Agricultural Pollution and Waterways on the Island of Ireland: Towards Effective Policy Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, Attorp focuses on  power distributions within the agriculture using an empirical qualitative research approach, and concluding that agri-food system governance must become more equitable and nuance. An interesting work that states some uncomfortable truths

The title and abstract are relevant and clear.

Introduction

Little is stated about the situation in Europe although it's mentioned in the abstract and in some chapters

Line 156, explain the term "Beef1" or correct if a typo

Line 186-188, a few more words regarding the issue should be said

3.2. As Ireland is part of the EU, how is it dealing with the EU regulation and how effective is the greendeal and the "farm to fork" program?, what is the opinion of the interviewed ones regarding such.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper on a relevant topic, namely the influence of distinct agricultural sectors on environmental and water policy in Ireland and Northern Ireland - specifically water quality management (WFD). It proposes to consider the 'agriculture industry' not as a monolith but as separate sectors- dairy farming and drystock farming (mainly focusing on beef production). 

The main messages are clear but the details of the empirical investigation - giving evidence of these messages should be (much) improved. 

See the attached document with the review. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, this a very interesting paper on power relations between different groups within the agri-food sector. I fully agree it is important to further differentiate between different types of farmers, their interests, power / influence and behavior. So I am looking forward to the paper’s publication. Still the paper would benefit from some revisions. This concerns mainly the presentation of the empirical results and its link to the theoretical section.

The introduction is clear and concise. Only some parts lack referencing. This includes page 1, lines 31f and page 1, lines 39f.

I like the theoretical part on different ways of power. However, this part lacks a clear connection to the other parts of the paper. Did the author have this theory in mind before conducting the interviews? how are the themes stemming from the thematic analysis related to the theory? Were the interviews and data analysis guided by this theory? If not, how is this theory connected to the empirical analysis? There should be some more explanation in the methods section.

The results section needs some work. In particular, it should be structured more analytically (for instance along the different types of power; which would also make the connection to the theory section clear). At the moment, it has a strong storytelling character and loses a bit analytical clarity.

Some minor comments on the results: page 6, lines 266f are not clear; page 8, lines 336f: needs a reference (in Germany for instance, it is clearly the intensive farming causing more water pollution problems); page 8, lines 344ff: I am not convinced by the argument that the dairy industry’s power is “not all bad news for water quality”. Would less power not even increase the influence of public environmental awareness and WFD targets?

Minor spelling mistakes I came across

• page 4, line 156: “Beef” instead of “Beef1”
• page 4, line 164: “production” instead of “production2”

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has improved the quality of the manuscript which I now find suitable for publication.

Author Response

See response to round 3 review. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the Rebuttal and looked at the revisions in the paper and I am fine with these adjustments. Success with publishing. 

Author Response

Thank you once again for taking the time to provide feedback on this article. I greatly appreciate it. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for revising your paper and responding to my comments.

Page 1, lines 39f: It is not clear that this is still part of your argument. At the moment, it reads like an empirical fact you use to support the argument. Either state at the beginning of the sentence that this is still part of the argument. Or state, that this is shown by your empirical findings. Either way would make it fully transparent.

Results: I like the idea to support the argument of agriculture's strong power and its impact on the implementation of policies. However, I would recommend to move Table 1 to the background section since it is not your original research findings (what you present in the research section should be replicable by the material and research methods you described in section 2). You might then refer to the background information (including Table 1) when you discuss your empirical findings.

Author Response

Page 1, lines 39f: It is not clear that this is still part of your argument. At the moment, it reads like an empirical fact you use to support the argument. Either state at the beginning of the sentence that this is still part of the argument. Or state, that this is shown by your empirical findings. Either way would make it fully transparent. I have amended to make more clear that this is an argument based on empirical data. Thank you. 

Results: I like the idea to support the argument of agriculture's strong power and its impact on the implementation of policies. However, I would recommend to move Table 1 to the background section since it is not your original research findings (what you present in the research section should be replicable by the material and research methods you described in section 2). You might then refer to the background information (including Table 1) when you discuss your empirical findings.: Thank you also for raising this point. Interestingly, in my thesis, I have been asked to move this table from a background chapter, where it originally was, to an empirical chapter, because it involves analysis of the data. However, I understand that the fact the table includes analysis was not made clear in my article, so I have add a couple of sentences stating this is the case, and hope that it addresses the issue. I have also slightly re-structured the section to reflect these changes. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

As I previously stated, The author has improved the quality of the manuscript which I now find suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you once again for taking the time to provide feedback on my article. It is much appreciated!

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.