The Potential of Geographical Indications (GI) to Enhance Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Japan: Overview and Insights from Japan GI Mishima Potato
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thorough review and comments. Attached please find our response to you.
Kind regards,
Junko Kimura and Cyrille Rigolot
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Even if the paper sounds interesting the whole approach in my opinion is groundless. For your research you should use a qualitative research approach to show the connection between GIs and SDGs. See below only a few points that support this opinion.
To begin with there is no certain assumption to examine. For example, in their introduction authors claim that:
…Gis seem to have an interesting potential for sustainability…
…assume that GIs generally have positive ecological effects…
…possible trade-offs between economic development, environmental preservation and social welfare..
But no one of these statements is examined in detail.
The methodology section is also unjustified, and the design does not comply with any scientific standards. The authors claim:
From 2016 to 2018, one of the authors conducted interviews and fieldworks based on participatory observation in Mishima Bareisho area. In total, 19 stakeholders have been interviewed, each of them several times…. Interviews were very open, without any structured 175 questionnaire, covering all aspects of Mishima potato and GI certification impacts on stakeholders’ activities
In my mind, such an approach lacks scientific proofs to support any conclusion.
In this direction authors conclude that:
GI Mishima Bareisho Potato is air-dried in the production process, it has become a potato with higher nutritional value, potentially useful for nutrition issues of the elders
GI Mishima Bareisho Potato contribute to help people with Asperger's to become independent economically and socially.
By purchasing B-class potato without lowering the price from the farmers, it contributes to support the farmers economically. (However the company is an agricultural cooperative)
All these results are accredited to GI but the connection is arbitrary
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thorough review and comments. Attached please find response to you.
Kind regards,
Junko Kimura and Cyrille Rigolot
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper provides an interesting Japanese perspective on a topic often dominated by EU scholars and EU GIs. The perspective combines literature, policy documents and decisions, and anecdotal evidence. I think this Japanese perspective is novel and a valuable addition to the GI literature.
Good factual background on Japan transitioning from trademark to sui generis system; I did not know this. In terms of literature related to this, you probably want to refer to Bestor in Public Diplomacy concerning Japanese "gastrodiplomacy" and Huysmans in Review of International Political Economy on EU trade policy and GIs; perhaps the Japanese switch to a sui generis system was related to trade negotiations with the EU?
Some copy-editing needed e.g. line 12 "Japan agricultural policy" should be Japanese or Japan's; line 40 "IG" should be GI; line 149 should be GIs'; etc
On line 75, you may want to refer to EU Farm to Fork and/or Green Deal.
On page 2, I think you should refer to the EU regulation EU 1151/2012 in terms of preservation of cultural heritage and rural communities; that would appear to concern the social dimension of sustainability.
For "essentially attributable" in Fig 2, you should refer to WTO-TRIPS, where this wording is coming from.
p.4 line 124 traditional methods: you should refer to Gangjee in World Development
p.4 line 134 you probably want to refer to work by Bowen and Gaytan on Tequila, when talking about export-oriented GIs
line 157-158: provide website URL please
line 199: avoid wild boars and wild deer. Does this really contribute to SDG15? It seems it rather hampers it, since the potato production shuts out wild animals from their habitats.
line 251: employment of disabled people: is this required by the GI product specification? Do all producers do it? Or only some? Is it communicated as a product feature in communication about the GI?
line 268: good that you also mention potential downsides, e.g. imported feed for beef GIs
line 294: what are Teikei initiatives?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thorough review and comments. Attached please find response to you.
Kind regards,
Junko Kimura and Cyrille Rigolot
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Promotion of geographical indications could enhance Sustainable Development in agriculture. However, the paper refers to only one species.
Given that Japan has recently implemented standards for authorizing regions as geographical indications, a comparative study and good analysis with others that have a tradition and good practices in this field should be conducted.
The connection between the geographical indication and sustainable development is not sufficiently and clearly presented.
The applied methodology does not correspond to the standards of an impact factor journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thorough review and comments. Attached please find response to you.
Kind regards,
Junko Kimura and Cyrille Rigolot
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
///
Author Response
--
Reviewer 4 Report
- The title of the paper considers some perspectives. These perspectives are not highlighted in the text of the paper.
- In the Discussions section there are many paragraphs that mention Japan but other scientific papers are cited (lines 312 – 324).
- Figure 3 is not suitable for scientific article with impact factor.
- The paper should include a section of conclusions that clearly highlights the results obtained and the perspectives, as well as the connections between the GI and the SDGs.
Author Response
In the new version of the paper, we have integrated them as indicated below :
1) "The title of the paper considers some perspectives. These perspectives are not highlighted in the text of the paper". Consider to improve in the conclusion the connection between your results and the potential of Geographical Indications to enhance Sustainable Development Goals.
A final paragraph has been included to stress the connections between our results and the potential of GIs to enhance SDGs :
“As a conclusion, the fast expansion of sui generis GIs since 2015 can be seen as a significant and ambitious evolution in Japanese agricultural development policy. On the other hand, the observed “rush" in products’ registration might also raise perplexity as regard the meaning of GIs in Japan and their sustainability outcomes. The Mishima potato case study illustrates how the close connections of GI products to their local environment (natural and socio-cultural) can translate into positive contributions to several SDGs. To enhance the potential of GIs for sustainable development (in synergy with other agricultural policies), the SDG framework can be considered as a useful tool, among others, to support decision-making and to align local action with the context of global priorities”.
2) "In the Discussions section there are many paragraphs that mention Japan but other scientific papers are cited (lines 312 – 324)". Please, adjust according.
To make the discussion clearer, we have specified when references have been developed in a European context.
3) "Figure 3 is not suitable for scientific article with impact factor". Simplify this figure.
We have simplified figured 3 by using a new map of Shizuoka prefecture, without the unnecessary colors of the previous one. Like this, we believe figure 3 is very useful without being too complicated.
4) "The paper should include a section of conclusions that clearly highlights the results obtained and the perspectives, as well as the connections between the GI and the SDGs". See the suggestion at point 1.
A final paragraph has been included to highlight the results and perspectives (in the use of SDG framework) (see response to point 1). (we would not like to develop a longer whole section of conclusions, which would induce some repetitions with abstract and discussion).
We think these revisions have still improved the manuscript, and we thank again all the reviewers.
