Greener European Agriculture? Evaluating EU Member States’ Transition Efforts to Integrated Pest Management through Their National Action Plans
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Check sentence structure: Only after developing pesticide resistance and increasing the 76 number of health and environmental problems cases can the IPM practices regain the 77 scientific community's interest.
Table:
Please rework and structure table much better then it is now. It is a copy paste from documents but not informative enough. See also final remark.
Austria: Sentence not complete - p. 24-25. Reducing the risks and the quantities of plant protection products used- Further development of the principles of good
Belgium: lay-out of points, don’t add them to each other but put them each time on a new line.
Ireland: Strange sentence - See is there are Natiinal Strategies IPM
Poland: put Task 1 on a new line.
This paper is really needed however a next step was expected. Reviewing all NAPs one may expect that the authors have a vision on which direction EU countries should move in order to better implement IPM. They also should have an idea on which indicators and guidelines seem needed to improve the plans of all member states. Is there a common understanding of IPM over the countries? From this paper you can’t see as a member state how to improve your plans. You don’t get insight in better approaches from your colleagues in other countries. This is seriously lacking to this well written paper. As it is now it is a simple approach and a simple observation of what might be.
I believe if you want to evaluate IPM you can do it following the three pillars: what kind of actions are undertaken to 1. Prevent pest occurrence, 2 Monitor pest occurrence and 3. Threat pests (biological, physical or chemical). Another point seems: what is done for sensibilisation – education of farmers, raising awareness… A third point seems: incentives for farmers – do they receive extra money for there efforts, rewarding…
Each time you can try to see if the action of the member states results in a measurable indicator or not. If it is not measurable then it seems to me not a useful action. But this can also be discussed.
there is no sufficient data on the most efficient IPM strategies
Nevertheless, the details of the steps need to implement measures, timetables, indicators, and institutions responsible for the evaluation of recent progress as the result of the implementation of the first generations NAPs differ dramatically and thus make comparison difficult.
As the authors blame the member states being not harmonic in their strategies, I would expect they do an effort in this paper as explained above to help these policy makers improving. After 8 years these member states can’t say they had not enough time to reflect on their real actions to implement IPM and they indeed can’t say they should have a different approach across EU. In conclusion I would welcome these authors to try to set up their viewpoint on what at least should be identifiable in the guidelines of the NAP plans regarding IPM. Or what the minimum guidelines taken up in the NAP plans should be, so that indeed a fair comparison over the member states can be worked out and that a fair treatment of all farmers across EU is ongoing. It seems strange in a common Europe that different rules regarding IPM are ongoing in one country compared to another. This paper should help solving this issue. As it is now, it puts others at work and is to much looking from the sideline.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for all the effort put into our article and the detailed comments. We approached all of you comments. Here are our detailed answers, comment by comment:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Check sentence structure: Only after developing pesticide resistance and increasing the 76 number of health and environmental problems cases can the IPM practices regain the 77 scientific community's interest.
Answer: We rephrased it
Table: Please rework and structure table much better then it is now. It is a copy paste from documents but not informative enough. See also final remark.
Answer: Modified and clarified
Austria: Sentence not complete - p. 24-25. Reducing the risks and the quantities of plant protection products used- Further development of the principles of good
Answer: We completed the phrase
Belgium: lay-out of points, don’t add them to each other but put them each time on a new line.
Answer: we re-arranged the lay-out of points and brought other clarifications
Ireland: Strange sentence - See is there are Natiinal Strategies IPM
Answer: sorry for this mistake. We eliminated the text
Poland: put Task 1 on a new line.
Answer: Modified
This paper is really needed however a next step was expected. Reviewing all NAPs one may expect that the authors have a vision on which direction EU countries should move in order to better implement IPM.
They also should have an idea on which indicators and guidelines seem needed to improve the plans of all member states. Is there a common understanding of IPM over the countries? From this paper you can’t see as a member state how to improve your plans. You don’t get insight in better approaches from your colleagues in other countries. This is seriously lacking to this well written paper. As it is now it is a simple approach and a simple observation of what might be.
I believe if you want to evaluate IPM you can do it following the three pillars: what kind of actions are undertaken to 1. Prevent pest occurrence, 2 Monitor pest occurrence and 3. Threat pests (biological, physical or chemical). Another point seems: what is done for sensibilisation – education of farmers, raising awareness… A third point seems: incentives for farmers – do they receive extra money for there efforts, rewarding…
Each time you can try to see if the action of the member states results in a measurable indicator or not. If it is not measurable then it seems to me not a useful action. But this can also be discussed.
there is no sufficient data on the most efficient IPM strategies. Nevertheless, the details of the steps need to implement measures, timetables, indicators, and institutions responsible for the evaluation of recent progress as the result of the implementation of the first generations NAPs differ dramatically and thus make comparison difficult.
As the authors blame the member states being not harmonic in their strategies, I would expect they do an effort in this paper as explained above to help these policy makers improving. After 8 years these member states can’t say they had not enough time to reflect on their real actions to implement IPM and they indeed can’t say they should have a different approach across EU. In conclusion I would welcome these authors to try to set up their viewpoint on what at least should be identifiable in the guidelines of the NAP plans regarding IPM. Or what the minimum guidelines taken up in the NAP plans should be, so that indeed a fair comparison over the member states can be worked out and that a fair treatment of all farmers across EU is ongoing. It seems strange in a common Europe that different rules regarding IPM are ongoing in one country compared to another. This paper should help solving this issue. As it is now, it puts others at work and is to much looking from the sideline.
Answer: Thank you for these detailed explanations. Based on your suggestions, we have elaborated a set of clear recommendation for the third generations of NAPs in order to accelerate the introduction of IPM
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting manuscript and important topic. Methods section (see note regarding lines 138-141) should be strengthened and applied in Results and Discussion section. Here are line-by-line suggestions:
Lines 44 and 45 refer to “three goals of the SUD.” The previous sentence has two numbered specific requirements of SUD – do lines 44 and 45 refer to these requirements or are there other goals? This should be clarified.
Line 67 – missing period.
Line 72 – awkward wording. Consider rephrasing to: … procedures utilized to control harmful organisms for an extended period.
Line 74 – awkward wording. Consider rephrasing to delete “temporary” and insert “short term” here: … high short term efficiency …
Line 77 – consider deleting “cases”
Line 102 – consider inserting “approach” after the word “level”
Line 138 – consider replacing “if” with “whether”
Lines 138-141 – The materials and methods discussion is a weak area of this manuscript. The first method – “analyzing if IPM is present in the objectives” – is a reasonable and objective indicator of whether the MS is seeking to require IPM. The second method – “the number of mentions of IPM throughout the NAPs” – is a cursory measure that is not necessarily related to the quality, thoroughness, or effectiveness of MS regarding IPM and thus the counts might be misleading. The third method – “how the IPM is discussed” - does not explain to the reader how the authors are evaluating the MU NAPs. I recommend that the authors develop and articulate criteria than can be explained and objectively applied to evaluate the MU NAPS. This would strengthen the methods and provide a consistent measure to evaluate NAPS.
Line 146 – insert “times” before “Integrated” and “is” after (IPM)
Line 154 – use of “too” is awkward – rephrase this sentence
Line 155 – remove parentheses around “PPPs”
Line 176 – what does “sensibly” mean in this sentence – can it be deleted?
Line 179 – consider inserting “does reference” after “but”
Line 187 – correct “NAp”
Line 194 – “o” should be “of”?
Line 230 – DEPHY should be spelled out the first time the acronym is used
Lines 234-240 – Consider breaking this sentence into 2 sentences
Lines 264 – 271 – further develop third, fourth, and fifth points
Line 267 – Should “Fourth” instead be “Fifth” and bolded?
Lines 274 – 278 – Clarify whether 3 or 4 types of drivers are being described
Lines 294 – 296 - is this a restatement of lines 274-278? Also, clarify number of drivers being described
The paper would be strengthened by revising the results and discussion section to more clearly present the findings contained on lines 248 – 320.
Lines 368, 373, 387, 390, 392, 394, 398, 401, 421, 423, 425, and 428 should end with a period instead of a semicolon (;)
Line 396 – delete semicolon before final period
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for all the effort put into our article and the detailed comments. We approached all of you comments. Here are our detailed answers, comment by comment:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Interesting manuscript and important topic. Methods section (see note regarding lines 138-141) should be strengthened and applied in Results and Discussion section. Here are line-by-line suggestions:
Answer: We have explained into more details our approach
Lines 44 and 45 refer to “three goals of the SUD.” The previous sentence has two numbered specific requirements of SUD – do lines 44 and 45 refer to these requirements or are there other goals? This should be clarified.
Answer: There are two requirements in terms type of documents each EU MS had to develop and three goals to be achieved by these documents. We modified the phrases to better clarify that the requirements
Line 67 – missing period.
Answer: modified
Line 72 – awkward wording. Consider rephrasing to: … procedures utilized to control harmful organisms for an extended period.
Answer: modified
Line 74 – awkward wording. Consider rephrasing to delete “temporary” and insert “short term” here: … high short term efficiency …
Answer: modified
Line 77 – consider deleting “cases”
Answer: rephrased
Line 102 – consider inserting “approach” after the word “level”
Answer: modified
Line 138 – consider replacing “if” with “whether”
Answer: modified
Lines 138-141 – The materials and methods discussion is a weak area of this manuscript. The first method – “analyzing if IPM is present in the objectives” – is a reasonable and objective indicator of whether the MS is seeking to require IPM. The second method – “the number of mentions of IPM throughout the NAPs” – is a cursory measure that is not necessarily related to the quality, thoroughness, or effectiveness of MS regarding IPM and thus the counts might be misleading. The third method – “how the IPM is discussed” - does not explain to the reader how the authors are evaluating the MU NAPs. I recommend that the authors develop and articulate criteria than can be explained and objectively applied to evaluate the MU NAPS. This would strengthen the methods and provide a consistent measure to evaluate NAPS.
Answer: We explained into more details our approach
We have extended our presentation of the methodological approach used to compare our analysis, methodology developed on Barzman and Dachbrodt-Saaydeh’ [1] an dur previous article in PLOS [2]. We have tried to use as many quantitative indicators to evaluate and compare the NAPs, but the core of our comparative analysis rests on our summative assesment, especially given that these NAPs are quite heterogenous.
Barzman, M.; Bàrberi, P.; Birch, A.N.E.; Boonekamp, P.; Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S.; Graf, B.; Hommel, B.; Jensen, J.E.; Kiss, J.; Kudsk, P.; et al. Eight Principles of Integrated Pest Management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1199–1215, doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9.
Helepciuc, F.-E.; Todor, A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the EU’s Approach to the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. PLOS ONE 2021, 16, e0256719, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256719.
Line 146 – insert “times” before “Integrated” and “is” after (IPM)
Answer: modified
Line 154 – use of “too” is awkward – rephrase this sentence
Answer: modified
Line 155 – remove parentheses around “PPPs”
Answer: modified
Line 176 – what does “sensibly” mean in this sentence – can it be deleted?
Answer: modified
Line 179 – consider inserting “does reference” after “but”
Answer: modified
Line 187 – correct “NAp”
Answer: modified
Line 194 – “o” should be “of”?
Answer: modified
Line 230 – DEPHY should be spelled out the first time the acronym is used
Answer: we wrote the French name
Lines 234-240 – Consider breaking this sentence into 2 sentences
Answer: modified
Lines 264 – 271 – further develop third, fourth, and fifth points
Answer: modified
Line 267 – Should “Fourth” instead be “Fifth” and bolded?
Answer: modified
Lines 274 – 278 – Clarify whether 3 or 4 types of drivers are being described
Answer: modified. Three type of drivers
Lines 294 – 296 - is this a restatement of lines 274-278? Also, clarify number of drivers being described
Answer: modified
The paper would be strengthened by revising the results and discussion section to more clearly present the findings contained on lines 248 – 320.
Answer: modified
Lines 368, 373, 387, 390, 392, 394, 398, 401, 421, 423, 425, and 428 should end with a period instead of a semicolon (;)
Answer: modified
Line 396 – delete semicolon before final period
Answer: modified
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
For me it is fine. At the end you have a sum up of recommendations. Perhaps it is good to use per recommendation a new line and not sum parts up in one Alinea.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the manuscript is substantially improved and recommend its publication.
