Environmental Policy and Regulatory Framework for Managing Mangroves as a Carbon Sink in Cuba

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper reviewing Cuba's policies and scientific literature on mangroves and climate change mitigation. The authors propose an evaluation framework that would be useful and replicable in other countries facing similar issues incorporating mangroves in CC strategies as Cuba. The authors, however, miss the opportunity to make this point and make the paper useful to other nations or jurisdictions. It would be great to see them incorporating some of this potential, at least in the Discussion, in the revised version of the manuscript.  Based on this and the comments below, my recommendation is to consider this paper for publication after major revision.

There is abundant literature and international carbon programs on how to measure and monitor (MRV) carbon in ecosystems for climate change mitigation purposes. The authors make some sound suggestions on what is needed for mangrove C MRV, but it seems clear they have not used existing REDD+ guidance as a valuable and already widely tested source of MRV frameworks. While not all mangroves will fall under a REDD+ program (it would depend on the jurisdiction), a REDD-like approach is definitely applicable to mangrove conservation, restoration, and MRV, and should be described and discussed here. Things that the authors will find there that are applicable to this study are how to link and standardize NFIs with GIS and MRV protocols, how to incorporate SESA and Safeguards, requirements on having clear land and carbon tenure and rights, and opportunities to link mangrove MRV with national GHG inventories and/or C registries to avoid double counting emission reductions. Additionally, the opportunity to connect mangrove MRV with pledges and global reporting systems such as NDCs, Bonn Challenge, etc is barely discussed in depth - the NDC is mentioned several times in the text, but what are the specific linkages and opportunities?

CC adaptation could be a nice tandem in policy even though it is not C sink related. Mangroves are so important in CC adaptation strategies, specially for island nations such as Cuba. Adaptation, however, is barely mentioned in p2. I suggest diving a bit more into this in a few sentences to bring a more comprehensive picture. 

The introduction mentions briefly as well a number of items needed for successful mangrove integration in CC strategies (L.58-61), but the authors do not explain why these are still needed in the country. it would be useful to the reader to understand what are the barriers - a brief mention to the implementation barriers in Cuba would be helpful here, for context.

In the Institutions section, the first thing mentioned is that mangroves are not managed as a C reservoir in the country. Context on other C reservoirs that are being already managed in the country as such (forests?) would be good here, specifying where mangrove management would converge or diverge.

The Economic Resources section focuses on CDM. What about other options like the voluntary carbon market, cap and trade systems, or national carbon registries? Can you give some context on these or suggestions on their applicability in Cuba?

L.477-452: country-specific allometric equations are ideal, but they are often not necessary for mangroves. Depending on the mangrove species widely used and publicly available equations can be used. I suggest the authors take a look at the Blue Carbon Initiative Manual (https://www.thebluecarboninitiative.org/manual). Also, what about soil carbon, is it not being considered here? It is a very important C pool in most mangrove ecosystems.

L.453-461: GIS is 100% necessary for activity data but it cannot be used for C stocks. To determine the extent of a C sink and changes over time you need both. 

L.522: "Capturing CO2 for a while" is too vague... please be more specific. 

L.542: "municipal level" might not be viable cost-wise, and perhaps not even necessary. Countries often go down to the jurisdictional level of state/province. Smaller jurisdictions are often seen in project-specific approaches (e.g. carbon market). Cuba could have a national and subnational government system in which municipal could make sense, but this should be a bit more explained here in order to understand if what is being proposed by the authors is reasonable (as opposed to inefficient).

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1.
I am sharing the new version of our manuscript entitled “Environmental policy and regulatory framework for managing mangroves as a carbon sink in Cuba” for your second kind review. We want to thank you for your valuable time invested in evaluating our manuscript and for the helpful comments that have helped improve our manuscript. Please, check in the table in pdf our responses and actions.
Best regard.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting and timely paper. However, significant revision is required if the paper is to be accepted for publication. Please see my comments below.

 

Abstract:

The authors are suggested to include information on data collection and data used in the abstract.

They are also suggested to address the scientific impact of their research at the end of the abstract.

 

Introduction section:

The introduction reads quite well. Yet it could be improved by inserting a clear problem definition or knowledge gap that is embedded in an academic debate. This is currently not the case. The authors are suggested to insert this. Next, to the problem definition they are also suggested to insert a research question or goals that connects well to the problem definition or knowledge gap.

The authors are suggested to insert a short paragraph presenting an outline of the remainder of the paper.

 

Materials and methods section:

It is not clear what the authors mean with ‘social qualitative method’. The authors are suggest to address what they mean with this (also using literature references), and justify the choices they make. The same holds for content analysis and ‘Decalogue’. The authors should clarify what the latter means and how this methodology works.

The current paper misses a theoretical framework that is embedded in academic literature. However, in my opinion the Decalogue methodology could basically serve as a theoretical framework. In my opinion it is quite similar to conducting a governance analysis. If the authors also see it this way I suggest the authors develop a separate theoretical chapter in which they present Decalogue as a theoretical framework, and present it and its elements, and how this is embedded in academic literature. I suggest each element is presented and discussed, also in their relation to academic knowledge (with relevant literature references). For instance, they mention ‘governance’ a couple of time, but do not define whereas there is a large body of literature on governance. Therefore, it is important that all (theoretical) elements of the Decalogue framework/methodology are clearly introduced, defined, conceptualized and possibly even operationalized in the context of the present study.

The authors are suggested to insert more information on data collection, data treatment and data analysis, and clarify how they addressed this in the present study.

No attention I paid to validity and reliability issues. Can the authors insert information on these matters? And in particular on validation of the study and its results?

Conducting research on implementing institutional, legal frameworks and policy would benefit from expert interviews. However, this is not mentioned in the methods section. I wonder why the authors decided (not) to conduct expert interviews.

 

Results section:

Table 2 is about policy instruments but basically only mention objectives of the constitution and (state) plans. What about policy instruments as means to achieve those objectives? Can the authors also present information on this?

The sub section on competences should be expanded and clarified better. Currently, it is centred around the two figures. More description is needed. Moreover, I also wonder whether competences of policy implementation/forest management agents should be discussed as well. For example, Are there sufficient agents in Cuba tasked to fulfil these important jobs and activities?

The same roughly hold for the section on Institutions. Apparently, a lot of Ministries and lower governments are involved. But it is not clear whether they aligned their visions, goals and coordinate their activities. The authors are invited to address these matters.

The section on education & training is really short, and should be expanded focusing more on training and education with regard to specific competences and skills that have to do with mangrove forest preservation and carbon sinks management.

Discussion section:

The Discussion section reads quite well, and presents results of the present study against between relevant academic debates and statements. However, I would like to read more about a key result of the study. Namely, that although Cuba does have a number of goals and objectives available in laws and plans to preserve mangrove and use it as a carbon sink it lacks the governing capacity and regulatory framework (hence, operational policies) to achieve or maintain these goals. This must be a problem in other countries as well, and I would like the authors to pay more attention to this matter, and maybe also as a suggestion for future research.

 

Conclusions section:

The conclusion section is currently too short. First, it should pay more attention to answer the research question, and in a nuanced way that aligns well with the results from the study (as presented in the Results section), perhaps address results using the different elements from the Decalogue framework analysis. Second, Limitations should be discussed in the Conclusion section. I also suggest the authors pay attention to suggesting more and detailed future research than is currently presented in the paper.

 

Additional comments:

The affiliations look incomplete.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2.

I am sharing the new version of our manuscript entitled “Environmental policy and regulatory framework for managing mangroves as a carbon sink in Cuba” for your second kind review. We want to thank you for your valuable time invested in evaluating our manuscript and for the helpful comments that have helped improve our manuscript. Please, check the table in pdf for our responses and actions.
We sincerely appreciate the inputs because they provided an external view that allowed us to notice some inconsistencies in the contribution. 

Sincerely,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a good job addressing the comments made by the reviewers. The manuscript reads well and presents a cohesive story. I have no additional comments or suggestions to the authors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comments and for approving our manuscript.

Best regard

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for implementing most of my comments. Before I feel able to recommend your paper for publication there are a few comments left I would like you to address. Please see them below:

In the Introduction section there is still no (short) paragraph at the end of the section presenting an outline of the remainder of the paper. Maybe the authors did not see this comment in the previous round of reviews, but I suggest the authors consider to insert it.

It is still not clear what the authors mean with ‘social qualitative method’. The authors are suggested to address what they mean with this. More explanation and justification should be mentioned than currently. Moreover, the authors are suggested whether they also considered other (e.g., also quantitative) research approaches, and what made them decide to use a more qualitative approach. This needs justification.

The authors hardly responded to my previous comment “The authors are suggested to insert more information on data collection, data treatment and data analysis, and clarify how they addressed this in the present study.” Although I agree that are is information on data collection there is still important information lacking on data treatment and analysis. The authors should clarify how they treated data and analyzed it. For example, by presenting how they did this in a process and procedural way. They are also suggested to insert more information on validation of the results. They should also clarify in the main body text why no interviews were considered nor conducted (perhaps in the limitations section).  However, I agree that it would be wise to mention them as part of the next stage of research. As such, I recommend mentioning this in the final paragraph of the conclusion section.

A previous comment I had was not addressed by the authors in the main body text, despite my suggestion to address this. I suggest the authors insert in the main body text what they answered to my query (or something alike): “The Environmental policy in Cuba on this issue is incipient. In the evaluated period, it has developed training and preparation actions for the personnel involved to begin a gradual implementation process. But, unfortunately, that performance cannot be rated yet.”

Author Response

Dear reviewer
Please, find attached for your kind review our corrections.

We made the required changes. Thank you once again for your kind suggestions that let us improve our manuscript

Best regard

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf