Understanding Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Indonesia–EU FLEGT-VPA Scheme Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please read the comment in the text.

I suggest to improve 2 point:

a) describe the analyi medhot and tool in the chapter 2;

b) improve the use of full name and acronymous  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Understanding Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Indonesia-EU FLEGT-VPA Scheme Implementation

 

Abstract: Now, the abstract is focus mainly on the method. I suggest to reduce the part with methods and include more information from results section.

Introduction: the references is not correct use in accordance with Forests guidelines. Line 42 start with reference no.12.

Line 43: reference is need.

Lines 51-53: reference is need.

The importance of these study arises from the Introduction section. However the background and the link with other research is not presented. The impact of EU’s FLEGT Action Plan was assess and studied in many research. The Introduction section must be improved. Aspects regarding to how FLEGT affect the market and stakeholders (in general and in Indonesia) are not presented.

 

Methods

The lines 81-82 states: The stakeholders of the Indonesia-EU FLEGT-VPA scheme were categorized into 81 three entities: government institutions, civil society organizations, and private sectors, 82 based on the classification by [20]. For readers is not clear in which way these stakeholders are affected by FLEGT Action Plan. So these must be clear showed in the introduction part.

Figure 1 and 2 can be included in the text to be more attractive.

Results

These can be presented in a better form. We find only the mean of each question with no comparison test (some statistical test can be performed). I suggest to make a sub-chapter on each category (sustainable forest management, new market opportunities, timber legality…). These chapter present the declaration of representatives. Figure 3 can be included in the text to be more attractive.

Discussion is well prepared and link to other studies will improve the quality.

 

I encourage the authors to rewrite the paper with major changes on the Introduction section and Results. The paper have potential to be attractive in these field of market policy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulation for your work! Now the paper look very good!