Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors examine the challenges and opportunities for the further development of the macadamia sector in Malawi, as it could be an alternative to crops such as tobacco, whose production currently follows a downward trend.

The article is interesting and I see its potential to be of interest to policymakers. However, there are several issues that need to be improved:

• Improving readability throughout the article to make it more rigorous would be desirable to further enhance the article (and structure somewhat too). The authors should avoid blunt statements and inaccuracies. In addition, some parts seem to be a bit contradictory or confusing. I would suggest some careful rewriting.
• The paper´s contribution to the literature must be better worked out. I have read the article several times and I am not sure what the exact objectives are. Is the objective of further developing the sector aimed specially at smallholder farmers? Is it aimed at strengthening exports or food security/local consumption or both of them? Why developing the macadamia sector is better than developing other profitable crops´ sectors?
• I have the feeling the section on challenges could be more complete and include additional issues such as the impact of the current level of policy support (or lack of support), the fact that the control of the industry value chain by commercial estates is not ideal (as stated in line 342) or the fact that there may be potential to process finished macadamia products (not yet realized). Additionally, I think the section does not only deal with challenges, but also with opportunities.
• Improving the figures would definitely improve the paper too.

In my opinion, addressing other minor issues listed below could make the article significantly better:

• Line 26: I would suggest including the percentage of the country´s total export value, as in the case of production (and maybe its position within world exporters) here too.
• Lines 26-28: The sentence “the bulk (85%) …” is not clear enough. I would suggest rewriting it carefully.
• Lines 31-33: The third objective is to discuss “the constraints of macadamia production in Malawi for informed policymaking”. Are the authors placing particular emphasis on smallholder production? If so, I would suggest saying so already here.
• Line 74: I would suggest including here the time period in which the National Export Strategy is/was in force.
• Figure 1: I would suggest including in the title that the figure depicts the principal world producers.
• Line 95: The authors state that Malawi is the seventh world producer of macadamia, while in the abstract the say it’s the sixth. I would suggest correcting it where necessary.
• Line 104: Does Malawi at present produce “finished macadamia products”? I would suggest clarifying this point here.
• Lines 185-186: Why is it important to disaggregate into mature and immature trees? I would suggest recalling it here.
• Line 184: Note that you have written 2029 instead of 2019.
• Figure 2: Labels are not fully legible. The figure´s title is not complete, it depicts both area and yields. I would suggest changing it.
• Figure 3: Shouldn´t the explanatory note be written after the figure´s title?
• Figure 4: I would suggest changing the type of graph to fit better the data.
• Figure 5: The figure´s title is not sufficiently informative of what the figure shows. I would suggest improving it.
• Figure 6: The figure has been titled two times. And it can' t be seen properly. In addition, the labels are not fully legible. I would suggest improving it.
• Lines 256-258: I would suggest including the corresponding years.
• Figure 7: A bit confusing. It can' t be seen properly. I would suggest improving it.
• Line 320: The authors state that large estates produce 90% of total production, while in the abstract the say it’s 85%. I would suggest correcting it where necessary.
• Section 5.3: I would suggest including some evidence/insights on the importance of HIMACUL for the macadamia sector.
• Section 5.6: I would suggest including some evidence/insights on the importance of these NGO´s for the macadamia sector.
• Lines 412-422: Is any of the processing conducted in Malawi? If not, is there any likelihood that it will be carried out in the near future in Malawi? I would suggest including more information about this.
• Lines 453-464: The paragraph is a bit confusing. I cannot understand it properly. I would suggest rewriting it in a clearer way.
• Line 491: The authors state that pests and diseases can cause yield losses of up to 100%, while in line 249 the say it’s up to 80%. I would suggest correcting it where necessary.
• Reference number 5 is not included in the body of the text.
• Some references in the body of the text have not been assigned a reference number. For example, references in line 59 or in lines 143-145.
• I would suggest writing certain references in a more subtle way: [19] reported … (line 117), [21] reported … (line 329).
• The reference list should also be reviewed and corrected where necessary.

As far as I can see, the acronyms listed below have not been written in full the first time the authors have included them in the text: GoM (line 119), NTEL (line 127), KE (line 128), AfDB (line 171), AgDevCo (line 285), PM (line 356) and FIDP (line 469). Anyway, I am not sure whether all of them can be written in full. I would suggest correcting them if necessary.

The authors sometimes write numbers in figures, and sometimes in words (see, for example, lines 142-145). I would suggest being consistent and using always the same format.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Line 26: I would suggest including the percentage of the country´s total export value, as in the case of production (and maybe its position within world exporters) here too.

Response 1:  Line 26 is mainly talking about the total production and export value of macadamia in Malawi as of 2018.  We have included the production position (seventh) and value of the 2018 year (£23.5 million).  We have done the same as advised for the exports i.e. position 5 and value at £18.2 million.

Point 2: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? (must be improved)

Response 2: We have rewritten the introduction section and included new information that is setting a tone on why macadamia production is important in Malawi especially among the smallholder producer.  We emphasize on the smallholders given the government’s effort to utilize the crop for food security and income generation.

Point 3: Lines 26-28: The sentence “the bulk (85%) …” is not clear enough. I would suggest rewriting it carefully.

Response 3:  This has been rewritten as follows: The majority (90 %) of this crop was grown by large commercial estates with smallholders pro-duction only contributing about 10 %  of the total crop production.  However, the smallholder sector is vital for the future growth of the macadamia sector in the country.

Point 4: Lines 31-33: The third objective is to discuss “the constraints of macadamia production in Malawi for informed policymaking”. Are the authors placing a particular emphasis on smallholder production? If so, I would suggest saying so already here.

Response 4: The third objective has been updated to reflect the purpose i.e. discusses the constraints of smallholder macadamia production in Malawi for informed policymaking. 

Point 5: Line 74: I would suggest including here the time period in which the National Export Strategy is/was in force.

Response 5: We have included the years in which the National Export Strategy (2013-2018) has been in force and also the National Resilience Strategy (2018-2030).

Point 6: Figure 1: I would suggest including in the title that the figure depicts the principal world producers.

Response 6: Have updated the title of the figure to depict the world producers i.e. Macadamia kernel production depicting principal world producers.

Point 7: Line 95: The authors state that Malawi is the seventh world producer of macadamia, while in the abstract the say it’s the sixth. I would suggest correcting it where necessary.

Response 7:  This has been collected i.e. Malawi is the seventh biggest producer in the world.

Point 8: Line 104: Does Malawi at present produce “finished macadamia products”? I would suggest clarifying this point here.

Response 8: We have included the missing part of a comment by highlighting that Malawi does not produce any macadamia finished products and exports almost all its nuts unprocessed.

Point 9:  Lines 185-186: Why is it important to disaggregate into mature and immature trees? I would suggest recalling it here.

Response 9: We have included the reason it is important to disaggregate the trees: Disaggregation between mature and immature trees is vital because it shows which trees are currently responsible for the macadamia nuts and the potential of the macadamia industry in the future. 

Point 10: Note that you have written in 2029 instead of 2019.

Response 10: This has been addressed to reflect in 2019.

Point 11: Figure 2: Labels are not fully legible. The figure´s title is not complete, it depicts both area and yields. I would suggest changing it.

Response 11:  The figure now depicts both area and yields.

Point 12:  Figure 3: Shouldn´t the explanatory note be written after the figure´s title?

Response 12: We have changed the position and put the text in the right position and highlighted.

Point 13: Figure 4: I would suggest changing the type of graph to fit better the data.

Response 13: This has been updated and now shows a bar graph.

Point 14: Figure 5: The figure´s title is not sufficiently informative of what the figure shows. I would suggest improving it.  We have changed the graph into a bar graph to fit the data.

Response 14: We have improved the title to reflect what is being portrayed in the figure.

Point 15: Figure 6: The figure has been titled two times. And it can't be seen properly. In addition, the labels are not fully legible. I would suggest improving it.

Response 15:  This figure has been updated to reflect the 2019 exports from Malawi.  We have also added a Tiff image.

Point 16: Lines 256-258: I would suggest including the corresponding years.

Response 16:  We have included the years in which the average prices of the imports were incurred i.e. 2013 and 2018.

Point 17:  Figure 7: A bit confusing. It can't be seen properly. I would suggest improving it.

Response 17:  We have edited the figure to be more visible.  But if the original one is needed we can also upload it separately.

Point 18:  Line 320: The authors state that large estates produce 90% of total production, while in the abstract the say it’s 85%. I would suggest correcting it where necessary.

Response 18:  We have corrected the mix-up and commercial estates contribute to over 90 % of the production.

Point 19:  Section 5.3: I would suggest including some evidence/insights on the importance of HIMACUL for the macadamia sector.

Response 19:  We have included the activities that HIMACUL conducts and the Plan Vivo framework with its farmers.

Point 20:  Section 5.6: I would suggest including some evidence/insights on the importance of these NGO´s for the macadamia sector.

Response 20:  The major NGOs working in the macadamia value chain in Malawi are GIZ and AgDevCO.  In the first submission, we included their roles and these remain unchanged.  We have basically edited the section to make sure that it is clear.

Point 21: Lines 412-422: Is any of the processing conducted in Malawi? If not, is there any likelihood that it will be carried out in the near future in Malawi? I would suggest including more information about this.

Response 21:  We have included a new paragraph explaining the potential for processing macadamia in Malawi.

Point 22:  Lines 453-464: The paragraph is a bit confusing. I cannot understand it properly. I would suggest rewriting it in a clearer way.

Response 22:  We have made the paragraph more clear to make sure that it is easy to understand.

Point 23:  Line 491: The authors state that pests and diseases can cause yield losses of up to 100%, while in line 249 the say it’s up to 80%. I would suggest correcting it where necessary.

Response 23:  The error has been rectified and can be seen by the track changes in the main document.

Point 24: Reference number 5 is not included in the body of the text.

Response 24:  We have reworked on the references and now this shows in the body of the text.

Point 25: Some references in the body of the text have not been assigned a reference number. For example, references in line 59 or in lines 143-145.

Response 25:  We have rectified this and assigned each reference with a number.

Point 26:  I would suggest writing certain references in a more subtle way: [19] reported … (line 117), [21] reported … (line 329).

Response 26:  We have edited the text and made sure that this is shown properly.

Point 27: The reference list should also be reviewed and corrected where necessary.

Response 27:  We have corrected everything in the reference list.

Point 29: As far as I can see, the acronyms listed below have not been written in full the first time the authors have included them in the text: GoM (line 119), NTEL (line 127), KE (line 128), AfDB (line 171), AgDevCo (line 285), PM (line 356) and FIDP (line 469). Anyway, I am not sure whether all of them can be written in full. I would suggest correcting them if necessary.

Response 29:  We have corrected all the acronyms that have been used in the manuscript.

Point 30: The authors sometimes write numbers in figures, and sometimes in words (see, for example, lines 142-145). I would suggest being consistent and using always the same format.

Response 30:  We have used the figure of writing numbers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, Araya et al. reviewed the production of macadamia in Malawi, in terms of where and how much is produced and discussed the major constraints. Overall, this is well-written review, which is well-structured, and the citations are current.

 

Minor suggestions:

• Page 8, 255. It is better to change ‘currently’ to the actually year used in the citation.
• Fig 5, the legend needs to explain the countries without “*” or “**”.
• Fig 7, the middle light pink box on the left side is truncated and need legend for the green box.
• Fig 8, it is better to add the year.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Page 8, 255. It is better to change ‘currently’ to the actual year used in the citation.

Response 1:  I believe when we put currently it means that as of now or to date so it fits well to be written in the way.

Point 2: Fig 5, the legend needs to explain the countries without “*” or “**”.

Response 2: We have included the meaning of the “*” or “**”.

Point 3:   Fig 7, the middle light pink box on the left side is truncated and need legend for the green box.

Response 3:  This is not the case as trading is part of the marketing aspect which has been highlighted as part of the value chain operation in the legend.

Point 4: Fig 8, it is better to add the year.     

Response 4:  This has been taken into account and we have added the growing season when we collected the data.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.