Global Investment Failures and Transformations: A Review of Hyped Jatropha Spaces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has some significant content. However, I would suggest some clarifications in the paper that may improve the paper:
It is not clear whether the authors did a content analysis of the works published on Jatropha in the Sustainability journal or elsewhere as well. Concentrating on one journal is restricting.
Curious as to what were the policy instruments used by the government of Mexico to implement jatropha, was there any? The law was there but not sure what were the policy instrument used if at all? Please clarify what was identified as policy instruments? Please also note that the jatropha growth differed from state to state in Mexico and not all state followed similar plans or policy instruments.
Greenhouse gases rather than Green House Gases
Colima etc are states in Mexico and not just centers. Different jatropha plantations came up in different states but not sure if you can call the entire states as center. Please reword the sentence 188 189
4. not sure why at some place it is bio-fuel and biofuel in others
190-191: why did the government strategically promote jatropha? Please look into the Banerjee et al. 2017 ( Sustainable development for whom and how? .... for further details ) jatropha was considered as a tree and could be covered by CONAFOR as a species for reforestation and could be distributed at a subsidized cost to farmers and large plantation owner. The subsidies were substantial and covered a lot of the initial cost of planting jatropha.
Please also cite works on jatropha in English language and in Mexico so that non-spanish speakers can refer to the work
There is lot of generalization in terms of how jatropha policies was implemented in Mexico. It differed from state to state. Thorough research is required.
What do you mean by 'state-led' in 231-232. Nation state or provinces as provinces in India are called state as well.
Please cite sources for the information presented in lines 235-240.
Not sure whether the Government of India had a regulation in place for the 20% blending target? Was there a regulation in place or was it mentioned under the bioenergy plan?
The paper needs intensive work on language, at places it looks likes an undergraduate essay. Please ensure that you use proper names of the government authorities, policy names etc. The writing is very sloppy and no effort is shown towards the correct names etc. What is Tamil Nudu? Agricultural Officers and Experts?Andhra Pradesh State of India? Please ensure that you know about what you are writing.
any of the big claims in the article is not properly cited. Like "Issues about land alienation were virtually absent due to the 295 locals’ use of their own lands and in some cases, government lands." please cite!
The claim that you make in line 517-518 had been made by others as well. Please cite them. It is not your finding. The first paragraph of Discussion needs heavy citation as these claims have been previously made as well (Banerjee et al. 2017 for example).
Figure 2 comes very late in the paper. Please introduce the framework before, present your findings and then connect back the findings with the figure in the discussion section.
The paper needs change in how it is organized.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We wish to thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify issues raised and the valuable feedback and inputs from you. We are glad to note the unanimity of your reviews on the paper. We have critically studied the comments and addressed the issues raised as clear as possible. The specific responses to the comments are as follows:
1. Reviewer: It is not clear whether the authors did a content analysis of the works published on Jatropha in the Sustainability journal or elsewhere as well. Concentrating on one journal is restricting.
Response: This idea to globally review originated from a project dubbed “Impact of Jatropha on rural land use” under Conflict and Cooperation Over Natural Resource (CoCooN) project of Netherlands Organisation for Scientific research. A special issue on Global jatropha Hype was initiated by the consortium members in sustainability journal to solicit and understand the global trends of the jatropha hype. The issues had the hype debate mostly coming from these five countries. Hence, the review of transformation in the five countries. However, it was not narrowed to the special issues only. There were solicitations from other articles published in different journals. We have made some changes according to your suggestion. .
2. Reviewer: Curious as to what were the policy instruments used by the government of Mexico to implement jatropha, was there any? The law was there but not sure what were the policy instrument used if at all? Please clarify what was identified as policy instruments?
Response: There is Mexican bioenergy policy (Skutsch et al; Banerjee et al. 2017) and the promulgation of the Bioenergy Promotion and Development 2008 Act. However, as our review was informed by the Act, we have deleted the policy instrument.
3. Reviewer: Please also note that the jatropha growth differed from state to state in Mexico and not all states followed similar plans or policy instruments.
Response: The manuscript is revised accordingly
4. Reviewer:Greenhouse gases rather than Green House Gases
Response: Change effected according to the reviewers comment.
5. Reviewer: (i) Colima etc are states in Mexico and not just centers. Different jatropha plantations came up in different states but not sure if you can call the entire states as center. (ii) Please reword the sentence 188 189
Response: (i) What we meant was states. Centers replaced with states (ii)
6. Reviewer: not sure why at some place it is bio-fuel and biofuel in others.
Response: Change effected to biofuel according to the reviewers comment.
7. Reviewer: 190-191: why did the government strategically promote jatropha? Please look into the Banerjee et al. 2017 ( Sustainable development for whom and how? .... for further details ) jatropha was considered as a tree and could be covered by CONAFOR as a species for reforestation and could be distributed at a subsidized cost to farmers and large plantation owner. The subsidies were substantial and covered a lot of the initial cost of planting jatropha.
Response: Noted and Revised accordingly
8. Reviewer: Please also cite works on jatropha in English language and in Mexico so that non-spanish speakers can refer to the work.
Response: all cited in English
9. Reviewer: What do you mean by 'state-led' in 231-232. Nation state or provinces as provinces in India are called state as well.
10. Response: State-led revised to Government-led.
11. Reviewer: Please cite sources for the information presented in lines 235-240.
Response: Cited
12. Reviewer: Not sure whether the Government of India had a regulation in place for the 20% blending target? Was there a regulation in place or was it mentioned under the bioenergy plan?
Response: The Indian government declared a National Mission on Biofuels, to drive large-scale implementation of biofuel production. In 2008 the national mission was replaced by a new biofuel policy. The National Biofuel Policy sets a 20 percent blending target of biodiesel to conventional diesel, to be achieved by 2017 (Axelsson and Franzen, 2010; Zafar, 2011).
13. Reviewer: Please ensure that you use proper names. What is Tamil Nudu?
Response: Corrected
14. Reviewer: Please ensure that you use proper names. Agricultural Officers and Experts?
Response: Corrected
15. Reviewer: Andhra Pradesh State of India? Please ensure that you know about what you are writing.
Response: Revision made.
16. Reviewer: any of the big claims in the article is not properly cited. Like "Issues about land alienation were virtually absent due to the 295 locals’ use of their own lands and in some cases, government lands." please cite!
Response: Citations made and the manuscript revised accordingly.
17. Reviewer: The claim that you make in line 517-518 had been made by others as well. Please cite them. It is not your finding. The first paragraph of Discussion needs heavy citation as these claims have been previously made as well (Banerjee et al. 2017 for example).
Response: Revised
18. Reviewer: Figure 2 comes very late in the paper. Please introduce the framework before, present your findings and then connect back the findings with the figure in the discussion section.
Response: Framework moved
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer Comments for Manuscript: Global Jatropha Investments and Transformations: A Review of Hyped Jatropha Spaces
General Remarks:
The manuscript presents a review of the Jatropha as energy crop, investment experiences from six countries. The study revealed that Jatropha investment did not meet the intend goals in all the countries studied because both private and government investors subscribed to the so called “wait and see” approach and the uncertainty associated with such approach.
The manuscript is well structured, have important messages for both the policy makers and corporate bodies, should be of great interest to the readers.
However, the author(s) abstract needs a considerable rephrasing to aid readability and comprehension. The abstract should be standalone enough for one to get the message of the article.
The authors failed to provide adequate argument on how the six countries were chosen.
In addition, there seem to be too many repetitions, some statements were not sufficiently referenced, the conclusion is too lengthy and should be condensed.
I recommend the manuscript for publication after a major adjustment have been considered.
Specific Remarks:
Manuscript
28-31........ this sentence is somehow confusing. Please, simplify. What are your findings, state them specifically? Who are you referring to here, one researcher, two or three?
98 …. which paper?
104 – 105 what is the source that these are the six major investment destinations?
135 – 137 is repetition of 121 - ……
145 Which research?
151 ……” rarity of theory”, please, reference….
258 …………” full financial” …. Something is missing out
340 – 341 Repetition of 333 ……
415 – 416 …. Repetition, please rephrase…
421 ... Please, provide a reference to this policy document.
433 …. GHG’s some places abbreviated, some written in full. Please, be consistent. First write in full with abbreviation and subsequently abbreviate.
453 – 454 …. please, provide a substantial link with the discussion topic.
517 …. Same as above, please, rephrase.
517 – 518 ...… Really?
533-535 …. Really?
548 ….” corporate” do you intend compensation?
551 -552 … Repetition, see 536
“Wait-and-see approach, according to Gordon et al [108], is a deferment option approach.Deferment option approach because of the uncertainties associated with potential allocation information breaches. This uncertainty is the result of the potential vulnerabilities and threats associated with breaches. Due to this uncertainty, it may be rational to take a wait and see approach.”
Please, include this in the text where appropriate and remove it as footnote.
562 …. Punctuate accordingly
564 … Do you mean “decentralized”?
570 – 571 … Is this an assumption? Marginal land does not explicitly say anything on net impact. The argument lack support. Provide your findings.
619 …. Punctuate accordingly
650 … figure quality is poor, provide a clear and legible figure
677 … an article is missing somewhere….
682 … consider using “may” instead of “will” or you rephrase the sentence
693 … Which researcher?
699 … “however, ultimately”?
709 … “underground” is unnecessary consider removing it.
733 – 735 …. What are trying to say here. Rephrase for clarity.
735 – 737 same as above
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We wish to thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify issues raised in the insightful and valuable feedback from you. We are glad to note in unanimity your reviews on the paper. We have critically reviewed the comments. We acknowledge the efforts of reviews and the constructive comments made you. We have however addressed the issues raised as clear as possible. The specific responses to the comments are as follows:
Response:
1. However, the author(s) abstract needs a considerable rephrasing to aid readability and comprehension. The abstract should be standalone enough for one to get the message of the article.
Response: The abstract has been revised accordingly.
2. The authors failed to provide adequate argument on how the six countries were chosen.
Response: We have justified why the six countries were selected amidst other countries.
3. In addition, there seem to be too many repetitions, some statements were not sufficiently referenced, the conclusion is too lengthy and should be condensed.
Response: We have worked on specific repetitions identified by the reviewer. Conclusion has been revised and reduced.
4. Reviewer: 28-31........ this sentence is somehow confusing. Please, simplify. What are your findings, state them specifically? Who are you referring to here, one researcher, two or three?
Response: We have tacitly stated the findings in simple and concise language.
5. Reviewer: 98 …. which paper?
Response: The “paper” refers to this manuscript/article under review. We have changed it to “article”
6. Reviewer: 104 – 105 what is the source that these are the six major investment destinations?
Response: Sources are the drivers influencing jatropha investment as an investment initiative in these major countries. The Jatropha investment is either Government driven initiative or private driven. We have revised according to your review comment.
7. Reviewer: 135 – 137 is repetition of 121 - ……
Response: We have removed the repetition.
8. Reviewer: 145 Which research?
Response: We are making reference to this research. We have revised according to reviewer’s comment.
9. Reviewer: 151 rarity of theory”, please, reference….
Response: Reference provided
10. Reviewer: 258 …………” full financial” …. Something is missing out
Response: The omission was “full financial package from government”. We have rephrased the sentence to ‘full financial support’
11. Reviewer: 340 – 341 Repetition of 333 ……
Response: Line 341 deleted
12. Reviewer: 415 – 416 …. Repetition, please rephrase…
Response: We have rephrased the sentence according to your review comment.
13. Reviewer: 421 Please, provide a reference to this policy document.
Response:We have revised according to your review comment by citing Schut et al., (2013) Mozambique’s policy framework for sustainable biofuel…
14. Reviewer: 433 …. GHG’s some places abbreviated, some written in full. Please, be consistent. First write in full with abbreviation and subsequently abbreviate.
Response: It has been corrected according to your comment.
15. Reviewer:453 – 454 …. please, provide a substantial link with the discussion topic.
Response: We are unable to understand what the reviewer really means. We have however revised the manuscript. Kindly check
16. Reviewer: 517 …. Same as above, please, rephrase.
Response: Rephrased according to reviewer’s comments.
17. Reviewer:548 ….” corporate” do you intend compensation?
Response: “Cooperate” used in the article meant private-led investment or private investment
18. Reviewer: 551 -552 … Repetition, see 536
Response: Line revised.
19. Reviewer: “Wait-and-see approach, according to Gordon et al [108], is a deferment option approach. Deferment option approach because of the uncertainties associated with potential allocation information breaches. This uncertainty is the result of the potential vulnerabilities and threats associated with breaches. Due to this uncertainty, it may be rational to take a wait and see approach.”
Please, include this in the text where appropriate and remove it as footnote.
Response: footnote removed and put in the in the End note of the article.
20. Reviewer: 562 …. Punctuate accordingly
Response: Revised
21. Reviewer: 564 … Do you mean “decentralized”?
Response:Yes, that is ‘decentralized’. We have revised accordingly
22. Reviewer: 570 – 571 … Is this an assumption? Marginal land does not explicitly say anything on net impact. The argument lack support. Provide your findings.
Response: Well referenced
23. Reviewer: 619 …. Punctuate accordingly
Response: Punctuated
24. Reviewer: 650 … figure quality is poor, provide a clear and legible figure
Response: Figure changed for clarity
25. Reviewer: 682 … consider using “may” instead of “will” or you rephrase the sentence
Response:‘will’ changed to ‘may’
26. Reviewer: 693 … … Which researcher?
Response:‘researcher’ changed to ‘we’ for clarity
27. Reviewer: 699 … “however, ultimately”?
Response:This has been removed.
28. Reviewer:709 … “underground” is unnecessary consider removing it.
Response:‘Underground ‘ taken away.
29. Reviewer:733 – 735 …. What are trying to say here. Rephrase for clarity.
Response: Revised accordingly
30. Reviewer:735 – 737 same as above
Response: Revised
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper needs considerable work on fact-checking. There are many places where the information provided is not correct. It is not possible to check every information presented in the paper at the review stage but it needs to re-checked. Some examples are provided in the following points.
The paper needs so many corrections that it is frustrating pointing out mistakes at every point making a complete review impossible. I would suggest a thorough revision by all authors before next stage of submission to save the reviewer's time.
Check the bibliography section for proper citation. For example, S. Sweiz is one of the three editors of the book cited.
The paper needs a good edit and language check.
line 53, space between & and Glantz
Jatropha is capitalized and not in different places, consistency required
Line 62-63: some countries in Europe? It is interesting. The sources cited are cases of Madagascar and Ghana.
Line 71, change Project to project
Line 108, burst or bust?
Line 116 comma between Ethio and Mozam
157-158, 160-161: China being considered as a developing country? Please change to countries that have witnessed major jatropha development.
177- ."
179 content analysis not analytical
Figure one: Jatropha investment sources mentioned twice in two boxes, not very clear how one differs from the other, please change or explain
206 greenhouse gases are GHGs, not GHS
228: not sure what this line means: In states such as Michoacan, Veracruz, Chiapas, Quintana Roo 229 and Yucatan, the use of less fertile lands to poor returns and jatropha could not be used to restore soil
238-239: In Yucatan, jatropha cultivation was orchestrated by large plantation owners. Farmers did not grow jatropha, they rather worked in the plantations. Small scale jatropha cultivation by farmers was not relevant there
243 please cite : The production could not lead to substantial reduction in poverty as proclaimed in many studies but rather deepened the levels of poverty of its actors.
248 : change sentence: 350 hectares of lands were used in two different commercial ranchers to expand the forest : ranches
Michaocan? Michoacán used alternatively.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We wish to thank you for giving us the second opportunity to clarify issues raised and the valuable feedback and inputs from you. We have critically studied the comments and addressed the issues raised as clear as possible.
Thank you.
Richmond Antwi-Bediako
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the improvements on the paper, they look good, Another round of very careful editing at the proofreading stage would be great. There are a range of small errors that still exist for example:
Font size and type mismatch in Fig 1.
Line 308: in the state of Tamil Nadu is better
Line 451: again GHS when previously GHG. Please introduce the acronym when you first use it in the paper and continue using the same acronym in the rest of the paper. It seems to change .
Figure 2 is not clear, tabs are on top on each other, please correct.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We wish to thank you for giving us the third opportunity to clarify issues raised and the valuable feedback and inputs from you. We have critically studied the comments and addressed the issues raised as clear as possible. The specific responses to the comments are as follows:
1. Reviewer: 28-31........ this sentence is somehow confusing. Please, simplify. What are your findings, state them specifically? Who are you referring to here, one researcher, two or three?
Response: Revised
2. Reviewer: 98 …. which paper?
Response: Revised. Cited 22.
3. Reviewer: 104 – 105 what is the source that these are the six major investment destinations?
Response: There were a number of major investment destinations globally. These countries were selected because they served as countries that have witnessed major jatropha development in the world where jatropha investments were intensified through a mix-bag of government and corporate interventions.
4. Reviewer: 135 – 137 is repetition of 121 - ……
Response: I did not see any repetition. Can you elaborate?
5. Reviewer: 145 Which research?
Response: Could not comprehend your comment.
6. Reviewer: 151 ……” rarity of theory”, please, reference….
Response: It was referenced in last revision.
7. Reviewer: 258 …………” full financial” …. Something is missing out
Response: It was revised in the English edit.
8. Reviewer: 340 – 341 Repetition of 333 ……
Response: I did not see any repetition here.
9. Reviewer: 415 – 416 …. Repetition, please rephrase…
Response: I did not see any repetition here.
10. Reviewer: 421 ... Please, provide a reference to this policy document.
Response: Reference provided.
11. Reviewer: 433 …. GHG’s some places abbreviated, some written in full. Please, be consistent. First write in full with abbreviation and subsequently abbreviate.
Response: Revised in the English edit
12. Reviewer: 453 – 454 …. please, provide a substantial link with the discussion topic.
Response: Could not understand your comment.
13. Reviewer: 517 …. Same as above, please, rephrase.
Response: rephrased in the English edit
14. Reviewer: 548 ….” corporate” do you intend compensation?
Response: We are keeping it.
15. Reviewer: 551 -552 … Repetition, see 536
Response: I do not see repetition.
16. Reviewer: “Wait-and-see approach, according to Gordon et al [108], is a deferment option approach. Deferment option approach because of the uncertainties associated with potential allocation information breaches. This uncertainty is the result of the potential vulnerabilities and threats associated with breaches. Due to this uncertainty, it may be rational to take a wait and see approach.”
Please, include this in the text where appropriate and remove it as footnote.
Response: The text was removed in the first review.
17. Reviewer: 562 …. Punctuate accordingly
Response: Revised in the English edit.
18. Reviewer: 564 … Do you mean “decentralized”?
Response: Revised in the English edit.
19. Reviewer: 619 …. Punctuate accordingly
Response: Provided in the English edit
20. Reviewer: 650 … figure quality is poor, provide a clear and legible figure
Response: provided.
21. Reviewer: 677 … an article is missing somewhere….
Response: Revised in the English edit.
22. Reviewer: 682 … consider using “may” instead of “will” or you rephrase the sentence
Revised: Revised.
23. Reviewer: 693 … Which researcher?
Response: Revised
24. Reviewer: 699 … “however, ultimately”?
Response: Revised previously.
25. Reviewer: 709 … “underground” is unnecessary consider removing it.
Response: Removed.
26. Reviewer: 733 – 735 …. What are trying to say here. Rephrase for clarity.
Response: Revised in the English edit.
