The Key to the Sustainability and Conservation of Extractive Reserves in the Amazon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to the authors, the manuscript analyzes the situation of three extractivist reserves in the Brazilian Amazon through field work and a bibliographic analysis. Unfortunately, it is far from being ready for publication.Why?

1) Unclear structure, especially of the introduction:

The authors should take into account the intended audience. I recommend the following: After presenting the Amazon basin and its importance (as the authors have done), they should continue by describing very briefly the relevance and extent of protected areas for conservation in the whole region. They could then explain the Brazilian case (the Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação, SNUC, which is divided into Unidades de Proteção Integral and Unidades de Uso Sustentável) and explain in detail what the RESEXs are and the problems they face. The objective of the study and the state of the art on this subject could then be presented.

2) Lack of clarity (for the reader) of what is intended to be investigated (Objective of the study):

On the one hand, the authors state in the introduction that they want to assess whether the State promotes combined investments in conservation and agro-extractivism; on the other hand, they explain in Material and Methods that they want to analyze the challenges of integrating agro-extractivism into productive reserves, which is not exactly the same approach. The authors should formulate a clear research question (or more than one) and stick to it.

3) Self-fulfilling prophecy?

The authors defend from the introduction the need for state investments in extractive reserves to promote profit generation through extractivism. In the introduction they should ask what solutions exist in similar areas (state of the art in other areas) and what has been written in this sense, but not defend from the beginning one of the possible options. The chosen areas of study may require different approaches. By the way, the authors do not explain why they chose these areas and not others.

4) Lack of data:

The authors claim in the introduction to have conducted an extensive literature review. In Material and methods it is not even mentioned. What keywords did they search for, what was their objective?

The authors made a great effort to travel to the communities and conduct a large number of interviews. However, they only present three figures based on the interview data. They should include more results, perhaps summarized in tables and a sample questionnaire in supplementary materials. It is difficult to understand so much effort for (apparently) so few results resulting from the interviews.

If I understood correctly, the survey data presented are the opinions of the local population. While there is no doubt of its relevance, has this information been cross-checked with data and interviews with government officials, NGOs and other stakeholders? Apparently, only one version of the facts is presented. In this regard, the accusation made in lines 410 and 411 is very harsh and its justification is unclear (although it could be true).

Perhaps the authors have more information to support their conclusion. The failure of these extractive reserves could also be a consequence of external factors, such as isolation, lack of markets or intermediaries, lack of productive knowledgement, external economic interests, immigration, or a location not suitable for the sustainable use of the resources.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some parts it seems that the text has been translated by someone who speaks English but does not understand what is being talked about. Other parts are very difficult to understand, especially at the beginning. In addition, I recommend the authors not to use the term "agroextractivism" in English and replace it with extractive reserves (as in the title) or NTFP-production (Non-Timber-Forest-Products-Production). Although the term "agroextractivismo" is commonly used in Brazil, in English it has very negative connotations, as it is generally used for cases related to unsustainable practices by agricultural corporations and lobbies.

Author Response

Response 1: We agree and adjust the following points.

In the introduction, we present the Amazon biome, the importance of conservation units (UCs) for Brazil and the world, the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC), explain in more detail the extractive reserves (RESEXs), the object of study, the state of the art, and reformulate the problem and the objective.
In the material and method, in the research subjects block, we inform the inclusion and/or why they were chosen for this study. In the procedures section, we superficially justify the strategies used for searches in the databases presented in the introduction. We reformulated the objective, and decided not to include more data in the results section, so as not to deviate from the proposed approach. In addition, after the current version, we send the manuscript to a team specialized in the approach to carry out revision of the English language.
Thank you for your cooperation in this study. These were relevant questions, and crucial to disseminate knowledge.

With best regards,
Josimar Freitas.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached ,  you  may  find  my  comments  !

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English  editing  required !

Author Response

Response 2: We have revised the following points based on the reviewer's suggestions.

We responded to the suggestion to change the title, included the literature review section based on the suggestions, and answered the following questions:
-what were the last conferences on environmental protection and sustainable development at the global level?;
-what targets have Brazil and major developed countries, including the US + China + the EU, set for themselves by 2020 on the SDGs?
- what has been the impact of the war triggered by Russia in Ukraine from 2021 and to what extent has it influenced the policy of major countries on sustainable development?;
-what is the effect of the current energy crisis in Europe + other regions on sustainable development, including Amazon conservation? ;
-are there responsibilities for the conservation of the Amazon forest also for countries such as USA, China, India, Russia, EU etc. (I agree with the authors' statement that the Amazon has "a planetary dimension.". )
After the completion of the current version, the manuscript was sent to a team specialized in this approach for revision of the English language. Other specific issues we did not review because it would deviate from the proposed approach. The problem and objective question has been reformulated.

Thank you for your precious attention in collaborating with this study. These were pertinent and relevant questions to broaden the debate.
With best regards,
Josimar Freitas.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this paper is to evaluate whether the state, as the main representative of extractive reserves (RESEXs), promotes investments combining conservation and agroextractivism in deforested and secondary areas.

The idea and the enquiry are interesting, but the paper presents several problems:

The abstract is very poor. The aim, methos, results, and conclusions are not clear.

Methodology: The paper analyses three RESEXs but no comparison between them is found, and no comparison with other areas or papers is presented

No statistic is found in the paper.

Figures are confusing and are not correctly explained along the paper.

In general, the paper seems only a brief description of a survey with no analysis.

What is the x-axis of figures 2 to 5.

 

Present Table 1 in a more visual form.

Author Response

Response 3: We reviewed the following points, following suggestions from the reviewer.

The summary was completely reworded, as there were indeed flaws. The problem and objective question was adjusted and delimited to respond to the proposed approach. The other suggestions deviate from the approach we propose and reformulate.

Thanks for the input.
With best regards,
Josimar Freitas.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a great effort to improve the manuscript. In addition, the quality of English language and thus the clarity of the manuscript has been greatly improved.

I still ask them to consider correcting the following: The sentence on line 67 should be changed: Instead of "PAs are relevant strategies that contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)..." they should write "PAs contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)...". PAs are not conservation strategies per se but an instrument included in conservation strategies.

In line 365 they mention the amount of 5,000 reais. I recommend the authors to put the same amount in dollars in parentheses afterwards for a better understanding by non-Brazilian readers. In addition, a dollar amount is more practical, since the effect of inflation is lower and allows comparisons with amounts in other countries' currencies.

My only major suggestion is the following: I insist that the authors should include a copy of their main qualitative and/or quantitative questionnaires/forms (in English or Portuguese) as a supplementary file to provide greater transparency of their methodology.

Author Response

Dear, 

Below is the article with requested corrections. Additionally, I will submit the survey instrument.

With best regards,

Josimar Freitas.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf