The Fertilizer Industry in Brazil and the Assurance of Inputs for Biofuels Production: Prospective Scenarios after COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

• The Introduction Section is well written, referenced and is highly informative.
• There are many sentences throughout the paper where multiple references are used, many times over 3 references in a sentence. For example “The importance of renewable energy sources in the Brazil has grown in recent years [9–12]..” and “...instrument that aims to contribute to the achievement of the commitments assumed by Brazil in the Paris Agreement [9,15,16]” and ” The NPK fertilizer industry interacts with several economic activities, such as agribusiness (food and energy), oil & gas (O&G), the chemical industry, foreign trade, and the mineral industry [3,21,24–27]”. Maybe have a think whether inclusion of all these references are justified to back up the text.
• Towards the start of the manuscript I think there needs to be a really clear statement that describes what this research actually does and how it does it. You jump straight into describing complex approaches within Section 2. It would have been helpful to have a pre-amble to explain what, why and how you use your chosen approach.
• Section 3 - I feel this section should come before Section 2, as the narrative in Section 3 flows from the Introduction?  
• Covid-19. I understand this is highly topical but I question why it is given such focus in this paper including in the Title, especially given much of the data and graphs analysed within this paper do not and cannot capture the full impact of this crisis - it is still ongoing. Also who knows it may be totally gone this time next year! If you are going to place this level of focus on Covid it may be better to instead focus on, economic recessions, trade issues, geopolitical impacts etc etc. You could quote Covid as being a great influence that impacts each of these? I feel placing such focus on Covid is a bit risky as we are currently not in a position stand back and analyse it properly, and depending how things go the paper could become either dated very fast. However there are historic recessions, trade wars etc that can be pointed at and will likely happen again – for example just look at Figure 2, what happened to imports and consumption in 2005-6, 2009 and 2015?    
• Much of this work includes scientific phrases or jargon, and the manuscript assumes the reader will have a pres-understanding. It is likely readers will not, for example I have much experiences working in a similar research field but had to investigate several times what different approaches were. Eg. ‘Delphi Questionnaires’, or the ‘Probabilistic Modified Trend Models School’. In all these cases a softer introduction would help readers such as myself!

Specific Comments

• Line 44. It may be worth stating what SDG 2 and 13 are, or at least paraphrase to give readers the context.
• Line 76-80. I had to read these introductory sentences several times to work out what you were trying to say. I think these could restructured to help the reader. Why use phrases such ‘proactivity’ and ‘preactivity’ here and not anywhere else in the manuscript. If think further unpacking the sentences with more explainations would be more valuable.
• Line 82. ‘Objective outcome orientation’ that sounds very abstract.
• Also is the PMT approach something you expect your readers to be already know about? What does this have to do with this Case Study, has it been used before by similar studies?
• Figure 1. Some of the texts are a bit blurred, make sure you include a high resolution version.  
• Title 3.1. I think there is probably a better title than ‘Strategic Diagnosis’ to describe this section. There is lots of interesting narrative in this section, give it a title to better describes these.
• Line 200-219. There are lots of countries listed here and its all very interesting. A table ranking the top countries for each issues may be an easier way to highlight what you are trying to show. There is no need to list 12 different countries as large exporters of phosphate rock! Maybe list the top 3 and all the time keep it focused on ‘how is this relevant to Brazil’?  
• Section 3.2 You mention ‘Systemic Map’ very briefly earlier in the manuscript. What does this mean? How does it differ from any other map, why is it systemic, and why is it an approach you have decided to use?
• Line 251. How did you identify 100 variable, and from where?
• Section 3.2 I think this text section could be edited down or broken down into subsections to help the flow.
• Systemic Map. This looks great overall. Is this Figure 4, it isn’t clear. The text is hard to read in parts as is very small and blurred. Could the main events be further highlighted in some way – larger font or different colours? I don’t understand all the numbering for each issues, what do these add?
• Section 4 – I don’t think you have explained anywhere was a Delphi Survey actually is?
• Section 4 – there is a lot of descriptive text here. Could it be slimmed down or broken down into further sub-sections to punctuate the narrative?
• Section 4.2 Line 85 – maybe state what event 9 is.
• Line 256 – Has the author contribution section been completed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is relevant for the Brazilian economy and global trade. COVID-19 is impacting several industries, and Brazil, as one of the most affected countries, shall be concern about the local industry, especially in matters related to a sensitive sector such as agriculture. Biofuels are a promising area, and the authors presented a valuable analysis of future scenarios bearing in mind problematic of COVID-19.

Although it seems to be a good initiative, the manuscript requires some improvements, most of which technical.

First, the authors should be very clear about the type of document they intend to produce. This looks like a consultancy report but the methodology is solely based on literature review (like a, well... systematic review). In any case, if it is to be an article or communication, the authors have to organize according to the classical structure: introduction, material and methods, results, discussion and conclusion (sometimes with a section for recommendations). The readers shall not search for these sections.

Title: change "Covid-19" to "COVID-19"

Names: Just name and surname

ABSTRACT

Should also be structured in introduction, material and methods, results, discussion, conclusion and recommendations.

Line 13: instead of "avoid land use changes" write "avoiding changes in land use"

Line 19: instead of "in 2028" write "by 2028"

KEYWORDS: try writing shorter keywords

INTRODUCTION

Line 44: Please explain what goals 12 and 13 are about

Line 44: Do not abbreviate UN for the first time you write it

Line 54: instead of "in 2028" write "by 2028"

You should present your objectives in the end of introduction

Line 65: instead of "a great depression" write "The Great Depression"

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Not good at all. There is plenty of work to do here.

This section should be "material and methods", and you do not need to explain too much about the advantage of your approach, especially if it is well-known. Just explain where you took your data from and how you analyzed it, all in a narrative fashion.

Figure 1: Increase its size.

Once again, you have to be consistent. Is it a research article or a review? Why do you need to refer to so many authors in your methods' section if you were the one doing the job?

I think you need to seat, rethink together, decide which sort of document you intend to produce and follow through

NPK FERTILIZER INDUSTRY...

Do you need this section? This is all literature review, at this point unnecessary for your manuscript.

FUTURE VISION (RESULT AND DISCUSSION)

Remove "future vision" from the heading.

Ok, you probably made copy-past of some sections of a dissertation or consultancy report. This is my recommendation: rewrite this manuscript focused on the analysis of the scenarios and eliminate the excess of literature review. Follow the recommendations above and be straight forward.

Eu acho que este manuscrito tem potencial.

Yours sincerely

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have amended their manuscripy taking account of the majority of the recommendations. They have also provided justifications where they have not. The manuscript is much improved.

Author Response

Answers to Reviewers and Academic Editor  

In order to meet the expectations expressed by the Reviewers and by the Academic Editor, the authors made the following principal corrections:

1. The authors modified Figure 01 in order to improve the contrast.

2. The authors modified Figure 02 in order to increase the source.

3. The authors modified Figure 03 in order to divide it into two figures (Part A and Part B).

4. The authors modified Table 02. 

Traffic lights only aim to illustrate if the event is a strong opportunity (green light) or a strong threat (red light). The yellow light signifies a moderate threat or a moderate opportunity. So, the authors consider that these traffic lights are unnecessary to Table 2 and they were removed.

The trend scenario is well defined in the literature as a projective scenario, that is a mere extrapolation of the situation observed in the present environment. The trend scenario was defined by the authors. Then, the probability of this scenario was verified among the 512 generated scenarios.

The authors agree that 0.97% is very close to 0.24%. However, if the nine events were equally likely to occur or not to occur (that is, if all responses given by the experts were 50%), each of the 512 (29 events) possible scenarios would have a probability of 0.1953%. So, the most likely scenario is approximately five times more likely to occur (if compared to  the situation when all responses given by the experts were 50%). The authors understand that the importance of this probability is just to indicate which would be the most probable scenario (among the 512 possible). So, this probabilities were removed from Table 02.

• Complementary: Table 1 results (Average Result column) represent the weighted average of the responses obtained in the Delphi Questionnaire. The Grumbach Method (http://www.brainstorming.com.br/) is reliable and traceable: it is widely used for scenarios development in important institutions, such as the Brazilian Supreme Court.


We are very grateful for your review work, and we hope you had an interesting reading. Muito obrigado!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

You still need to improve the abstract. We need to see the following structure: introduction, material and method, result, discussion and conclusion (with recommendations). Qualquer artigo de pesquisa deve estar organizado assim e o resumo tem a mesma estrutura.

Keywords: fertilizer, Brazil, biofuel, prediction, COVID-19

Figure 1 is much better, still I would recommend more contrast. Why don't you use the simple yet effective black letters and white background? It might not be the best artistic choice but is is much easier to read.

Try to be accurate, brief and direct in the introduction. One or two pages should be more than enough.

Figure 3. Still confusing. You are overwhelming it with details that nobody will care. I strongly recommend you (again) to simplify it and send the full diagram as supplementary material. And even in the supplementary material you could break it down into two or three figures easier to read.

Figure 4. Do not start the caption with numbers. Rephrase it.

REFERENCES

Write properly the names. Eg. Reference 15: FERNANDES -> Fernandes

Review the references thoroughly, if necessary with academic support.

Kind regards

Author Response

Answers to Reviewers and Academic Editor  

In order to meet the expectations expressed by the Reviewers and by the Academic Editor, the authors made the following principal corrections:

1. The authors modified Figure 01 in order to improve the contrast.

2. The authors modified Figure 02 in order to increase the source.

3. The authors modified Figure 03 in order to divide it into two figures (Part A and Part B).

4. The authors modified Table 02. 

Traffic lights only aim to illustrate if the event is a strong opportunity (green light) or a strong threat (red light). The yellow light signifies a moderate threat or a moderate opportunity. So, the authors consider that these traffic lights are unnecessary to Table 2 and they were removed.

The trend scenario is well defined in the literature as a projective scenario, that is a mere extrapolation of the situation observed in the present environment. The trend scenario was defined by the authors. Then, the probability of this scenario was verified among the 512 generated scenarios.

The authors agree that 0.97% is very close to 0.24%. However, if the nine events were equally likely to occur or not to occur (that is, if all responses given by the experts were 50%), each of the 512 (29 events) possible scenarios would have a probability of 0.1953%. So, the most likely scenario is approximately five times more likely to occur (if compared to  the situation when all responses given by the experts were 50%). The authors understand that the importance of this probability is just to indicate which would be the most probable scenario (among the 512 possible). So, this probabilities were removed from Table 02.

• Complementary: Table 1 results (Average Result column) represent the weighted average of the responses obtained in the Delphi Questionnaire. The Grumbach Method (http://www.brainstorming.com.br/) is reliable and traceable: it is widely used for scenarios development in important institutions, such as the Brazilian Supreme Court.


We are very grateful for your review work, and we hope you had an interesting reading. Muito obrigado!