Toward a Feminist Agroecology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent, very complete and cogent critique of HLPE´s Agroecology principles´ faulty lack of attention to gender and social connectivity beyond markets.   The critique opens many doors for re-thinking how agricultural "development" is conceived and assessed, by focusing on agricultural development´s social impact on society, including not only women but all marginalized members of national societies, including Indigenous Peoples.    This incisive paper should be required reading in all agricultural universities,  agriculture extension services, international development banks and other financial institutions,  NGOs and ministries. 

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for their thoughtful reading and kind words concerning our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article presents a thorough discussion of the strengths of agroecology and how gender-responsive, feminist approaches would strengthen the aims of agroecology. The article is well-organized and convincing in first discussing the shortcomings of agroecology for women if applied without a feminist lens, and then outlining how feminist approaches would meet the needs of women.

One concept that needs to be reworked is intersectionality. The piece seems to bring some attention to other factors like class and caste. But the piece does not bring a robust intersectional lens that examines how these factors intersect. I suggest understating intersectionality and articulating that the paper primarily focuses on gender, with some attention to other socio-political dimensions that also play a role and intersect with gender.

A more minor suggestion: I found confusing the numbering of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 within and against numbers 1-13. Perhaps remove the 3.1 3.2, 3.3 numbers and just use subheadings; or restart the numbering within each section: 1-2, 3-7, 8-13 would become 1-2, 1-5, 1-6.

Author Response

This article presents a thorough discussion of the strengths of agroecology and how gender-responsive, feminist approaches would strengthen the aims of agroecology. The article is well-organized and convincing in first discussing the shortcomings of agroecology for women if applied without a feminist lens, and then outlining how feminist approaches would meet the needs of women.

• Response: Thank you to Reviewer 2 for their astute and thoughtful suggestions.

One concept that needs to be reworked is intersectionality. The piece seems to bring some attention to other factors like class and caste. But the piece does not bring a robust intersectional lens that examines how these factors intersect. I suggest understating intersectionality and articulating that the paper primarily focuses on gender, with some attention to other socio-political dimensions that also play a role and intersect with gender.

• Response: We have de-emphasized reference to an intersectional lens in our analysis, instead focusing on gender with some attention to other aspects of social inclusion and marginalization. We have also included an invitation to further the analysis presented in this paper with a more thoroughly intersectional lens in future works. You can see this change on page 4, where we have added these two sentences: “We center our analysis on gender and the importance of building gender-just agroecological practices and policies, while recognizing the significance of other socio-political dimensions (e.g. age, caste, ethnicity) that intersect with gender in creating the complex power dynamics that embed agroecology. In so doing, we call attention to the importance of an intersectional, nuanced approach, and invite expansion on the analysis presented here through a more thoroughly intersectional lens.”

A more minor suggestion: I found confusing the numbering of 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 within and against numbers 1-13. Perhaps remove the 3.1 3.2, 3.3 numbers and just use subheadings; or restart the numbering within each section: 1-2, 3-7, 8-13 would become 1-2, 1-5, 1-6.

• Response: We have removed the numbering from the subheadings, leaving only the 13 principles numbered, and have made these numberings clearer by stating “principle 1,” “principle 2,” etc.