| Components |
Activities |
Main
Achievements |
Difficulties
faced |
Unexpected
results |
(a) Characterization of case studies with GI potential and preparation for submission as GIs of at least one product |
1. Product characterization
2. Current institutional framework description of the product
3. Potential target market assessment
4. Round table and workshops
5. Definition of guidelines
6. Develop product specification for at least one product
7. Engagement with governmental agencies
8. Submission |
Documentation of 6 case studies depicting a wide range of situations and giving a strong basis for assessing the potential for implementing GI in Southern Africa
Raised interest on GIs among different industries
Numerous newspaper articles surrounding GIs and related issues.
Industry wide agreement on rooibos specification, which was defined by the industry under IPR project partners facilitation
Use of the rooibos case as a pilot case in South Africa
Better understanding for the factors underlying Karoo lamb reputation |
Strong individualism and difficulties to trigger collective action
Sometimes a lack of a representative body to speak on behalf of an industry.
Difficulties related to assessing impacts given the emerging features of GIs in Southern Africa.
The realities of South African history and divisions within the communities. |
Spill over effects of the rooibos GI initiative in terms of lobbying the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Agriculture for adequate GI framework
Synergies and strong articulation between the GI and the biodiversity initiative in the rooibos industry |
(b) Participatory capacity building on intellectual property of indigenous resources |
1. Overview of educational and participatory tools
2. Workshop IP right issues with communities
3. Assessment and adaptation of tools |
Capacity building manual and generation of capacity among different producer communities |
Lack of trust among groups of stakeholders in the different industries reinforced by the sensitiveness and complexity of IPR issues |
|
(c) Legal and institutional framework assessment |
1. Description of the legal and institutional framework
2. Audit of existing laws
3. Assessment of the organizational framework
4. Recommendations |
South African and Namibian legal framework reviewed and assessed. |
Lack of human resources from Namibian government in IPR and especially GIs
South African government position regarding GIs is ambivalent in international negotiations |
Request from Department of Trade and Industry to comment on the draft of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill
GI listed by the Namibian government on the agricultural agenda at the WTO negotiation in Hong Kong in 2005 |