Evaluation of the European Green Deal Policy in the Context of Agricultural Support Payments in Latvia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question addressed by the research is: how support can increase the resilience of farms?

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? I consider that this topic is very important in Latvia and other EU countries now because recommendations in the period when Latvia is planning new support measures CAP are very useful.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published

material? The results of the empirical study can be used in the formulation of support measures.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the

methodology? What further controls should be considered? The authors could provide more detailed recommendations for the implementation of the objectives of the European Green Course in Latvia using support payments.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments

presented and do they address the main question posed? It is recommended to provide more detailed information about the impact of support payments on farms in the conclusions.

6. Are the references appropriate? Yes.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. I haven't any comments on the tables and figures.

It is necessary to indicate on what basis the choice was made criteria for the selection of farms necessary for detailed analysis in the main specialisation 213 groups (Table 1). The same remark is made for Table 3.

t would be useful to provide recommendations on how support can increase the resilience of farms.

It is recommended to provide more detailed information about the impact of support payments on farms in the conclusions.

Author Response

See atachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented materials are made at a high scientific and analytical level! The topic is relevant!

Comments:

1. It is necessary to make technical corrections in accordance with the requirements of the publisher, for example "Reference"

2. I recommend adding graphic materials, for example, table 11, for better visualization and perspective

3. When implementing such projects and programs in the conditions of the country, it is desirable to form risks for stakeholders

4. How is it determined that 25% of direct payments should be allocated to eco-schemes? Why not use modern packages for statistical analysis of data, for example "Statistica".

Author Response

See the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper offers interesting insights in some respects, but requires some substantial improvements for it to be published.

1.      The first paragraph is too long, so it hard to follow its logic.

2.      I am not sure about the style of abstract, which is too long and cover many basic data.

3.      Addition, the part of background should be separated from the long introduction.

Author Response

See the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations!!!  I hope the team of authors will continue to work so productively!  I appreciate all the changes positively, I recommend them for publication!