The Role of Cooperatives in Improving Smallholder Participation in Agri-Food Value Chains: A Case Study of One Local Municipality in Eastern Cape, South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See word doc with extensive remarks attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Good day Sir/Madam,

Thank you so much for taking time and review our manuscript. Attached is the memo of corrections and the improved version of the manuscript.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article could contribute to the scientific debate about the cooperation of small farms and the role of cooperatives in improving smallholder’s participation in food markets.

However, I have some remarks:

1. The literature review needs to be revised. Why is the definition of a cooperative given in the case of South Africa in Chapter 2.1? Defining Agricultural Cooperatives in the South African Context? Is there any distinctive profile of the cooperative (as an organization) in this country, due to which this organization should be defined differently than usual in science (theoretical discourse) and in global practice (applied discourse)? Also, I missed the new literature review.

2. There is a missing literature review chapter on issues related to the research topic of the article, i.e. about the role of cooperatives in improving the participation of small farms in the market or in food supply chains (many literature sources have examined this issue). On the other hand, it is written about these aspects at the beginning of the next subsection (in Chapter 2.4. Conceptual Framework on Agri-food Value Chain Sustainability). The text written in lines 162-187 does not conceptualize the Framework of Agri-food Value Chain Sustainability.

 3. In Chapter 2.4, the discourse on "the sustainability of the agri-food value chain" is weak, unsystematised, does not provide a clear understanding of what the Sustainable agri-food value chain is, what the essential attributes of the sustainability of the agri-food value chain, what are their dimensions, measurement indicators on the basis of which it would be possible to empirically determine "what is the role of cooperatives <...> in sustainable agri-food value chains"

4. The literature review prepared in Chapter 2.3 lacks the context of farmers' participation in the agri-food value chain through cooperatives.

5. There is a dispute about the authors' claim that "the qualitative study" was conducted. Since the data were collected from 119 smallholder farmers, a semi-structured questionnaire was used for the survey, and the necessary information from the farming household head was also collected, therefore it is a quantitative survey. Moreover, the secondary data was obtained from different sources including scientific publications and government.

6. The results of the empirical research described in Chapters 4.1 -4.2 do not show "the role of Cooperatives <...> in sustainable agri-food value chains", i.e. the results presented in tables 3-5 do not show a connection with "sustainable agri-food value chains"; and, in Chapter 4.4, the results of the regression analysis of the factors promoting the participation of cooperative farmers in the value chain are described. Although the results of the empirical analysis are interesting, they do not relate to the context of sustainability of agri-food value chains.

 7. The title of the article should be corrected (without the word "sustainable") and subsection 4.2 should be deleted.

Author Response

Good day Sir/Madam,

Thank you so much for your contribution to our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript and attached the memo as well as the improved paper.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article title (lines 2-3). Corresponds to the topic and content of the article

Abstract (lines 14-32). In general, it corresponds to the material of the article.

However, there is a wish. I recommend that the authors strengthen this section, more clearly define the relevance of the research, and show its significance not only for the region of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Clearly define the purpose of the research. It is necessary to emphasize the originality and novelty of the results obtained by the authors for countries with a complex history. I also recommend that in the final part of the annotation (lines 31-32) not just give a general recommendation to increase the share of youth and expand state support, but suggest possible ways to solve these problems. In my opinion, this will increase interest in the content of the work. For example, the authors write about the mixed financing of the Land Bank, the importance of advocacy (line 468). These recommendations can be included in the annotations.

Keywords. In general, they correspond to the content and results of the presented studies (line 32). However, I recommend expanding the list by adding an indication of studying the demographic structure.

1. Introduction (lines 34 -73).

The section gives an idea of the direction of research and its relevance. It ends with a general description of the structure of the work (lines 71-73). It’s not entirely clear why readers need this information? I recommend removing it.

2. Literature review and research framework (lines 74-279)

The literature review consists of 4 sections, which fairly fully reflect the results of the literature on the interpretation of approaches to defining the concept and role of cooperatives in South African conditions; Findings from empirical studies of farmers' participation in agri-food value chains. In section 2.4. Conceptual diagram of sustainability of the value chain of agri-food products, the original author's interpretation of the parameters of a sustainable value chain is proposed (Fig. 1, line 216).

Recommendation. It is advisable to complete the literature review by formulating the goals and objectives of the research, the results of which are presented in the article.

3. Materials and methods (279-364).

In general, the section contains fairly detailed information about working methods and has a logical structure. The techniques are reproducible. The research and mathematical processing of the results were carried out at the modern level.

Note: For a clearer understanding, years of research must be added.

3.1. Description of Study Area (280-299) contains a brief but fairly detailed description of the region and some statistical data on population.

3.2. Sampling Methods and Sample Size (300-311). In this section, the authors described their multistage sampling methodology and the approaches they used. The technique is reproducible.

3.3. Data Collection (312-321). Thanks to the approach used, the data obtained by the authors is representative.

3.4. Analytical Framework (322-326)

The section outlines the methods used: descriptive statistics (327-332) and binary models (333-365).

4. Findings and Discussion 364

Note: the section begins with information about its structure (lines 365-370). This is redundant information. It also mentions the econometric models that the authors used to analyze socio-economic characteristics (lines 368-370). I recommend moving this part to section 3 and providing information about these econometric models.

The four subsections that are included in the structure of section 4 contain new and valuable and diverse information about the structure of farms in the region:

4.1. Characteristics of the Studied Agricultural Cooperatives (371-396)

4.2. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Cooperative Members (397-413)

4.3. The Contribution of Cooperative Organizations to Their Members' Welfare (414-424)

4.4. Factors Influencing Participation of Cooperative Members in Agri-Food Value Chains (425-457)

The authors presented the necessary amount of tabular material and figures regarding the research results. Tables and figures fully illustrate the results.

The authors discussed the results obtained and compared them with known literature data.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations (458)

In general, the section summarizes the work done. However, it is written very briefly and does not give an idea of the importance, originality and scientific novelty of the research carried out.

I recommend that the authors strengthen this section and show what is the originality and novelty of their results. Give clearer recommendations in the field of credit policy, promotion of agricultural knowledge, and attracting young people to the agricultural sector and farms.

 

References

The list of references corresponds to the content of the article, is quite complete, and does not contain excessive self-citation. Contains links to 14 literary sources out of 48 over the last 5 years.

Note: The list of references does not contain references to works mentioned in the text: Hazell et al., 2010 (line 49);  Mdoda et al., 2023. (line 285)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good day Sir/Madam,

Thank you so much for your contribution to our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript and attached the memo as well as the improved paper.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Style concerns:

-        Apartheid or apartheid: consistency of use

-        They (ref 17) is another source so should be introduced in name.

-        References in 2.3 are incomplete/missing.

-        ECP…I presume Eastern Cape Province?

-        Table 1 should read Table 2

-        Productive canter

-        5.2 dieses management

 

 

Content concerns:

-        Smallholders randomly selected, but how, not propotionally as the resulting sample size gives different proportions of the subpopulations

-        Most dummy variables are not truly dummies (0/1 or true/false), but nominal variables

-        Quantity harvested: just comparing different crops and produces?? Wat is the value of this variable then….comparing maize with beans???

-        Table 3: due to range of values a median or mean value would be better

-        Table 4: plot size is not discussed and unit of measurement is lacking

-        Position held in coop: 8+35 is less than 119 respondents…did the rest not respond?

-        Table 6: Age is significant , but has a very weak influence

-        Transport availability: only negative on storage; this may refer to the fact that those who have access to transport require less storage

-        5.1 last sentence does not make sense

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Another full spelling and grammar check is needed.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Kindly find the attached responses to your comments. We have included your concerns on the document and the paper went for English editing.

Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors put a lot of effort into revising the article. This improved the quality of the article. However, corrections are still needed in Chapter 2.2. The title of Figure 1 needs to be corrected, as the current one contradicts both the "value chain" and the "supply chain" concept - there cannot be just a "smallholder value or supply chain" because at least several (more or less) actors interact in both chains. As I understand it, Figure 1 is intended to show the participation of smallholder farmers in the value chain through their involvement in the cooperative. Additionally, the first paragraph of chapter 2.4 states that "Agri-food value chains are a set of processes involved in the flow of food from the production site (farm) to the end user (consumer). <...> This chain links a network of key players such as input suppliers, farmers, processors, distributors, and consumers". <...> Agricultural cooperatives enhance smallholder farmers' participation in the Agrifood Value Chain by providing collective strength"). Therefore, it is necessary to clarify what the authors had in mind when writing "Figure 1 below shows the relationship between these actors". The text says "Agri-food value chains", and "Agrifood Value Chain", the terms should be unified.
2.3. The chapter lacks references to literature sources.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Kindly find the attached responses to your comments. We have included your concerns on the document and the paper went for English editing.

Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf