Protected Geographical Indications for EVOO in Tunisia: Towards Environmental, Social, and Economic Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a text that presents an evolution and diagnosis that seeks the implantation of a GI of EVOOO in Tunisia. The central theme of the text is relevant today in the modernization of rural areas, and especially in non-European producing countries, with a socio-economic context of agriculture in the process of modernization.

The main problem of this paper is that it fails to achieve the objectives it sets, because it has significant deficiencies both at a theoretical and empirical level.

1. At the theoretical level there is a total absence of the important contributions and scientific literature on this subject and in specifically on the GIs of EVOO. In fact, the authors consume a large part of the Introduction and Materials and Methods epigraphs presenting a topic sufficiently studied by the specialized scientific literature, and what is more serious, without mentioning the most relevant authors from France, Italy and Spain. It is advisable to introduce the contributions to the GIs of authors such as: (Bérard, L. and Marchenay, P; Giovanni Belletti; Javier Sanz, Carmen Lozano and Encarnación Aguilar, among others).

Another example of the low theoretical solidity is defining the concept "strategy" (p. 6) so used in sociological analyzes and also forgetting to cite in the bibliography the classic reference of its author: Porter (1985).

In this level, it is necessary to rework the specific contribution of this study in relation to the specialized scientific literature.

2. At the empirical level: The text lacks an empirical basis on which the diagnosis is based. In the Materials and Methods section, the data of the fieldwork carried out is not mentioned: period, works areas, social actors, etc ...

The bases of the SWOT analysis methodology used for the diagnosis are not explained either. This absence of the empirical basis invalidates the results of the text.

In this level, an in-depth presentation on the analysis method used is required, indicating its value for the diagnosis that is presented. It is also necessary to present the characteristics of the field work and the nature of the data collection and composition of the sample used.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic – how to reach sustainability of an olive oil PGI in Tunisia is interesting, appropriate.

However, in order to be published, the paper needs a full and deep restructuring to clarify its structure and contribution to the scientific debate.

The methods you use are not clear at all – where the data you used in the SWOT come from?

Also increase the number of references you use to justify your claims and discuss your results (many authors already dealt with olive oil GI…).

At the moment, it is very descriptive, vague, not based on data/reference.

 

Just a few other remarks:

 

Abstract

Line 19 - Given the growing demand

This is an assumption or a conclusion? Better rephrase this sentence to clarify.

 

Line 24 - The final outcome, as well, should aim at

This sentence is not clear. In general, the abstract should be more straight forward – your question – your methods – your results

 

Introduction

 

Line 38 - this trend

Replace “this” with “the”

 

Line 54 - quality product registers

Specify

 

Line 57-60

Sentences are not clearly organized.

 

All over the paper:

Use systematically “GI” abbreviation after the first full mention.

 

Table 1.

Better to use an olive oil PGI example.

 

Line 78 - IPRs

Spell out or introduce the acronym

 

Line 88 - several

Better to quantify

 

Line 92 - Geographical indication protection extends

Specify where (outside EU)

 

Table 2. 


There should be several references to justify this table.

 

Line 132

Add reference

 

 

Material and Methods

 

This section refer to the geog context, not to the methods used by the authors. You should instead present your methods (Swot analysis,…), in a brief/referenced way. Where the elements/data included in the SWOT come from?

 

Discussion

 

Table 6. PGI for Tunisian olive oil and SDGs.

This should be summarized and put in the results.

 

In the discussion session, better to discuss your results with the one of other authors, eg Marescotti et al. 2020. Are Protected Geographical Indications Evolving Dueto Environmentally Related Justifications? An Analysis of Amendments in the Fruit and Vegetable Sector in the European Union

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.Introduction

The aim of the article is not mentioned. We suggest the authors to specify in a clear and detailed manner the aim of the study, in the end of Introduction paragraph.

We also suggest the authors to document the introductory paragraph with more references from literature.

2. Materials and Methods

In this paragraph are presented lots of data, but one cannot identify nor the materials used or the implemented methodology. We suggest the authors to complete this paragraph with a clear mentions of both materials used for the study and a description of the methodology.

We also suggest the authors to replace Table 3 with a graphic representation.

 

5.Conclusions

The paragraph is too long, and one could hardly identify clear conclusions. We suggest the authors to rearrange the text and introduce large part of it in Discussions section.

We also suggest the authors to present clear and concise conclusions, which emphasize the results of the study, the importance of the results, and originality brought by the work to the present knowledge in the approached field of research.

 

6.Bibliography

The bibliographic list contains only few references. We suggest the authors to make better documentation on the field of research, and complete the references list with the new documented texts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The text has been adequately revised by the authors, taking into account the recommendations . However, it dont show the contributions of the text in relation to the existing debate on GIs. It still does not include relevant bibliography of Italian and Spanish authors. Despite this, the improvements made are valued and their publication is recommended,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been highly improved, but I still recommend working on the paper to better clarify the message and streamline the paper.

The introduction is too long and descriptive. it should be shortened to focus in a more straightforward manner on the problem that the paper is addressing.

you should probably precise this central idea: "the actual potential of the existent denominations and the creation of new GIs is still largely under-exploited” line 204

Table 1. could be more comparative, focusing on differences. 

there are 2 Table 2. By the way, in the aim of streamlining the introduction, I suggest removing the first Table 2 (Potential benefits of registering and promoting Geographical Indications), since the ideas are already included in the text of the paper.

Overall, this final part of the introduction could be better formulated and anticipated (when you introduce GI system and development) and you could end your introduction with a clearer statement of the gap in the literature and the aim of your paper (including the relation with the existent GIs).

What is exactly the “new” PGI you analyze and suggest? does it refer to several new GIs in Tunisia or to a new one on a larger/nationwide territory? it is currently unclear and lost in the long introduction.

the first paragraph of section 3 (from line 402) is unclear (English to be checked too).

in the results section, you could cite your data source.

the territorial dimension of the GI could be better analyzed to show the consequences of the definition of a GI area.

it could be interesting to clarify the potential of the GI in terms of international trade and protection. What is the present legal framework (Are the 2 GI on EVOO registered in EU?) and the one that would best fit the development of the GI? What is missing?

what is the potential of the GI in the internal/international market? weakness in terms of changes of local tastes and consumption habits?

discussion of your findings in light of recent literature is still poor.

be careful in using the pronouns in a scientific manner, e.g. to reach our objective (line 762)

carefully check the next version to avoid typos/layout errors, e.g.: 

line 120: sector1 

line 142: GIs system

line 164: , ,  

line 408: It’s began

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

We suggest the authors to specify in a clear and detailed manner the aim of the study, in the end of Introduction paragraph.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf