PCLM-D-24-00021

An intercultural approach to climate justice: a systematic review of Peruvian climate-food policy

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Arotoma-Rojas,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The topic being addressed by this paper is relevant, important and timely. Nevertheless in order to be accepted, there is a need to provide more background in relation to the appropriateness of the method used. In particular the paper should clearly clarify why the textual occurrences of the search terms in the sampled paragraphs provide adequate levels of analytical insight or robust analysis in relation to the concept of justice or of differences in justice. Moreover, the paper should discuss the relation between the occurrence of key terms in policy documents and the concept of “recognition” considering that one of the reviewers questions the appropriate use of the term when dealing with justice discourse and analysis. Finally, there is a need to explain further the rationale behind the search-term design (keywords) which has implications on the results of the analysis. Please find below additional comments that you should consider when re-submitting your document.

=============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ana Maria Loboguerrero

Section Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that Funding Information and Financial Disclosure Statement are matched.

2. In the Funding Information you indicated that no funding was received. Please revise the Funding Information field to reflect funding received.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This topic described as the focus of this manuscript---an intercultural approach to climate justice (with regard to climate-food policy in Peru)---treats a timely, important, and relevant area of research and policy. The authors are clearly knowledgeable and the lead author in particular appears to have developed insightful experience and experience in the particular topic of the manuscript. To undertake the study, the authors identified 541 paragraphs from 21 policy documents based on keywords and then, using another set of keyword searches they characterized each of these paragraphs according to keyword searches according to 2 sets of criteria: (1) a hypothesized difference-gradient of justice derived from search-term results categorized as "general mentions", "recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ characteristics", "recognition of Indigenous knowledge", and "recognition of Indigenous Worldviews" and, also, (2) type of justice. The resulting characterizations then comprise the basis for the Results section and sub-sections and the basis for discussion and conclusion.

While the topic and approaches are interesting, important, and relevant, the search term-based research design and analysis do not provide adequately rigorous results on either climate justice or climate-food policy. The textual occurrences of the search terms in the sampled paragraphs do not provide adequate levels of analytical insight or robust analysis as indicators of justice in general nor as specific indicators of differences of justice.

Additonally, while using paragraphs as the unit of analysis provided a larger sample size than the small number of policy documents, it is unclear how the paragraph-level results then correspond to the specific individual policies, the governance associations of these policies (different ministries), or other potential forms of policy analysis between textual occurrences.

More broadly and similarly important, the occurrence of key terms in policy documents is not equivalent to “recognition” in the usual analysis and interpretations of justice (note that “recognition” is used in the framing/justification, interpretation, and analysis of the manuscript)---this is a major flaw in the current design and claims of the manuscript. “Recognition” in justice discourse and analysis typically refers to legal uses and specific meanings and constructions in laws and legal documents. It is not valid or in this reviewer’s perspective an ethically sound or well-advised idea to base justic research on climate policy on the assumptions that textual occurrences in a policy document are necessarily a valid and verifiable form of recognition related to justice.

Since text in policy documents can be geared toward presentational strategies rather than legally binding recognition, the interpretation of the occurrence/s of a search term in a policy (see above) risks unintentionally reaffirming the use of token-like linguistic representations (= the use of language in policy documents to suggest inclusiveness and satisfy audiences or readers without there actually being benefits) rather than capacities or enabling of rights, access, or wellness benefits.

There are also significant research problems with sample size (both overall and in key sub-categories, such as 1 example of an “Indigenous Worldview” perspective), search terms (an oversight suggested in the finding of no Indigenous People in the Andes), and the lack of adequate focus in the analysis on interculturality/critical interculturality (it is not clear if or how the search-term design that is the basis of this study reflects this perspective) or climate-food policy (it is not clear if these refer to a combination of climate policies and food policies or, if as suggested in the title, there is a focus on the policies with intersecting/combined climate-food focus).

Reviewer #2: The paper addresses a very important and topical issue, namely indigenous peoples' active participation in climate change policy processes. The manuscript is OK but I suggest the following to make it a more substantial contribution:

Line 104, spell NAFTA fully and then put NAFTA in parenthesis. Subsequently it can be referred to as NAFTA.

Line 159, can you explain what critical discourse analysis is, or at least direct the reader to where s/he can find out more?

The dual approach is good – well done.

Table 2 – it would be far easier for the reader if you were to present the policies by year so that they match the order as appears in fugue 4 i.e. policies from 2012- 2023. Then when you mention the policies e.g. line 281 and the Intercultural Health policy you can add the year in parenthesis so that the reader can more easily look in the article for other references to this policy.

Line 227, do you not mean Fig. 2 AND Table 2.

Line 245, the National Plan of Family agriculture does not appear in Table 2 although the other two policies do. Please check this.

Line 309, the issue of scientific validity (indigenous versus so-called scientific) is worth exploring more. It is linked to issues of equity and justice and whose voice counts.

Line 437, the authors refer to the the Gender Climate Action Plan, while it may seem a trivial point it would (again) be easier for the reader if a date were attached to the policy so that it links to Tabl2 and also make sure to you use the same name as in Table 2 (in the table it appears as Plan of action in gender and climate change in Peru).

Lines 471-473, please expand on this point as increased indigenous peoples’ active participation in policy fora is essential, what is happening in Peru that could be of interest to other parts of the world where similar problems of ‘under-representation’ etc. exist. This section is a discussion as well as conclusion so I suggest exploring more your results in the context of the material you cite in the text between lines 476 and 483.

Lines 494 – 495, few would argue that “solutions to climate change should privilege Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and priorities”. The key thing is what does your research suggest as ways forward to make this a reality?

Line 500, you refer to indigenous world views having been more recognized in the Intercultural health policy (and others); how come? What was different when it comes to these policies that fostered this greater recognition? What steps can be taken to ensure meaningful indigenous participation etc. (lines 503-504). Please provide more information on the Indigenous Peoples’ Platform against Climate Change (lines 507 and 508).

Some of the references are not complete. Please double check. One example is reference no. 1.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

An intercultural approach to climate justice: a systematic review of Peruvian climate and food policy

PCLM-D-24-00021R1

Dear Miss Arotoma-Rojas,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'An intercultural approach to climate justice: a systematic review of Peruvian climate and food policy' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Ana Maria Loboguerrero

Section Editor

PLOS Climate

*******************************************************