Re-Imagining Resilient Food Systems in the Post-COVID-19 Era in Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting manuscript that considers the broad implications of shocks to the food systems from serious illness and injury including Covid-19 for food insecurity in Africa particularly with respect to the loss of income and coping strategies.
This is the second time I have reviewed this manuscript and see that with this iteration it is now classified as a commentary rather than a research article which makes much more sense. This manuscript is simply a summary of the history and current issues facing African food systems.
At Line 86 the text states that secondary data has been analysed. What is this secondary data? Where exactly did it come from? How was it analysed? Even as a commentary it does not offer a great deal of new insight and next to no analysis is provided. I note a statement at the end of the manuscript on data availability is given but this is insufficient.
As I remarked in my first review, readers tend to want to understand the driver for the study and who would benefit from the findings. This is still very unclear as the rationale for the work not discussed. The manuscript would benefit from a few lines of explanation in this respect.
The manuscript is reasonably well structured. The article is quite clearly written with many of the grammatical errors in the first version now corrected. Some of the paragraphing looks rather odd. For example, the paragraph starting at Line 197 is really a continuation of the previous paragraph. There are other, similar examples. I also believe Section 2 and Section 3 should be condensed. Much of the information, especially in Section 2 is very basic and generic. Indeed, the title of the paper focuses on ‘Re-imagining..’ but the part of the manuscript discussing this is relatively short compared with all the background information. Plus, a large section of this is still background information. So a re-balancing of provided information is needed.
Africa covers a very large area. Are their regional differences in the issues being faced and the drivers for change?
Section 5 (Conclusion) starts with a statement regarding mitigating the health effects of Covid-19. This is not a sound opening statement for this final section and would be better rephrased reflecting on the article title and food systems. Suggestions in this section are given on issues within the African food system that require attention but little, if anything is provided on how the issues outlined might be overcome. So more detail is required.
Author Response
Point 1: At Line 86 the text states that secondary data has been analysed. What is this secondary data? Where exactly did it come from? How was it analysed? Even as a commentary it does not offer a great deal of new insight and next to no analysis is provided. I note a statement at the end of the manuscript on data availability is given but this is insufficient.
Response: this as been expanded on in lines 54 to 62.
Point 2: some of the paragraphing looks rather odd. For example, the paragraph starting at Line 197 is really a continuation of the previous paragraph. There are other, similar examples.
Response: this specific example has been addressed, a detailed edit has been undertaken to eliminate all other instances.
Point 3: I also believe Section 2 and Section 3 should be condensed. Much of the information, especially in Section 2 is very basic and generic. Indeed, the title of the paper focuses on ‘Re-imagining..’ but the part of the manuscript discussing this is relatively short compared with all the background information. Plus, a large section of this is still background information. So a re-balancing of provided information is needed.
Response: as can been seen with the tracked changes, several paragraphs have been condensed or in some cases superfluous paragraphs removed to condense these two sections. Sections have also been renumbered and reorganised to rebalance.
Point 4: Africa covers a very large area. Are their regional differences in the issues being faced and the drivers for change?
Response: the article speaks to the differences between and within countries in several places (see for example line 94 – 100; 200-202; 326- 330; 330-336)
Point 5: Section 5 (Conclusion) starts with a statement regarding mitigating the health effects of Covid-19. This is not a sound opening statement for this final section and would be better rephrased reflecting on the article title and food systems.
Response: The conclusion has been revised to address this and comments from other reviewers. The opening line now focuses on the food system and is linked to the article more directly. “While African food systems have already been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the full impact continues to unfold, and its implications will only be understood in months and years to come.”
Point 6: Suggestions in this section are given on issues within the African food system that require attention but little, if anything is provided on how the issues outlined might be overcome. So more detail is required.
Response: Original conclusion and the section immediately preceding it were revised significantly. Attention is given to issues in need to attention to overcome the challenges are spoken to in section 5 see lines 448 – 484) while the conclusion now focuses on future research and monitoring that is needed.
Point 7: the reviewer pointed out that the referencing could be improved.
Some references have been added, and in addition, the reference list has been edited substantially to ensure it is in line with the style of the journal
Reviewer 2 Report
The commentary is relevant and is input for further research and evaluation. An in-depth assessment of the various concepts and their implications, including the impact of COVID 19, is important. Resisilint food systems in fragile environments affected by COVID-19 health crises are very well described in the commentary provided.
However, not only the conclusions but also the proposals for future research and evaluation could be highlighted in more detail.
Author Response
Point 1: not only the conclusions but also the proposals for future research and evaluation could be highlighted in more detail.
Response: Original conclusion and the section immediately preceding it were revised significantly. The conclusion now focuses on future research and evaluation that is needed.
Point 7: the reviewer also pointed out that the referencing could be improved.
Some references have been added, and in addition, the reference list has been edited substantially to ensure it is in line with the style of the journal
Reviewer 3 Report
Well done, congratulations. Please find below some accompanying comments that I believe could improve your manuscript.
General comment(s)
- please double check grammar throughout all of your text
- consider avoiding decimal digits when not relevant and/or conflicting with the uncertainty
Abstract
- please better frame your initial statemen (think of where, why, etc.)
Manuscript
- line 85: please explain and expand a little bit
- section 3.2: any information about the top holders of wealth and extreme poverty / misery? anything about this and its relation with food habits?
- line 367: any reference for such an Agenda?
- following lines: same as above for the other programmes and plans
Non-binding suggestions
- Project and publications from https://unmaking.sites.uu.nl/ (seems fitting the food issues within larger socio-economic / systemic issues)
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652621002353?via=ihub (seems fitting your considerations about food systems, livelihoods, resilience, and the ongoing pandemic)
Author Response
Point 1: please double check grammar throughout all of your text
Response: a language editor has provided inputs, corrects in tracked changes on the text.
Point 2: consider avoiding decimal digits when not relevant and/or conflicting with the uncertainty
Response: Decimals have been removed for percentages. See tracked changes in document
Point 3: Abstract - please better frame your initial statement
Response: First line of the abstract has been revised to be more specific to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Point 4: line 85: please explain and expand a little bit
Response: Expanded with examples of unsustainable strategies "Examples include the sale of productive assets, such as cattle; exploitation of common property, such as the collection of wild food; and the cultivation of marginal land."
Point 5: line 367: any reference for such an Agenda? following lines: same as above for the other programmes and plans
Relevant references have been added.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting manuscript that considers the broad implications of shocks to the food systems from serious illness and injury including Covid-19 for food insecurity in Africa particularly with respect to the loss of income and coping strategies.
This is the third time I have reviewed this manuscript. Whilst I still do not think the manuscript offers much to the scientific community the authors have addressed my concerns adequately and I can now recommend it for publication.
