| 1.
Participation (functional involvement of stakeholders and collective project management) |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Number and type of stakeholders involved
|
Involvement of government representatives as core partners that allowed for stimulating the public debate on GIs
|
Lack of national farmer organizations participation in both South Africa and Namibia: GIs not on farmers’ national agenda yet |
- |
| Actual role of stakeholders in project implementation |
Good complementarity among partners with contribution of each stakeholder in the different steps of the project according to competencies |
Much stronger IPR related competencies in South Africa than in Namibia both inside and outside that resulted in more concrete progress |
- |
| Number and role of steering committee meetings |
Capacity to develop participatory research process through regular reassessment |
- |
- |
| Project governance structure |
Good communication among partners (small number of core partners and strong interest in GI related issues)
Different core partners identified as resource person by the different participating industries |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
Knowledge Management (sharing, learning and exchange) |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Number of people reached |
Number of people reached by awareness creation of GI and Duras project through popular publications = 752 365
Number of people reached by submitting project and methodology to peer review = 9 895
Number of people reached by in-depth discussion of project during workshops = 135
Number of private individuals (not research partners) actively participating in GI development as a result of this project = 15 |
- |
- |
| Frequency of GI related meetings organized with the different industries |
Through the meetings, industries, in particular the rooibos industry, have taken ownership of the GI initiative. Meetings with a task team selected by the Industry took place bi-monthly. |
Given the lack of knowledge and skills especially from public bodies, need for research involvement to trigger GI initiative |
- |
| Implementation arrangements modified/improved as a result of lessons learned from inter-stakeholder interactions identified above |
Enrichment of the research questions and approach through researchers involvement in actual GI initiatives with different industries |
- |
- |
Creation of an active network (e.g. local organizations, group of researchers, organizations) involved in the project |
GI task team activities sustained after project ending.
Spill over effects of GI related collective action dynamics on related topics: biodiversity, quality management, marketing |
|
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 3.
Capacity building (improving research and research managemnt capacity) |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| New skills obtained/improved due to the project |
Methodological insights gained on how to support the development of sounded GI initiative from industries.
Improved capacity on legal dimensions to support the development of a suitable framework for Southern Africa |
- |
- |
Number of participants to the capacity building workshops |
Strong participation in the workshops |
- |
The extent to which GI can continuously support and survive in the pressures of Southern African society. |
| |
|
|
|
| 4.
Institutionalization (mainstreaming innovative partnership arrangements) |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Counter-parting (funds, skills, time, information) |
All the partners have actually dedicated more time to the project than initially planned. |
- |
- |
| Project activities integrated in regular activities of the organizations involved in the project |
GI in the Agricultural and Agribusiness Strategy of the Western Cape. This Strategy has been agreed upon between Government, Business, Labour and Civil Society. |
- |
- |
| Spin-offs (i.e. other initiatives developed directly or indirectly from DURAS project) |
IUCN initiative to explore GI potential for sustainably marketing community based products
A WIPO funded paper was written on the “Economics of geographical indications in developing countries”. This is to be published in a forthcoming WIPO publication.
A further project entitled “An economic analysis of the evolution in IP strategies in the South African Agricultural sector with specific reference to the use of IP in the South African Rooibos industry”, is being funded by WIPO.
Paper presented at the WIPO International Symposium on GI in Beijing, China. |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|