Place-Based Pathways to Sustainability: Exploring Alignment between Geographical Indications and the Concept of Agroecology Territories in Wales

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very well written and analyses in an original way geographical indications and their product specification in relation to agroecology principles and the concept of agroecology territories.

There are not major points but more several smaller issues and corrections that should be made to improve the paper. I made an annotated version of the manuscript which include my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Removed unnecessary abbreviations from abstract (e.g. PFN) and checked that any abbreviations used are properly introduced in full.
2. Changed the example of the Less Favoured Area Scheme (LFA) in the opening paragraph of the paper. Rather, following your comment about this not automatically supporting local food systems, we have included the example of Regulation 1305/2013, which contained measures to support short food supply chains and local food markets and encourage farmers to join producer groups and quality schemes.
3. Removed Figure 1 and replaced with a more concise table (Table 1)
4. Explained briefly the term terroir when it first appears (i.e. it is now in the introduction section rather than in the lit review)
5. Rephrased in the literature review (1st paragraph) about the historical roots and genesis of agroecology as per the comment you made on the manuscript.
6. Deleted an unnecessary citation when referencing agroecology as a science, movement and practice as per the comment, using the original of Wezel only rather than multiple citations (see 1st paragraph of lit review)
7. You said you did not understand what was meant by the following sentence: “For example, it has been estimated PFN products retailed on average for 2.23 times more than the same type of non-PFN goods across the EU, whilst in the UK this was 1.86 times higher [6].” This is a direct quote from the reference and means that GI products retailed at a premium compared to non-GI foods. We feel this is clear and this data is often used in the literature to make the case about the economic rationale for GIs. We have therefore retained this point.
8. Typographical and spelling errors that you picked up in the manuscript have been corrected following further proof reading. We are now confident that spelling and grammar is accurate throughout.
9. We have displayed percentages as whole numbers rather than use two decimal places as per the comment made on the manuscript. 
10. Tables and figures continue to state ‘Source: Authors’ where appropriate for transparency and to be clear where we have either created a table/figure entirely from our own data, or where we have e.g. adapted from literature.
11. We have replaced the term ‘agroecology principles’ when what we mean is ‘agroecology elements’ as per the ten FAO elements of agroecology.
12. Thank you for checking the reference list and identifying an incomplete reference, and for pointing out where a reference was erroneously duplicated. This has been corrected and the reference list no longer contains duplications following further proof reading and cross checking.
13. Finally, we amended the title to 'Place-based pathways to sustainability: exploring alignment between GI and the concept of agroecology territories in Wales' as we felt this was a better reflection of what our paper focuses on.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper aims at analyzing how Protected Food Names (PFNs) align with agro-ecology. Authors base their study on the case of Welsh Geographical Indications (GIs). Using the FAO’s framework and a method/software called Nvivo, they analyze the 18 Welsh GIs’ sets of specification; they prove that agro-ecology principles are hardly mentioned. Authors had 23 qualitative interviews realized with GIs stakeholders. With this complementary data, authors identify properties linked to agro ecology, such as adaptation of agricultural practices, conservation of biodiversity and natural resources, to which PFNs might contribute.

The paper is long which makes it difficult to read. Some parts would deserve to be cut, especially the introduction and the review of literature while other parts could be developed such as methodology and results.

About introduction and literature review (11pages!), discourse should be more concise and the use of notions should be more parsimonious. It appears to be an extensive review of literature – as shown by more than 100 references – and there are too many details. On the contrary, having a selection of some elements of the literature would enable the authors to be clearer and more powerful in their demonstration. The profusion of notions and their systematic development pollute the paper and confuse the reader. One suggestion would be to better anchor the paper’s social and scientific stakes in the introduction, and to dedicate a concise literature review to the thereafter used notions such as “terroir” and “PFNs”, “agroecology territory” (or agroecology framework according to the FAO, which is used after) and “reflexive governance”. Plus, too much is developed about Wales: it is interesting and the reader might understand the process of thoughts (wales as a nation and a relevant scale for implementing agro-ecology?) but it is not relevant for the rest of the paper.

From the literature review to the methodology, transition from the notion of agro-ecology territories to the FAO framework is not spontaneous and shows that the flow of arguments is a little bit weak. In the continuity of this idea, why the FAO’s framework is referred to as methodology and not review of litterature? It expresses things about agroecology too.

Methodology could be a little be more developed. Readers could expect more details about the choices of analysis of data, notably through Nvivo (one supplementary sentence to explain how the software works would be appreciated). More could be developed about the content of the interviews (what topics were dealt with during interviews?) as well as the persons who were interviewed (for instance, what about the “PFN policy” stakeholders? Who are they? Which institutions were they representing?). On the contrary, details about grounded theory or how to access to GIs specification documents do not seem so important.

As elements about interviews are sparse in methodology, a part of the results appears to lack of rigor (3.2 and 3.3): readers do not know what the interviews was about, so they cannot conclude if what is developed in the results deals with the overall analysis or if it is just data that was chosen to concur with the authors’ message. Strengthening methodology might contribute to erase that default. Moreover, readers could expect more than verbatim from interviews and authors could be more explicit about the diversity of points of view they encountered. Citations do make the authors’ discourse more alive, but they could be scarcer or better used.

In the end, while the existence of two generations of GIs is interesting to discuss, more could be told about the general greening of GIs and the power of context too: is the integration of agro-ecology something that is proper to new GIs or “old” GIs integrate them too when changing their specifications. For this discussion, see the article of Quinones-Ruiz et al (How are food Geographical Indications evolving? – An analysis of EU GI amendments) in British Food Journal. Plus, a general discussion on the scale of politics could be done: a lot is told about the autonomy of Wales, but few is mentioned about the role of the European Union while it is quite important when framing GIs.

As a non native speaker, I hope that my comments can be easliy understood.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Below you find my observations:

1. I found the paper very interesting. The topic of the paper is innovative, is well written, is correctly organised and the discussion presents some interesting element of analysis. Nevertheless, the paper presents some relevant drawbacks. Considering the quality of the empirical research I introduce some elements that should be considered for publication.

2. Protected food name (PFNs): the authors explain as protected food name are known as origin products or Geographical Indications (GIs). In the paper PFNs as used as synonymous of GIs. This statement should be improved since there are traditional food products that are not registered ad GIs and for this reason they are not protected. Instead, there are GIs that are protected by certification marks (as collective trademarks) and others by sui-generis systems. Because in the paper all the products are GIs is more correct if the authors use this definition instead of the “generic” PFNs. Even if Wales is now out of EU, the term GI is the correct one under the WTO rules.

3. figure 1 is not clear. I suggest using directly the PDO and PGI definition quoted in the EU Regulation 1151/2012 and then make an example, not vice-versa. Moreover, TSG is one Food Quality scheme but is not a GIs because don’t have the status of property right. The GIs status is only for PDO and PGI. Finally, the note “EU, 2019” is not quoted. If the authors are considering to the EU quality web page, please quote correctly.

4. Please stead more clearly the meaning of “agroecology principles and practices” and what type of institutions do the authors consider embedded in the territory.

5. The reference to the concept of territory is correct. However, the concept of Local Agri-food system (LAFS) is more precise in describing the interactions between the agri-food system and the rural environment. If the authors will consider the dimension of LAFS your paper will be more complete. See the article Muchnik, J. Localised Agrifood Systems: Concept Development and Diversity of Situations. In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society, State College, PA, USA, 29 May 2009.

6. The term “regime” is incorrect. The correct one is Scheme. As I already pointed GIs are part of the EU “Food Quality Scheme”.
7. The authors consider PFNs as an instrument to market and promote or differentiate businesses and food/drink products. In reality, this is an indirect goal. NFPs (better GIs as a legislative instrument) is a tool to give consumers the opportunity to differentiate their diet while reducing, at the same time, information asymmetry with respect to product quality. The ability to differentiate the business and be successful on the market, and therefore become a rural development tool, depends on other factors such as the individual ability to manage the business and the collective action that comes undertaken and which does not coincide with the mere presence of institutions. (B. Sylvander; D. Barjolle, F. Arfini, 2000. The Socio-Economics of Origin Labelled Products in Agro-Food Supply Chains: Spatial. Institutional and Co-ordination Aspect. vol. 1-2. Proceeding of 67th EAAE Seminar. Paris: INRA. ISBN: 9782738009500)

8. At line 183, authors make the statement on the action of PFN: “they can also serve as mechanisms that reproduce a fundamental neoliberalist, hegemonic agri-food regime”. This statement is quite strong. Please give more details and motivations that support this statement.

9. Considering the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) socio-technical innovations brings to the issue of governance and theoretical framework. Will be useful for the readers if the authors will give more inside concerning the type of government bodies that should take part to this process (considering the GIs products) and how to make the governance action effective. This is a good point by the authors when they argue as “stakeholders embedded within a territory interact and govern terroir niches that can determine the nature and extent of transition (or indeed stasis and the status quo)”. I agree with this statement but how it goes from the theory to more practical aspects? Moreover, considering the theoretical framework, in order to complete your presentation, I suggest you two references. (i) F. Arfini, F. Antonioli, M. Donati, M. Gorton, M. C. Mancini, B. Tocco, M. Veneziani (2019), Conceptual Framework, In (editors) F. Arfini, V. Belassen (2019), Sustainability of European Food Quality Schemes, Multi-Performance, Structure, and Governance of PDO, PGI, and Organic Agri-Food Systems, Elsevier, ISBN 978-3-030-27507-5; ii) F. Arfini F., M.C. Mancini, (2019), Synergies between localized agri-food systems and short food supply chains for geographical indication in Italy, in (editor) Agni Kalfagianni and Sophia Skordilli, Localizing Global food, short food supply chains as a response to Agri-food system Challenges, Routledge, London, pp. 104-120,ISBN 978-1-138-32736-8).

From these papers is quite clear as there are different LAFS according to the structure of the territory and the value chains. In your research, the issue of the value chains and its governance is almost neglected. There is a specific reason?

10. Considering table 1 “Table 1. List of Welsh PFNs by designation, location and year certification awarded” should be clarified if these GIs products is also on the DG-agri “e-ambrosia website”. A reader can wonder if the designation is under the UE scheme or is under Wales regulation. If is the first case will be better if the author will refer to the EU designation system for GIs products (foodstuff and wine).

11. Considering the case studies represented by the Welsh GIs products, are missing the following information’s:
    • The feature of the code of practice in term of link with to the territory for the use of inputs. By definition, PGI present a light link to the territory, while PDO present a strong link given to the stronger link with the agricultural phase;
    • The description of the value chains (local Vs global). A reader can aspect that local VCs present more agro-ecological attributes then global VCs;
    • The description of the governance bodies (Consortia, Product Organisation, inter-branch organisation) which make effective the governance actions respect to other territorial institutions and to the market.

These aspects complete the real link the Welsh GIs products with their agro-ecological elements and provide to readers their level of embedment. From the presentation, these relevant features are neglected.

Readers can wonder if there is the difference between the “institutionalized rhetoric” and “real features” of Welsh PFNs align with agroecology. Can you say something to this regards?

12. At line 403, authors make the statement as: “discursively, agroecology is not strongly embedded within the Product Specification Documents of Welsh PFNs”. But why the authors do not consider the difference exiting between the PDO and the PGI? Instead, the authors underline the difference between the “old” and the “new” GIs. To this regards is not clear which elements of the GIs structure (product specification, value chain, governance) are more relevant on the 10 agroecological dimensions.

Lastly, the section conclusion is missing, even if embedded in the discussion. Should be set the conclusion following the structure of an “executive summary”.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is interesting and falls within the scopus of the journal.

I have few recommendations in this regard:

1. I think that it is necessary to contextualize more the perspective of agroecology used in the work. The authors use a weak notion of agroecology (FAO), and is contrary to other more transformative proposals.This is important to highlight to contextualize the results in an international debate. See for example:
   The resignification process of Agroecology: Competing narratives from governments, civil society and intergovernmental organizations. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. DOI: 10.1080 / 21683565.2018.1437498
2. There are almost no references to organic agriculture. Organic agriculture is one of the bases of agroecology… I understand that it is not a work topic, maybe some additional reflection would be interesting.
3. The conclusions are not entirely clear, it would still be convenient to separate the discussion and conclusions.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been improved; it is clearer, easier to read and the demonstration is convincing.

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments to the authors, I am happy with the changes made by the authors