Phytosanitary and Technical Quality Challenges in Export Fresh Vegetables and Strategies to Compliance with Market Requirements: Case of Smallholder Snap Beans in Kenya
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript aims to evaluates the phytosanitary and quality requirements by the niche markets and explores the strategies that could be used to enhance compliance to the institutional and market requirements for fresh vegetables.
The manuscript is not well structured. It needs more clear structure on introduction, discussion, implications, and conclusion. In addition, the manuscript needs several clarifications and improvements:
In the abstract there should more clearly stated the main aims, possible novelties and/or contributions, main findings, and implications.
1) The section on the Introduction is without clear motivation, without a focus and without research questions. It is suggested to specify in a better way the motivation, aims and objectives, and possible novelty and/or contribution of the manuscript to the literature. Introduction should be brief, providing motivation of the research and outline main research focus. The objectives must be specified more in detail.
The section on the methodological approach adopted is absent.
The sections 2, 3 make the paper more suitable for publication in Agriculture or in Agronomy Journal. The agronomic and technical aspects are mainly dealt with and not those relating to the sustainability of the cultivation and exports of snap beans.
Section 4: The indicators of non-compliance with phytosanitary and technical regulations include decimating export volume of snap beans, rejections and the high number of notifications are not well specified. I suggest to insert a table with the principal indicators used in the previous studies to highlight the synthetic pesticides applied by smallholder farmers. It is import to evaluate the impact of these pesticides on the environmental.
Section 5 and 6: OK
Section 7: Conclusions and recommendations should be improved as they largely repeated the results. The character of conclusion is too general one and it repeats results. Authors should better underline conclusions, and intensions for future researches should be noted at the end of the conclusions.
What are the study limitations?
What are the proposals for research in future?
Finally, Regarding Tables and Figures: the quality should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, you should address the few recommendations highlighted across the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments
It is an interesting paper. This review is complete, clear and adequately discussed but it needs a lot of improvements to be suitable for publication in Sustainability. First of all, there is the need to improve and re-write some English sentences. Moreover, I suggest modifying the tables because they are too long and difficult to interpret (see specific comments). I detected inappropriate self-citation by the authors because ten citation of the third author (James W. Muthomi) are too much, although these publications are relevant and in line with the argument of this review. I suggest deleting some of these works, replacing them with other updated references. In my view, this manuscript is suitable for publication in Sustainability after Major Revisions to improve the document.
Specific comments
- Introduction
Please, write “4,500 ha were”.
Replace the sentence: “Production is favoured by the favourable climatic conditions” because favoured and favourable are two terms too similar to be so close.
Little space between number and unit (20-25 °C, 900-1200 mm). Please check the whole manuscript for this misspelling.
(Figure 2) and not [Figure 2]. Moreover, all “Tables” and “Figures” in the text must be written without bold.
Please, re-write the sentence: “The value chain of export vegetables as exemplified by snap beans in Kenya assumes systems approach which has enabled the country to access export market amid stringent requirements [15]” because it is unclear and difficult to understand.
Please, re-write the sentence: “A systems approach that transcends from production, trade to the consumer will enable smallholder snap beans farmers reap maximum economic benefits” because it is unclear and difficult to understand.
- Agronomic practices in smallholder snap bean production
Please, write "kg" instead of "Kg" (lower-case k). Please check the whole article for this misspelling.
Table 1. Please correct the column of “MRLs” because there are no units of measure. Moreover, since the references are always the same, I suggest deleting this column and writing them at the bottom of the table, as a footer.
- Phytosanitary and technical quality issues in snap bean production and marketing
Why do 3. and 3.1 have the same name? Is there a mistake? I think that the paragraph 3.1 should be deleted and therefore the subsequent numbering should be changed.
Please, check “water-soaked, sunked lesions” because these terms are written in different formats. Please check the whole article for this misspelling.
3.2. Phytosanitary requirements for export snap beans
Please replace the entire sentence because it is too long and unclear: “The phytosanitary requirements address plant health and aim at preventing the introduction and spread of agricultural pests through plants and plant products during trade as per the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measure 01, ISPM 01 (Phytosanitary principles for the protection of plants and the application of phytosanitary measures in international trade) of the IPPC”. Moreover, what is IPPC? This acronym is used at this point for the first time but without its entire explanation. Add at this point its significance.
Table 2. Please correct the term “Phytosanitary”. In the second column, replace the expression “Names of commodities method used for” with a simpler one. In the fourth column, “Merits and Demerits” can be replaced with “Pros and Cons” or with “Advantages and Disadvantages”. Additionally, Table 2 is likely to have been modified during the submission process because the exact arrangement of the references is difficult to understand. I suggest modifying it and making it smaller and clearer. Moreover, check some names (Citrus reticulate and so on…).
Indeed, phytosanitary irradiation is effective against a wide range...
Please, check these sentences: “Hot water treatment is effective against Ceratitis capitata in mangoes infested by immersed in water at 46.4-47°C for 95 minutes, resulting in 99.9% mortality of tolerant stage of the pest without degrading the quality of the produce [60]. Cold treatment is routinely applies on fresh fruits and vegetables to preserve physical quality but it is also effective in managing pests such as fruit flies (Bactrocera sp. and Ceratitis sp.) [54]. Cold treatment does not damage fruits or vegetables”.
In particular, what does “mangoes infested by immersed in water” mean? Cold treatment is routinely applied? “This type of treatment does not damage fruits or vegetables” in order to avoid the repetition of “cold treatment”.
3.4. Technical quality requirements for export snap beans
Please re-write these sentences: “The European Commission directive 2009/128/EC gives a general default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg where a pesticide is not explicitly mentioned [67]. EU’s MRL harmonization is advocated to improve access for countries like Kenya exporting snap beans to the trading block [72,73], however, importers within EU member states like Germany and United Kingdom apply MRLs rules which are stricter than those of the EU [74]”. It would be better to write: “The European Commission directive 2009/128/EC gives a general default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg where a pesticide is not explicitly mentioned [67]. EU’s MRL harmonization is advocated to improve access for countries like Kenya exporting snap beans to the trading block [72,73]. However, importers within EU member states like Germany and United Kingdom apply stricter MRLs rules than those of the EU [74]”.
Please, change this sentence: “The plasticity of chemical residues is over-whelming for countries exporting fruits and vegetables to the EU”.
Delete “pronouncing identification”.
Table 4. “Sample of notifications”. It would be better to write only “samples” or “examples”. I suggest replacing “Notification classification” of the second column in: “Type of notification”.
- Challenges faced by smallholder farmers in meeting phytosanitary and quality requirements
“It demands judicious use of pesticides”. What is the subject of this sentence? Please, re-write it.
- Enforcement and facilitation of phytosanitary and quality regulations
Add and between “Ministry of agriculture” and “Pest Control Products Board (PCPB)”.
The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) has been already explained above so at this level it is sufficient to write its acronym. Please check the whole article for this type of misspelling.
Table 6. I think that also Table 6 is likely to have been modified during the submission process. Moreover, the roles would be written all in the same way. According to me, there are a lot of mistakes. What about “Promotion and regulation of best practices from in production to marketing”? Is Europe European correct? What about “Licensing and regulation, marketing and promotion; promote, Offer technical and advisory services in the horticultural industry”? What about “Promotes interaction between farmers and retailers aiming at production and marketing of safe produce in a sustainable manner”?
From “The Horticultural Crops Directorate (HCD)...to revision of IPPC [50]”. I think that talking twice about these Institutions/standards, both in the Table 6 and in the text, is too much. I suggest reducing their comments in the text and expanding their description in the table because a table could be easier to understand than a long and boring description in the text.
Please, re-write the sentence: “The phytosanitary certificate is modelled out with IPPC specifications that translates to the exported snap beans have been inspected and found to certify free from quarantine pests [93]” because it is unclear and difficult to understand.
- Alternative pest management approaches to overcome phytosanitary and quality challenges
Check the English of this sentence: “Several attributes that make biopesticides to be good alternatives to synthetic pesticides include not leaving harmful chemical residues on produce, are renewable, less toxic to humans and non-target organisms, are effective, have no adverse effect on the environment and are compatible with other strategies [32, 79, 104, 106]”.
“Pest management approaches combining cultural practices, chemical, physical, and biological have been observed to suppress pests below the economic threshold as opposed to calendar chemical spray regimes and increase the number of predators (Mondal et al. [108]).” Please, do not use references in the text but only the corresponding number and without bold. Please check this misspelling in the entire manuscript.
- Conclusion and recommendations
Please, re-write the sentence: “Increased government support to snap beans smallholder farmers especially the youth and women through producer groups and access to finances in terms of credit and grants”.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
your article has been significantly improved andin the revised version is more suitable for publication in Sustainability .
Thank you for making all the required revisions.
Please at lines 127-128 for the adoption of
good agricultural practices (GAP) cite the following studies:
Fanelli R.M. (2019). The (un)sustainability of the land use practices and agricultural production in EU countries. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. 1-22, ISSN: 0020-7233 (Print) 1029-0400 (Online). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2018.1560761;
Fanelli, R.M. (2020). The Spatial and Temporal Variability of the Effects of Agricultural Practices on the Environment. Environments 2020, 7(4), 33.
Author Response
Please find our responses as PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments
The manuscript has improved considerably by making the recommended revisions. Indeed, the description of the various paragraphs and of the Tables are improved. The conclusions are well introduced, presented and adequately discussed. References are up to date. In my view, this manuscript is suitable for publication in Sustainability after minor Revisions.
Specific comments
Line 51. “Production [4]. Production” are too close. Please, replace one of the two terms or write them in a different position.
Lines 56, 57, 59 and throughout the manuscript. Please, check the double space between two words and at the beginning of the sentences.
Line 79. “Maximum residue levels” is not necessary at this point because it can be used with its acronym. Please, check this type of repetition throughout the manuscripts.
Line 89, 93 and throughout the manuscript. Write the captions of the tables and the figures without bold.
Line 98. “Able to”.
Line 128. “Stakeholders”.
Line 137. “Snap beans perform well in well-drained soils”. Please, re-write this sentence because the two terms “well” are too close.
Line 188. See the comment of line 79.
Table 2. References are not yet correct, and they don’t correspond to the different “Pros and cons” in the table.
Lines 216-218. “It has also been established that cold treatment preserves physical quality of fresh fruits and vegetables at the same time is effective in managing fruit flies (Bactrocera sp. and Ceratitis sp.) [31]”. Please, rewrite this sentence because it is difficult to understand.
Table 3. In my opinion it is not correct to write “Limit levels (mg/Kg)” but it is more appropriate to re-write “Maximum residue levels” as in the caption.
Line 251. Please, remove”.
Line 274. Please, remove “” around Extra Class or add them also around “Class I” and “Class II”.
Line 278. Add a space between 543/2011 and or.
Lines 308 and Table 6. “Country” or “county”? I don’t understand what “Lower than” and “above” refer to. I think you need to improve this column.
Table 7. The roles would be written all in the same way. According to me, there are a lot of mistakes. Some verbs are written in the -ing form and others in the present tense or not in the correct form: “The OECD Fruit and Vegetables Scheme PROVIDES”.
Line 379. “Europe European” is not correct.
Line 396. Delete one of the two commas.
Line 503. “Synthetic”.
Lines 527-532. I think that it is written in a different format. Please, check this part.
Author Response
Kindly find our responses as PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
