Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Biocultural Heritage: Addressing Indigenous Priorities Using Decolonial and Interdisciplinary Research Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

It is a very important topic, closely linked also to the objectives of both Biodiversity and the F2F Strategy and the recent issues of agricultural policies.

The paper is a very good synthesis of the results achieved so far, however; the aim is not clearly stated in the introduction.

I propose to the Authors that their conclusions be presented in a separate chapter, as these are set out in the Discussion section, and that a table be prepared for the material and method chapter to make it easier to review the method and information and data source used.

In this form this paper is similar to a project summary.

Author Response

The aim has now been clearly stated in the Introduction. 

A separate conclusions section has been added. 

The materials and methods section was significantly simplified by focusing on the results of only 1 project - so a table is no longer needed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

1The manuscript is very interesting. It have provided a ton of interesting information from different perspectives. However, I feel like the manuscript is too long and many information or statement are repeat presented. Moreover, I have some questions for the authors

 

11. The manuscript is a brief report of the workshop. There are many interesting and useful information, especially in the Result part. However, there is no quantitative analysis, and the research questions are not clear.

 

2. The parts of paragraphs 1–3 of Introduction (l. 30–81) are duplicate to the methodology and result part. This information could be shortened.

3. Is it necessary to use capital ‘I’ and ‘P’ for the word ‘Indigenous People’

4. Is the detail in l. 333–344 necessary?

5. Since the result of the manuscript is most based on the quote of the participants. It would be good if the authors could provide more information about the background of the key informant.

6. Line 407, it should be number 2.

7. Please choose one between “eg.” and “eg”.

8.       The Table 1 represents un-construct data which hard to compare between three columns. It would be more understandable with row name.

9.  It would be good if the author could add the conclusion part.

Author Response

The paper has been significantly shortened - from 25 pages to 20.5 pages in total. Repetition has been significantly reduced. 

Some quantitative data has been added to the Results section. The issues/questions explored through each workshop have been clarified.

Paragraphs 1-3 of the introduction have been shortened and repetition reduced

Yes it is necessary to have capital I and P for Indigenous People in accordance with ethical best practice.

The detail in 333-344 has been deleted.

A bit more information about the key informants has been provided.

The subheading has been corrected to 2.

Have chosen eg.

Table 1 has been deleted.

Conclusion has been added

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

In this article, Swiderska and colleagues argue that the study and protection of Indigenous food systems requires a decolonial, biocultural approach. They present some core research questions and methodological framework for such an approach, on the basis of the results of several international zoom workshops conducted in 2020 and 2021. While the authors seem to have had a variety of productive discussions with Indigenous rightsholders and experts, the article is very long, repetitive, and poorly organized. As such it was unclear to me what the primary conclusions/recommendations of the article were, other than that Indigenous food systems are threatened and decolonial, locally-led approaches are needed. However, these are not novel ideas—what we need to know is the specifics of how this research advances our understanding of these issues and how to approach them.

 

In moving forward with this article I strongly recommend that the authors should reorganize and considerably shorten the article so that it is more focused on what the authors feel are the most important findings from the workshops, so that the novelty and implications from this work emerges more clearly.

 

To improve the clarity and focus of the results section, perhaps some tables summarizing the key themes raised in each of the workshops, with representative quotes from participants, and showing how many participants raised certain issues, would be more effective at communicating the results than the current text. I think some of the most important and novel points within the paper are rather buried in the results section and not well highlighted; for instance, the three key issues that the global workshop participants stressed as priorities (line 556). This seems like an important finding that should be mentioned in the abstract. 

 

At various points in the text, I got the impression that the authors were essentializing or homogenizing Indigenous peoples (e.g., lines 129, 199, 233, the results section). I think this is because of the lack of clarity in the presentation of the results, in particular, that they jump around from discussing specific case studies to the shared concerns of participants in the global workshops. Again, I think restructuring of the article could assist with fixing this issue. Could the authors present more clearly what concerns, ideas, practices were shared amongst the (global or comparative) workshop participants and what differences there were, as well as being more clear about when they are talking about the concerns and beliefs of specific groups, as in the Quechua case study? Perhaps the results from the case studies and the global workshops (e.g, elaborating an locally-specific appropriate approach for Potato Park, and determining shared concerns and frameworks for Indigenous food systems more broadly) might be presented in separate sections of the results, and then more explicitly compared and summarized in the discussion?)

 

I would also like to see some more information on how the workshops were structured (i.e, data collection methods). Were there specific discussion questions that were addressed? Did participants prepare presentations beforehand? Was it a more free-form discussion? 

 

The introduction and discussion were quite repetitive and not well-connected to the results section, and much of the results section itself seemed to already be discussion (or even future plans for research), rather than summarizing the workshop findings. The last few pages of the discussion read more like an introduction to the topic than a discussion of the results of this particular paper. 

 

 

Author Response

The article has been shorted by 4.5 pages, repetition reduced or eliminated and structure of the Results section has been revised.

A table summarising the findings has been added to the Results section.

The abstract has been revised to better reflect important and novel points including the 3 key issues stressed at the global workshop (line 556).

References to Indigenous Peoples have been checked to make the results more specific where relevant. The Results section has been restructured to make the text clearer. There is now 1 section with the findings of the global workshop and another section with the findings of the local workshops. Differences have been highlighted in relation to specific groups. 

Information about the key workshop themes and nature of presentations and discussion has been added. 

Repetition between the Introduction and Discussion has been greatly reduced or removed, and these sections have been more explicitly connected to the results. Discussion text has been taken out of Results and moved to discussion, and summary of workshop results has been added to the Discussion. Some text from the last few pages of the Discussion has been moved to the introduction and some text has been deleted. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript as suggested and clearly answer the questions. The manuscript is interesting and hope you could continue your project in other countries.

Author Response

I'm afraid that the draft that you reviewed was not the final draft. I had to accept the changes to continue working on the document as there were so many changes,  but was not able to upload the version with changes accepted, so I sent it to Bianca Bode by email. Will try and upload the correct version again now - with the full conclusions section (1 page).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx