Determinants of Financial Viability of Forest Concession in Brazilian Amazon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors!

The article is devoted to the actual problem of effective forest management. The presented material is interesting for both scientists and business people. The subject of the manuscript is relevant both for the region of study and for other regions. However, there are a number of comments. I recommend the authors to correct the article.

1.      The abstract requires correction (P-1, l.26-32). There is a lack of clarity and sequence. If parameters for FMU-II are given, they should also be specified for FMU-III. Otherwise, it is very difficult to understand what comparative analysis was carried out. The abstract should be rewritten more clearly.

2.      In Introduction Section (p.1-2, l.45-47) the thesis "For example, in Canada, the concession system, which is considered one of the most successful, entails direct negotiations between interested companies and a public forest board responsible for forest management, rather than a bidding process [3,4]." seems to be superfluous, as it does not explain in any way the material of the article and is not discussed anywhere further. It may be interesting to base the recommendations in the Conclusions Section on it, but the authors have not done so.

3.      (P.2, l.63) the " sign is superfluous.

4.      I recommend that dimension should be denoted in the format of the SI system (for example, use "m³/ha" instead of "cubic meters per hectare" (P.2, l.66).

5.      In Introduction authors should clearly state the purpose of the work done.

6.      In “2.1. Study area” should give the parameters of the forest stand in the study areas (tree composition, average age, average morphometric indicators, sanitary condition of the stand etc.), which determine the quality and, accordingly, the cost of harvested wood.

7.      Authors should show more clearly the peculiar features of the FMU-II and FMU-III forest management systems.

8.      (P.7, l.242) Table 5 header should be placed with a new line.

9.      In Conclusions Section the authors are recommended to reflect and summarize all main conclusions discussed in separate sections of Discussion Section.

10. Authors note that the realization of row logs is now cost-effective compared to sawn wood. However, this is not in the public interest. After all, the sale of products with increased additional value should be more attractive for the state economy than the sale of raw materials. The authors should formulate proposals for legislation that would solve this problem in the area of public forest management.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank you very much for your careful, insightful, and useful comments. We have taken all points into serious consideration and have incorporated changes to the manuscript and included a response below. Here we addressed the R1 comments in general and specifically:

1. The abstract requires correction (P-1, l.26-32). There is a lack of clarity and sequence. If parameters for FMU-II are given, they should also be specified for FMU-III. Otherwise, it is very difficult to understand what comparative analysis was carried out. The abstract should be rewritten more clearly.

Response 1: The indicated sentence has been reformulated for better understanding.

2. In Introduction Section (p.1-2, l.45-47) the thesis "For example, in Canada, the concession system, which is considered one of the most successful, entails direct negotiations between interested companies and a public forest board responsible for forest management, rather than a bidding process [3,4]." seems to be superfluous, as it does not explain in any way the material of the article and is not discussed anywhere further. It may be interesting to base the recommendations in the Conclusions Section on it, but the authors have not done so.

Response 2. We deleted it from the text.

3. (P.2, l.63) the " sign is superfluous.

Response 3. We corrected it accordingly.

4. I recommend that dimension should be denoted in the format of the SI system (for example, use "m3 /ha" instead of "cubic meters per hectare" (P.2, l.66).

Response 4. We corrected it accordingly.

5. In Introduction authors should clearly state the purpose of the work done.

Response 5. We included the purpose of this analysis accordingly.

6. In “2.1. Study area” should give the parameters of the forest stand in the study areas (tree composition, average age, average morphometric indicators, sanitary condition of the stand etc.), which determine the quality and, accordingly, the cost of harvested wood.

Response 6. These variables were not measured or provided by the forest concessionaries and, therefore, we could not consider and report them in this analysis.

7. Authors should show more clearly the peculiar features of the FMU-II and FMU-III forest management systems.

Response 7. We added further details on it. However, we did not add much to avoid any potential misunderstanding in this regard.

8. (P.7, l.242) Table 5 header should be placed with a new line.

Response 8. We corrected it accordingly.

9. In Conclusions Section the authors are recommended to reflect and summarize all main conclusions discussed in separate sections of Discussion Section.

Response 9. We have rephrased, reformulated and rewritten it accordingly.

10.Authors note that the realization of row logs is now cost-effective compared to sawn wood. However, this is not in the public interest. After all, the sale of products with increased additional value should be more attractive for the state economy than the sale of raw materials. The authors should formulate proposals for legislation that would solve this problem in the area of public forest management

Response 10. Our study examined forestry concessions and all the stages and processes that occur within the National Forest under concession agreements. Regarding roundwood, we assessed the potential for dealers to sell their logs without necessarily processing them in a sawmill within the concession area. This approach allows them to commercialize their logging products to other companies operating in neighboring cities with better infrastructure (electric power and road networks) and labor availability. Current Brazilian legislation prohibits the export of roundwood, particularly from native forests, to add value, generate jobs, and increase income.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The strong points of the paper are the Materials and Methods section, the Results, and the Discussion section.

The authors have described adequately their methods and the conducted sensitivity analysis adds reliability to their work.

Financial and Risk Analysis are well presented in the Results section and the Tables used are very explanatory.

The Discussion section is very well written and the authors compare their findings with those of other researchers to ensure the credibility of their conclusions. However, some parts of the Discussion could moved in the Introduction section. e.g. Lines 311-324, 375-380, 405-406 etc.

On the other hand the paper has significant weaknesses. The Introduction section is rather poor and the conducted Literarure review is quite limited. The authors could improve the Introduction section by enhancing the Literature Review, using some parts of the Discussion section. The Introduction should include the aim of the paper at the end of the section before the Materials and Methods section. The Literature Review should include more papers regarding financial viability of forests in Brazil and worldwide. 

The Conclusions section is quite weak. The authors need to enhance this section with conclusions based on the results. They couls also use some parts of the Discussion section.

The paper needs to be thoroughly  checked for typing errors:

Line 21. Please remove ">" in the phrase in the> financial viability

Lines 26-32: The citation is from a different paper. Please correct.

Lines 33-34: The Academic Editors are from a different Special Issue of Forests.

Lines 35-37: Wrong informations regarding Received, Revised, Accepted

Line 63: Please remove " after [10]."

In Section 2.2 Datasets the use of a Table would be useful for the reader to better understand the numbers presented.

Section 2.2.1 Risk Analysis. The same comment as before for Lines 169-182. Please present the numbers in a Table for better understanding.

Line 263. Please correct 4. Discussion. 

 

 

  

 

Author Response

We thank you very much for your careful, insightful, and useful comments. We have taken all points into serious consideration and have incorporated changes to the manuscript and included a response below. Here we addressed the R2 comments in general and specifically.

1. The Discussion section is very well written and the authors compare their findings with those of other researchers to ensure the credibility of their conclusions. However, some parts of the Discussion could moved in the Introduction section. e.g. Lines 311-324, 375-380, 405-406 etc.

Response 1. The suggested changes were properly considered and corrected.

2. On the other hand the paper has significant weaknesses. The Introduction section is rather poor and the conducted Literarure review is quite limited. The authors could improve the Introduction section by enhancing the Literature Review, using some parts of the Discussion section. The Introduction should include the aim of the paper at the end of the section before the Materials and Methods section. The Literature Review should include more papers regarding financial viability of forests in Brazil and worldwide.

Response 2. The introduction provides context on forest concessions, including their management and the parties responsible for them in the country. Certain particularities, such as royalties, the volume allowed for logging, and contract components like the Reference Value of the Contract (RVC) and Minimum Annual Rate (MAV), can only be addressed with prior knowledge. Anyhow, we have made some corrections and changes, including the addition of information and the objective was described at the end of the text.

3. The Conclusions section is quite weak. The authors need to enhance this section with conclusions based on the results. They couls also use some parts of the Discussion section.

Response 3. The conclusions were reformulated and concisely rewritten accordingly.

4. The paper needs to be thoroughly checked for typing errors:
5. Line 21. Please remove ">" in the phrase in the> financial viability
6. Lines 26-32: The citation is from a different paper. Please correct.
7. Lines 33-34: The Academic Editors are from a different Special Issue of Forests.
8. Lines 35-37: Wrong informations regarding Received, Revised, Accepted
9. Line 63: Please remove " after [10]."
10. In Section 2.2 Datasets the use of a Table would be useful for the reader to better understand the numbers presented.
11. Section 2.2.1 Risk Analysis. The same comment as before for Lines 169-182. Please present the numbers in a Table for better understanding.
12. Line 263. Please correct 4. Discussion.

Response 4. We corrected items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 accordingly. However, we considered items 6 and 7 properly written because of its clearness and easy readability.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has a clear theme, aiming to identify the determining factors in the financial viability of forest concessions in state of Para. Through quantitative analysis of two specific forest management units, the author calculates relevant financial indicators and conducts risk analysis, providing strong support for understanding and enhancing the financial feasibility of forest concessions. Overall, the article has a clear structure and rich content, but still requires some minor revisions. The suggestions for improvement and revision are as follows:

 1. It is recommended that the author adds one or two sentences in the abstract to clarify the research background, further emphasizing the importance and potential impact of the study, so that readers can better understand the value of this research. Additionally, certain sentences in the abstract can be further simplified to improve their clarity and readability.

 2. The review of previous studies in the introduction section is comprehensive, but it is suggested that the author further selects the most directly relevant or representative literature for focused introductions.

 3. The author should highlight the innovative points or unique aspects of this study. This will help readers understand the unique contributions and values of the research, as well as its differences and connections with other studies.

 4. The author should provide detailed descriptions of the data used in this study and the sources of these data, ensuring the integrity, accuracy, reliability of the data, and the rationality of the data analysis methods.

 5. There are some issues with the formatting of the paper. It is recommended that the author removes the 2.2.1 subsection and incorporates its content into an appropriate section of the article.

 6. The conclusion section is overly generalized, lacking a detailed summary of specific research results. Furthermore, the author should further explore the deeper implications or theoretical values behind these results, as well as their impacts on practice or theory.

 7. It is suggested that the author adds a discussion of the limitations of the study. For instance, the timeliness and accuracy of the data, the representativeness of the study area, and the rationality of the model assumptions. At the same time, propose possible directions for future research to expand and deepen the current study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

We thank you very much for your careful, insightful, and useful comments. We have taken all points into serious consideration and have incorporated changes to the manuscript and included a response below. Here we addressed the R3 comments in general and specifically.

1. It is recommended that the author adds one or two sentences in the abstract to clarify the research background, further emphasizing the importance and potential impact of the study, so that readers can better understand the value of this research. Additionally, certain sentences in the abstract can be further simplified to improve their clarity and readability.

Response 1. The indicated sentence has been reformulated for better understanding.

2. The review of previous studies in the introduction section is comprehensive, but it is suggested that the author further selects the most directly relevant or representative literature for focused introductions.

Response 2. The introduction was written to provide context on forest concessions, including how and by whom they are managed in the country. There are particularities, such as royalties, the volume allowed for exploration, and items considered in the formation of contracts, like the Reference Value of the Contract (RVC) and the Minimum Annual Rate (MAV) that can only be addressed with prior knowledge. However, some modifications were made, including the addition of information and the objective, which is described at the end of the text.

3. The author should highlight the innovative points or unique aspects of this study. This will help readers understand the unique contributions and values of the research, as well as its differences and connections with other studies.

Response 3. We added this study objective at the end of introduction accordingly.

4. The author should provide detailed descriptions of the data used in this study and the sources of these data, ensuring the integrity, accuracy, reliability of the data, and the rationality of the data analysis methods.

Response 4. The following paragraph was added to the beginning of item 2.2.

“The data was provided by the companies and is primary, quantitative data. Such data is controlled by the national government, through the Forest Origin Document (DOF), which is a mandatory license for the transport and storage of forest products of native origin. In addition to this document, there is the payment of royalties to BFS”.    

5. There are some issues with the formatting of the paper. It is recommended that the author removes the 2.2.1 subsection and incorporates its content into an appropriate section of the article.

Response 5. We corrected it. Risk Analysis is a methodology that was applied to analyze and generate hypothetical scenarios.

6. The conclusion section is overly generalized, lacking a detailed summary of specific research results. Furthermore, the author should further explore the deeper implications or theoretical values behind these results, as well as their impacts on practice or theory.

Response 6. The conclusions were reformulated and rewritten clearly and concisely accordingly.

7. It is suggested that the author adds a discussion of the limitations of the study. For instance, the timeliness and accuracy of the data, the representativeness of the study area, and the rationality of the model assumptions. At the same time, propose possible directions for future research to expand and deepen the current study.

Response 7. An item on limitations was included at the end of the discussions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments regarding the Discussion and the Conclusions sections, but they haven't addressed the greatest weakness of the paper, the poor Literature Review. The authors did not enhance the Literature Review in the Introduction section by adding more papers in English regarding the financial viability of forests in Brazil and worldwide.  

Author Response

Once again, we thank you very much for your careful, insightful, and useful comments in this second round of the reviewing process. We have taken all points into serious consideration and have incorporated changes to the manuscript and included a response below.

Reviewer:The authors have addressed the comments regarding the Discussion and the Conclusions sections, but they haven't addressed the greatest weakness of the paper, the poor Literature Review. The authors did not enhance the Literature Review in the Introduction section by adding more papers in English regarding the financial viability of forests in Brazil and worldwide.

Response: We have improved the introduction section adding more scientific citations (gray highlighted in the text) related to financial viability of forests in Brazil accordingly. Some of author are indicated as following:

Cardoso, R. M., Miguel, E. P., de Souza, H. J., de Souza, Á. N., & Nascimento, R. G. M. (2024). Wood volume is overestimated in the Brazilian Amazon: Why not use generic volume prediction methods in tropical forest management? Journal of Environmental Management, 350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119593

Richardson, V. A., & Peres, C. A. (2016). Temporal decay in timber species composition and value in amazonian logging concessions. PLoS ONE, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159035

SIST, P., PIPONIOT, C., Kanashiro, M., Pena-Claros, M., Putz, F. E., Schulze, M., Verissimo, A., & Vidal, E. (2021). Sustainability of Brazilian forest concessions. Forest Ecology and Management, 496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119440