“Skeletal Forest Governance” in Myanmar: The Interplays of Forestry Ideologies and Their Limitations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a significant paper about forest governance in Myanmar.
Please provide additional explanation for the following:

1. Forest governance in Myanmar, the subject of this research, has been carried out in the form of fortress forests in the Global South, but why was it necessary to take the form of fortress forests?
2. What are the historical and geographical characteristics of forests in Myanmar that cannot be ignored when conducting forestry in Myanmar?
3. What forest governance do you think would make use of the characteristics of Myanmar's forest ecosystems?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript of the article Skeletal Forest Governance” in Myanmar: The Interplays of Forestry Ideologies and Their Limitations" is a very interesting scientific product that can serve as a basis for the development of forest policies, not only in Myanmar. The study examines the interesting and contradictory paradigm of the needs of nature versus the needs of people. The study deserves to be published, and I allow myself to make the following very small recommendations for improvement:
1. All theoretical concepts and ideologies are well described, but when reading the article, the reader asks himself various questions about basic points of contact and differences. They are described in detail, but their presentation in a table or some easy-to-understand format would add a lot of value to the study.
2. It would be good if the authors provided additional quantitative information on forest uses (wood extraction and other forest products). It is not clear what effect the accepted concepts for a combination of private and state forests have had on the state as a whole, the health of the forests and the economic well-being of the local population.
3. I do not make it clear, apart from the export of wood, what impact the application of different concepts would have on the production of wood products.

The recommendations mentioned do not detract from the extremely well-written article. They would help to clarify some questions that the reader would ask, and which would make such a study applicable in the practice of different countries.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, this is a well - written forest policy paper, that analyses the effects of different political theories on forest management in developing countries of the Global South. It is a very good example how forest policy affects the management of forest resources ander the prism of different policies; Fortress conservation, Neoliberal conservation, Community based conservation.

Your analysis is complete and justified, as far as I am concerned. You explain in detail the three different forest governance plans, providing quantitative data when necessary. You also connect each plan to the underlying political ideology at that time, which makes the case study of Myanmar a good universal example.

According to theory, 'a skeletal forest managing system is not robust enough to effectively address the needs of the forest, namely: lacking essential components, lack of transparency and accountability, weak enforcement, limited stakeholder participation.' I would like to see the 'weak enforcement' and 'lack of transparency and accountability' explained in more detail in the Myanmar Forest Governance system, based on the belief that these management atttributes are different in every system.

Finally, in the conclusions, you propose as a 'solution' establishing forest policy pilars with regional approaches instead of direct ideological actions. I see your point, but on the other hand , such a policy may lead to totally different forest management practices in various parts of the country. This may create conflicts of 'preferential treatment' among different geographical regions.

 The main issue addressed in this research is the impact (possitive or negative) that three different forest gevernance (i.e., policy/management) systems had on the forests of Myanmar (Global South). The advantages and disadvantages of each system are analysed.
- I consider the topic original and very relevant to the scope of the journal. Most forest policy papers are theoretical. Forest policy papers based on the true data of a case study are few. This is the gap that this paper fulfills.
-  It adds a worked - out, true example of how different forest policy systems affect forest sustainability and society well-being.
-  The methodology is fine. This is a narrative paper that does not require sampling and mathematical analysis.
-  The conclusions are based on the discussion but, as far as I am concerned, their final proposal ' establish policy pilars with regional approaches instead of direct ideological actions' is not entirely justified.
-  The references are appropriate and elucidative and the tables and figures all right.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf