	碳市场供给变动 Carbon sink market supply changed R₃₆
政策风险 Policy risk R₄	国际气候谈判进程不确定性 Uncertainty of international climate negotiation process R₄₁
	国家减排政策变化 National emission reduction policies changed R₄₂
	林业碳汇项目认定标准变化 Identification standards of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₃
	林业碳汇项目交易规则变化 Trade rules of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₄

原始分值 Original score	1~5	6~10	11~15	16~20	21~25
转化分值 Adjusted score	1	2	3	4	5

风险状态 Risk status	极低 Extremely low	低 Low	中 Middle	高 High	极高 Extremely high
初始值 Initial value	0.1	0.3	0.5	0.7	0.9

风险因子 Risk factor	初始值 Initial value	风险因子 Risk factor	初始值 Initial value
干旱灾害 Drought R₁₁	0.220	项目未能获得签发 The project was not issued R₂₄	0.339
洪涝灾害 Flood R₁₂	0.220	利率变动 Interest rate changed R₃₁	0.422
森林病害 Forest diseases R₁₃	0.298	林地租金变动 Forest land rent changed R₃₂	0.452
森林虫害 Forest pest R₁₄	0.298	劳动力价格变动 Labor price changed R₃₃	0.505
大风灾害 Windstorm R₁₅	0.212	碳汇价格变动 Carbon sink price changed R₃₄	0.392
森林火灾 Forest fire R₁₆	0.327	木材价格变动 Timber price changed R₃₅	0.342
冰雪灾害 Ice and snow R₁₇	0.212	碳市场供给变动 Carbon sink market supply changed R₃₆	0.394
地质灾害 Geological hazard R₁₈	0.187	国际气候谈判进程不确定性 Uncertainty of international climate negotiation process R₄₁	0.449
项目未能获得备案 The project was not filed R₂₁	0.334	国家减排政策变化 National emission reduction policies changed R₄₂	0.426
项目参与者未按作业设计实施 Project participants failed to follow the operation design R₂₂	0.295	林业碳汇项目认定标准变化 Identification standards of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₃	0.381
项目参与者中途退出项目 Project participants withdrew from the project halfway R₂₃	0.284	林业碳汇项目交易规则变化 Trade rules of forestry carbon sink project changed R₄₄	0.426

耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	耦合系数 Coupling coefficient	耦合风险因子 Coupling risk factor	耦合系数 Coupling coefficient
C_{R₁₂-R₁₇}	0.434	C_{R₃₅-R₃₃}	0.398
C_{R₁₃-R₁₂}	0.327	C_{R₃₅-R₃₄}	0.575
C_{R₁₄-R₁₁}	0.327	C_{R₃₆-R₃₁}	0.372
C_{R₁₆-R₁₃}	0.274	C_{R₃₆-R₃₂}	0.327
C_{R₁₆-R₁₄}	0.274	C_{R₃₆-R₃₃}	0.319
C_{R₁₆-R₁₅}	0.283	C_{R₃₆-R₃₄}	0.540
C_{R₁₇-R₁₆}	0.283	C_{R₃₆-R₃₅}	0.451
C_{R₁₈-R₁₂}	0.531	C_{R₄₂-R₄₁}	0.496
C_{R₁₈-R₁₆}	0.257	C_{R₄₃-R₄₂}	0.584
C_{R₁₈-R₁₇}	0.434	C_{R₄₄-R₄₂}	0.681
C_{R₂₁-R₂₂}	0.443	C_{R₂₁-R₄₃}	0.425
C_{R₂₂-R₂₃}	0.673	C_R₂₄-R₁	0.443
C_{R₂₃-R₂₁}	0.504	C_{R₃₄-R₄₂}	0.425
C_{R₂₄-R₂₁}	0.858	C_R₃₅-R₁	0.416
C_{R₂₄-R₂₂}	0.434	C_{R₃₆-R₂₄}	0.381
C_{R₃₄-R₃₆}	0.540	C_{R₃₆-R₄₂}	0.460
C_{R₃₅-R₃₁}	0.460	C_{R₄₂-R₃₆}	0.460
C_{R₃₅-R₃₂}	0.425