Enhancing the Glopan Food Systems Framework by Integrating Gender: Relevance for Women in African Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper would be interesting and popular nowadays. Authors used related literatures and cited them correctly. In my mind this paper is mainly descriptive whithout concrete results. They collected those documents - 16 -which are related the topic and add their factors. I think it should be necessary to improve it.

Line 443 Table 1; it sould be Table 2

Line 583 Figure 3; it shouldl be Figure 2

Line 644 Figure 1; it should be Figure 2

Line 660 Figure 3; it should be Figure 2

Author Response

Point 1: The topic of the paper would be interesting and popular nowadays. Authors used related literatures and cited them correctly. In my mind this paper is mainly descriptive without concrete results. They collected those documents - 16 -which are related the topic and add their factors. I think it should be necessary to improve it.

Response: Thank you. In lines 137, we provide clarity to indicate that the purpose of this paper is to identify policy actions for integrating gender to enhance the Glopan food systems framework. On line 317, we have provided clarity on the methods and results that we aimed to produce through the analysis. The purpose of latent analysis is to provide descriptive results. On page 10, we have updated the table to include the main overarching themes, which are the Glopan food systems components. Our analysis identified subthemes. These are presented in table 1. These subthemes are the policy actions that can be taken to integrate gender into food systems. Qualitative content analysis aims to systematically transform a large amount of text into a highly organised and concise summary of key results. We explain this on line 421. Analysis of the raw data from verbatim transcribed interviews to form categories or themes is a process of further abstracting data at each step of the analysis, from the manifest and literal content to latent meanings.

Point 2: Line 443 Table 1; it should be Table 2

Response: Thank you for the correction. This has been corrected on page 10.

Point 3:  Line 583 Figure 3; it should be Figure 2

Response: This has been corrected in line 682

Point 4: Line 644 Figure 1; it should be Figure 2

Response: This has been corrected in line 746

Point 5: Line 660 Figure 3; it should be Figure 2

Response: This has been corrected in line 762 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article would make a contribution to the literature on gender and food systems, as using gender as an analytical lens to understand the food system is essential. I am so pleased to see gender analysis becoming more popular and with a potential to reach a wider audience. Using the Goplan framework is a nice approach.

While the authors might have searched Agri-centered databases and found little on gender, that does not mean that there is no literature out there on gender, agriculture and the food system.

1. It is unclear why focusing on these 3 databases is so important. Who is the audience for this paper? Does that audience only read articles found in these databases? The authors cite substantial grey literature from the CGIAR  system, papers that have not gone through the double-blind, peer review process, and that would be easy for anyone to find and learn about gender and the food system (for example easily found in Google Scholar).
2. There are numerous journals in critical development studies (social sciences) that focus on the topics that the authors are concerned about. It is unclear how publications that focus on “specific aspects of the food system” is less relevant than what they are doing.  If the authors examined other databases than their original 3 such as JSTOR or GEOBASE are they sure that no one has done what they are trying to do?  It would help readers to know more about these methodological choices to understand the rationale for the 3 databases and the rigor of the conceptual framework presented in this paper.
3. There are many more conventions that are relevant to gender and agricultural production and trade than the ones listed here (lines 81-90: I list a few below). If the authors look outside these three databases they will find critical analyses of trade conventions that discuss gendered knowledge of seeds to how FDI influences women’s access to and control over land (and these factors are mentioned in Figure 1 on page 3).  There are many more conventions and frameworks that overlap with Goplan, so again, with respect to methodology, why did the authors only choose these particular conventions for their analysis and leave out others?  Would help the reader if the authors could clarify this point.
4. Please see Journal of Peasant Studies – also google the work of Raj Patel at UT Austin and Rachel Bezner Kerr at Cornell University, also see IFPRI papers – Doss et al have a lot of analysis out there on gender and all facets of ag production).
5. The paper needs a conceptual / theoretical framework to situate the argument in the scholarship. Perhaps the scholarship on ‘gender and agriculture’ is the general area of study?  The authors’ cannot assume that readers will know what gender is or how the study of gender (and gender relations in ag settings??) is different from women’s issues in agriculture?  I think that lines 34-56 are getting at theories of gender and agricultural production, but not enough.  This should be expanded upon.
6. Before getting to Section 1.1 Food systems the authors need to state something such as, “in the next section, we……” – it is unclear what the point of lines 93 to 233 offer. Is this just summary and if so, summary that is suppose to fulfill what role in the context of this paper?  How does this content help the reader understand the argument, etc?
7. There is so much written about land and ag investment and this should come out in Section 1.2.1. Again, see Journal of Peasant Studies or Development and Change.
8. Given the substantial amount of financial capital that circulates to enable and expand the capitalist, global food system, a systematic, analytical review of the conventions and agreements that govern these global investment is important. Often production in the food system has an intimate relationship to the mode of land acquisition (such as contract farming, etc). And land acquisition is a specific stage in the food system (as the authors nicely note in the abstract and elsewhere).
9. The authors might look at the following book chapter and/or the conventions listed below which are not in their bibliography but are relevant to understanding women’s role in the food system:

 

Caron, Cynthia M. 2020. “Gendering Work and Labor in the Agriculture Sector, a focus on South Asia.” In: Huang, S. and Ruwanpura, K.N. (eds) The Handbook of Gender in Asia. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pp. 187-204.

FAO Committee on World Food Security (2012), Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems. Rome: FAO, IFAD and WFO, http://www.fao.org/3/a-au866e.pdf.

IFC (2016), Investing in Women along Agribusiness Value Chains. Washington, DC: IFC, https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d19235d7-2ba7-4f7b -b0c6-5198fe9e4d30/Women+in+Agri+VC_Report_FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

ILO (2014), Decent and Productive Work in Agriculture: Decent Work in the Rural Economy Policy Guidance Notes. Geneva: ILO, at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_policy/documents/publication/wcms_437173.pdf.

The authors might also google and then read USAID, World Bank, and other donor documents on responsible land-based investment. Policies and conventions on responsible land-based investment focus on women, land and labor in the service of food production (relevant to this paper).

1. Line 235 could simply state, “The authors used context analysis to ……..”
2. Line 265: If a shortcoming of the literature is the focus on food security and nutrition, why do the authors restrict themselves to guiding frameworks for food security and nutrition and not open it up to all factors that are shown in Goplan? I find this confusing – if Goplan is the organizing principle, then it seems that all conventions that apply to the factors that Goplan highlights should be analyzed. I think this might be cleared up if the authors have an introductory paragraph that includes the following:

 

• Objectives of the paper
• Audience
• What gap in the literature their argument seeks to address
• How this analysis can be used by policy makers, donors etc
• When the results are categorized on page 8, why does it not align with the table? First in the table is agribusiness, but the first discussed is extension. Would help if 3.1.1 is a subheading telling the reader exactly what the categorization is here rather than on previous page.

 

• The paper would be strengthened by a more rigorous discussion of the “so what?” implications of this content analysis. Having examined the discourse, why is this discourse (content) important and how is it important for (again this is a point I raised above – who is the audience and what are the objectives of the paper).
• I don’t understand the Figure on page 15. I think it is Figure 2? But seems referred to as Figure 1 and Figure 3. Once I get to this part of the paper, it seems clear that the point of the paper is to enhance the Goplan framework and how that might be done. Is that correct?  If that’s the main argument, then the title of the paper is misleading.  Right now the title reads as if the authors are creating their own, original conceptual framework, but it appears that they are augmenting or improving one that already exists.  It would help to clear up this point.
• The finding presented in lines 697-701 is very important. However, it assumes that the reader knows the difference between gender and women and what gender is.  See previous comment about the need to theorize and situate this paper in the larger scholarship.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive feedback which provided clear guidance on how to improve and strengthen the manuscript.

Point 1: It is unclear why focusing on these 3 databases is so important. Who is the audience for this paper? Does that audience only read articles found in these databases? The authors cite substantial grey literature from the CGIAR  system, papers that have not gone through the double-blind, peer review process, and that would be easy for anyone to find and learn about gender and the food system (for example easily found in Google Scholar).

Response: We extended our search to Web of Science and JSTOR as suggested and we identified several articles related to gender and the food system. These articles have been integrated into our literature review and analysis. We have revised this section on page 2 and on lines 76 and 77 we indicate that the literature points to the importance of systems approaches to addressing gender equality.

Point 2: There are numerous journals in critical development studies (social sciences) that focus on the topics that the authors are concerned about. It is unclear how publications that focus on “specific aspects of the food system” is less relevant than what they are doing. If the authors examined other databases than their original 3 such as JSTOR or GEOBASE are they sure that no one has done what they are trying to do? It would help readers to know more about these methodological choices to understand the rationale for the 3 databases and the rigor of the conceptual framework presented in this paper.   

Response: 

Thank you for pointing this out. Our intention was not to dismiss literature that only focuses on one aspect of the food system. We have clarified this on page 3 line 114 to indicate that this paper aims to augment the existing literature by offering a lens for integrating gender in the African food system. Our paper attempts to create a framework for understanding the trade-offs women make and identifying leverage points at the intersections of food systems.

We also highlight on page 3 line 103 the approach we used to refine literature. Our focus and interest were on literature related to African food systems. We briefly outline the literature we identified and the general research focus of this literature. 

Point 3: 

There are many more conventions that are relevant to gender and agricultural production and trade than the ones listed here (lines 81-90: I list a few below). If the authors look outside these three databases they will find critical analyses of trade conventions that discuss gendered knowledge of seeds to how FDI influences women’s access to and control over land (and these factors are mentioned in Figure 1 on page 3). There are many more conventions and frameworks that overlap with Goplan, so again, with respect to methodology, why did the authors only choose these particular conventions for their analysis and leave out others? Would help the reader if the authors could clarify this point.

Response: On page 147, we clarify that our reason for using food security conventions is because this is the frame of reference of African food systems stakeholders who are the main audiences of this paper. We use these frameworks because they are the ones that African policymakers are most familiar with because the African agenda has been focused on food security and nutrition. 

Point 4: Please see Journal of Peasant Studies – also google the work of Raj Patel at UT Austin and Rachel Bezner Kerr at Cornell University, also see IFPRI papers – Doss et al have a lot of analysis out there on gender and all facets of ag production).

Response: Thank you for highlighting this literature. We have included and reference all three authors and IFPRI papers in the revised text. 

Point 5: The paper needs a conceptual / theoretical framework to situate the argument in the scholarship. Perhaps the scholarship on ‘gender and agriculture’ is the general area of study? The authors’ cannot assume that readers will know what gender is or how the study of gender (and gender relations in ag settings??) is different from women’s issues in agriculture? I think that lines 34-56 are getting at theories of gender and agricultural production, but not enough. This should be expanded upon.

Response: We have provided a definition for gender on line 49. On line 61 we clarify that we use gender relations theory in the context of agriculture. In this paragraph, we also unpack why a focus on gender relations is important as opposed to women. 

Point 6: Before getting to Section 1.1 Food systems the authors need to state something such as, “in the next section, we……” – it is unclear what the point of lines 93 to 233 offer. Is this just summary and if so, summary that is suppose to fulfill what role in the context of this paper? How does this content help the reader understand the argument, etc?

Response: Thank you for helping us strengthen this section. On line 154, we explain that in the next section, we explain the significance of using a food systems approach and why we use the Glopan framework as an analytical lens. 

Point 7: There is so much written about land and ag investment and this should come out in Section 1.2.1. Again, see Journal of Peasant Studies or Development and Change.

Response: We have included literature on gender, land and agricultural investments on line 224. We have also integrated this into the discussion in line 703.

Point 8 and 9: Given the substantial amount of financial capital that circulates to enable and expand the capitalist, global food system, a systematic, analytical review of the conventions and agreements that govern these global investment is important. Often production in the food system has an intimate relationship to the mode of land acquisition (such as contract farming, etc). And land acquisition is a specific stage in the food system (as the authors nicely note in the abstract and elsewhere).

The authors might look at the following book chapter and/or the conventions listed below which are not in their bibliography but are relevant to understanding women’s role in the food system:

Caron, Cynthia M. 2020. “Gendering Work and Labor in the Agriculture Sector, a focus on South Asia.” In: Huang, S. and Ruwanpura, K.N. (eds) The Handbook of Gender in Asia. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pp. 187-204.

FAO Committee on World Food Security (2012), Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems. Rome: FAO, IFAD and WFO, http://www.fao.org/3/a-au866e.pdf.

IFC (2016), Investing in Women along Agribusiness Value Chains. Washington, DC: IFC, https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d19235d7-2ba7-4f7b -b0c6- 5198fe9e4d30/Women+in+Agri+VC_Report_FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

ILO (2014), Decent and Productive Work in Agriculture: Decent Work in the Rural Economy Policy Guidance Notes. Geneva: ILO, at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_emp/--- emp_policy/documents/publication/wcms_437173.pdf.

The authors might also google and then read USAID, World Bank, and other donor documents on responsible land-based investment. Policies and conventions on responsible land-based investment focus on women, land and labor in the service of food production (relevant to this paper).

Response: Thank you for highlighting these conventions. We have included two additional agreements in the analysis. These are the 2012 Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Land Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security and the 2014 Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems. On line 147, we clarify that wanted to sample food security and nutrition commitments and agreements relevant to the African continent. Our focus on food security was explained earlier. We recognise that there are multiple conventions that exist, however, we only sampled key African agreements and commitments to help us identify policy actions for integrating gender in the food system. Therefore, we narrowed this down by food security to ensure relevance to the African context. In line 411, we indicate that this is a limitation. However, our paper does not aim to assess the conventions themselves, but rather draw on these conventions to identify policy actions that could be taken within the food system to improve gender equality. We clarify this as the aim of the paper on line 137.

Point 10 : Line 235 could simply state, “The authors used context analysis to ……..”

Response: Thank you we have changed this in line 311.

Point 11: If a shortcoming of the literature is the focus on food security and nutrition, why do the authors restrict themselves to guiding frameworks for food security and nutrition and not open it up to all factors that are shown in Goplan? I find this confusing – if Goplan is the organizing principle, then it seems that all conventions that apply to the factors that Goplan highlights should be analyzed. I think this might be cleared up if the authors have an introductory paragraph that includes the following:

a. Objectives of the paper

b. Audience

c. What gap in the literature their argument seeks to address

d. How this analysis can be used by policy makers, donors etc.

Response: We explain earlier why we focus on food and nutrition security. In addition, we highlight on line 140 that according to Ingram (2011), Food systems activities and outcomes contribute to achieving food security as they meet food and nutrition security objectives of access, utilisation, availability and stability over time.

Thank you for providing this guidance. It has helped strengthen our introduction and the purpose of the paper. On line 137, we highlight that this paper aims to enhance the Glopan food systems framework by using international agreements and conventions related to food security and nutrition to inform how gender can be integrated into the components of the Glopan food systems framework. On line 143, we clarify that food systems stakeholders involved in the development of food policies are the main target audience as they could use the enhanced framework presented in this paper to inform how they integrate gender in food systems policies. We further explain on line 144 that this framework attempts to offer a foundation for developing a framework to integrate gender in the African Food system. Providing a gender lens to the African food system will ensure that integrating gender remains a priority of Global debates concerning food systems, particularly as the Global Food Systems summit approaches. 

Point 12: When the results are categorized on page 8, why does it not align with the table? First in the table is agribusiness, but the first discussed is extension. Would help if 3.1.1 is a subheading telling the reader exactly what the categorization is here rather than on previous page.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity of the table. This table has been re-organised to provide more clarity. There is a column for themes which include the themes from the Glopan framework, issues that cut across these themes and the two additional themes we identified through our analysis. The sub-themes are then the concepts we identified through our analysis. We have clarified this throughout the methodology by referring to the Glopan themes as Themes and the concepts we identified as subthemes.

Point 13: The paper would be strengthened by a more rigorous discussion of the “so what?” implications of this content analysis. Having examined the discourse, why is this discourse (content) important and how is it important for (again this is a point I raised above – who is the audience and what are the objectives of the paper).

Response: On line 848 - 871, we discuss some of the implications of the paper.

Point 14: I don’t understand the Figure on page 15. I think it is Figure 2? But seems referred to as Figure 1 and Figure 3. Once I get to this part of the paper, it seems clear that the point of the paper is to enhance the Goplan framework and how that might be done. Is that correct? If that’s the main argument, then the title of the paper is misleading. Right now the title reads as if the authors are creating their own, original conceptual framework, but it appears that they are augmenting or improving one that already exists. It would help to clear up this point.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this. It is correct, we did in fact augment the Glopan framework as opposed to developing a new one. The title and the abstract have been changed to reflect this and the text has been adjusted accordingly including clarifying the objectives on page 3 line 137. 

Point 15: The finding presented in lines 697-701 is very important. However, it assumes that the reader knows the difference between gender and women and what gender is. See previous comment about the need to theorize and situate this paper in the larger scholarship.

Response: The term gender has been explained on line 49 with clarification provided on the importance of gender relations as opposed to a focus on women. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting and relevant paper, and I appreciate your data sources and how you analyzed them. I would like to offer some suggestions for ways to improve (in my view) the manuscript:

*Describe "latent analysis" in at least some detail

*Provide more explicit information on the coding process - i.e. how did you capture references to "gender" explicitly - what words were you looking for? For example, if "fair wages" were mentioned but no mention was made of gender in any way, was that included or not?

*Were themes only counted once across each document, or was frequency within documents counted as well? If so, perhaps include that as another table.

Additionally, each of these issues should be addressed throughout the manuscript - I provide an example to help clarify the points:

Sentence 1 = please provide citation for empirical claim

Line 52 = provide examples of "convenient foods"

Lines 71-72 = don't claim "much literature" does something unless citing multiple sources

Good luck - I look forward to seeing this in print in the future.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions. They assisted to improve the manuscript significantly. 

Point 1: Describe "latent analysis" in at least some detail

Response: A description of latent analysis has been provided in line 295.

Point 2: Provide more explicit information on the coding process - i.e. how did you capture references to "gender" explicitly - what words were you looking for? For example, if "fair wages" were mentioned but no mention was made of gender in any way, was that included or not?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have included a sentence on line 317 to indicate that documents were coded only if they explicitly mentioned women. 

Point 3: Were themes only counted once across each document, or was frequency within documents counted as well? If so, perhaps include that as another table.

Response: In line 383, we explain that themes were only coded once and not in terms of frequency of mentions in a document. 

Point 4: Sentence 1 = please provide citation for empirical claim.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The citation has been provided for line the first sentence on line 29.

Point 5: Line 52 = provide examples of "convenient foods"

Response: Some examples of convenient foods are provided in line 70

Point 6: Lines 71-72 = don't claim "much literature" does something unless citing multiple sources

Response: Thank you. We have removed this statement based on other revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate improvments.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We appreciate the most constructive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of: Towards enhancing the Glopan food systems framework by integrating gender using international and continental agreements: A focus on Africa

The revised manuscript is much improved, and in the opinion of this reviewer, is nearly ready for publication.

TITLE

The title is much better, but remains bit cumbersome. “integrating gender using international and continental agreements” really does not make much sense, especially since the authors recognize that their use of agreements is not comprehensive (which is fine – it would be impossible to comprehensive in a manuscript)

“Enhancing the Glopan food systems framework by integrating gender” would be fine and really is what the argument pertains to.  Readers will learn how the authors used international and continental agreements to create their analytical framework in other sections of the paper.

The authors could use Africa as a keyword – or if they really want it in the title- the sub-title could be: Relevance for African food systems or farming systems or relevance for women in African agriculture (as the article does focus on improving the conditions of women in food production / agriculture).

Enhancing or improving the Glopan food systems framework by integrating gender: Relevance or implications for …. (or something to this effect as the authors see fit – just a suggestion).

BODY

Lines 104-137 and Lines 190-210 are a welcome addition to help the reader understand why or for what reasons this article is important and how the authors conducted their review.

If there is a way to condense the content in lines 146-166 that would be good.  I would focus on GLOPAN only and leave out definitions of terms which could be integrated into subsequent sections that follow.

In addition to sources 30 and 31, Source 15 provides the same analysis / draws same conclusions on outmigration made in lines 262-267.

Very good to include this caveat in Lines 381 to 383.  In my opinion, these lines address the limitations to the study (Section 2.1).  Section 2.1 does not really offer much and since the manuscripts is long, this reviewer does not think removing this section would harm the quality of the paper. Also, the last line of section 2.1 is repetitive (author’s have stated 469-470 previously).

Structuring the results table and the narrative is very helpful. 3.1.1 for example is agricultural production and starts with extension. Organized this way is linear and easier for the reader to understand the flow of ideas.

Very good contribution and emphasis on the issue of women’s control over harvests, crops, land and income etc in lines 768-783.  It is critical that this issue be raised again and again to reach the attention of policy makers, development planners and government officials.

 OTHER

Smaller things such as a thorough spell check (security is spelled incorrectly in the abstract for example). Also, in 136 as the surname starts the sentence does it need to de capitalized? Should Food be capitalized in line 740?  Patel et al (line 930) ---  please have someone (perhaps not an author read the paper carefully to pick up on these small things). Sometime authors spend so much time with a manuscript it is impossible to see such small errors – ‘fresh eyes’ on the manuscript might be helpful (also don’t forget to check spelling and author’s and volume editors’ names in the reference list).

Also, anything that could be done to tighten up the writing would be appreciated as the manuscript is rather long.  Finding ways to shorten sentences and reduce repetition or restating of ideas across the paper would be welcome.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, we appreciate the clear feedback that has significantly improved the manuscript.

Point 1: 

The title is much better, but remains bit cumbersome. “integrating gender using international and continental agreements” really does not make much sense, especially since the authors recognize that their use of agreements is not comprehensive (which is fine – it would be impossible to comprehensive in a manuscript)

“Enhancing the Glopan food systems framework by integrating gender” would be fine and really is what the argument pertains to.  Readers will learn how the authors used international and continental agreements to create their analytical framework in other sections of the paper.

The authors could use Africa as a keyword – or if they really want it in the title- the sub-title could be: Relevance for African food systems or farming systems or relevance for women in African agriculture (as the article does focus on improving the conditions of women in food production / agriculture).

Enhancing or improving the Glopan food systems framework by integrating gender: Relevance or implications for …. (or something to this effect as the authors see fit – just a suggestion).

Response: We have revised the title in line with the reviewer's recommendations. The title now reads: Enhancing the Glopan food systems framework by integrating gender: Relevance for women in African agriculture. Africa has been included as a keyword.

Point 2: Lines 104-137 and Lines 190-210 are a welcome addition to help the reader understand why or for what reasons this article is important and how the authors conducted their review.

If there is a way to condense the content in lines 146-166 that would be good.  I would focus on GLOPAN only and leave out definitions of terms which could be integrated into subsequent sections that follow.

Response: We have condensed this section by removing unnecessary examples and definitions. 

Point 3: In addition to sources 30 and 31, Source 15 provides the same analysis / draws same conclusions on outmigration made in lines 262-267.

Response: We agree and have removed these lines in the introduction as we feel they add more value to the discussion.

Point 4: Very good to include this caveat in Lines 381 to 383.  In my opinion, these lines address the limitations to the study (Section 2.1).  Section 2.1 does not really offer much and since the manuscripts is long, this reviewer does not think removing this section would harm the quality of the paper. Also, the last line of section 2.1 is repetitive (author’s have stated 469-470 previously).

Response: This section has been removed to assist in condensing the paper.

Point 5: Structuring the results table and the narrative is very helpful. 3.1.1 for example is agricultural production and starts with extension. Organized this way is linear and easier for the reader to understand the flow of ideas.

Very good contribution and emphasis on the issue of women’s control over harvests, crops, land and income etc in lines 768-783.  It is critical that this issue be raised again and again to reach the attention of policy makers, development planners and government officials.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. It assisting in rethinking how we could improve the organisation of the results. The literature proposed also improved the discussion and implications.

Point 6: Smaller things such as a thorough spell check (security is spelled incorrectly in the abstract for example). Also, in 136 as the surname starts the sentence does it need to de capitalized? Should Food be capitalized in line 740?  Patel et al (line 930) ---  please have someone (perhaps not an author read the paper carefully to pick up on these small things). Sometime authors spend so much time with a manuscript it is impossible to see such small errors – ‘fresh eyes’ on the manuscript might be helpful (also don’t forget to check spelling and author’s and volume editors’ names in the reference list).

Also, anything that could be done to tighten up the writing would be appreciated as the manuscript is rather long.  Finding ways to shorten sentences and reduce repetition or restating of ideas across the paper would be welcome.

Response: Thank you for picking up the editorial errors. We have reviewed the paper again critically to shorten sentences and reduce repetition. We also invited a colleague to review the paper to assist in picking up minor errors.