Upload
lesley-newton
View
223
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Case Studies presentationsCase Studies presentations Rooibos
Estelle Biénabe, Dirk Troskie
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
2
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
3
Rooibos presentation• Rooibos tea or red bush tea =
herbal tea• South Africa, Cedarberg region
(36.000ha)• 10.400 tonnes (2005)• 400-450 mainly large scale
producers / 8 large processors • 40% domestic / 60% export
(mainly Germany)• ‘Mass’ consumption (large
retailers, discount), health product, and niche markets (specialty tea)
• Export in bulk for mainly flavoured or blended end products
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
4
Protection schemes• Wine of origin scheme and protection (Act of 1970 & 1989)• No GIs in South Africa and no specific system in place• Provision for protection as collective trademark =
compliance with TRIPS– Private initiatives (i.e. Cambeboo Mohair, Swakara, Klein Karoo
Ostrich, etc.)
• Current revision of Trademark act (indigenous knowledge)• Indiv. trademark protection of name rooibos in some
countries but also usurpation of name in others / no current collective protection
• Four provinces Departments of Agriculture GI initiative / National Agricultural Marketing Council
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
5
GI system• Industry controlled locally by 8 processors (one
major player: Rooibos ltd = 75% prod°) and at export level by German brokers
• Government support in ‘US battle’: South African patrimony, and SA Rooibos Council set up
• NGO involvement with Small-Scale Farmers (SSF)• Western Cape Department of Agriculture, University
of Pretoria and CIRAD / GI initiative (IPR DURAS action research project)
• Cape Nature (provincial conservation agency) and Sustainable rooibos initiative: stakeholder in GI initiative
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
6
Motivations and emergence
• Marketing board dismantled (1994)• Phenomenal growth, esp. export market:
– 742% between 93 and 2003– 15.000ha (out of 36.000ha) planted in 2005
• Marketing strategies development: trademark expansion and US battle– From 1 to 8 processors– SSF cooperatives and fair trade /organic prod°– Price wars on export market (high price
sensitivity but huge variability)
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
7
Impacts of the GI system / protection scheme on sustainability / economic effects
• Which GI recognition and protection? 4 scenarii1. No local nor international GI recognition: continuation of
individual strategies
2. National GI recognition but no formal international recognition (EU application rejected): collective name reservation, but weak effects
3. National and international recognition (EU application accepted)
• 3.1. Low requiring collective quality strategy• 3.2. Highly requiring collective quality strategy (possibility for GI
as an umbrella + collective ‘terroir’ definitions )
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
8
Impacts of the GI system / protection scheme on sustainability / economic effects
Scenarii 1 2 3. 1 3.2
Name reservat°
-- Risk of delocalisation outside SA
++
Collect. Q managmt
--- --
Risk of reputation and market share loss
++ Value adding potential
But risk of loss for convent° rooibos
Territorial dynamics
--- -- ++ Tourism dev. potential (rooibos route)
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
9
Impacts of the GI system / protection scheme on sustainability / social effects
Scenarii 1 2 3.1 3.2
Name reservat°
-- Risk of SA production decline:
potentially huge impact on labour
stronger impact on trad° prod° area than expans° area
++
Collect. Q managmt
+ +++
SSF specific assets recognit°
Territorial dynamics
Potential synergies/ rallying point between SSF and large scale farmers
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
10
Impacts of the GI system / protection scheme on sustainability / environmental effects
Scenarii 1 2 3.1 3.2
Name res° Delocal° risk: pos. ++ impact on biodiversity and envt
Collect. Q managmt
-
Mainly private initiatives (organic…)
+ +++
Expans° controlled
Sustainable practices
enforced collectively
Territorial dynamics
-- -- ++ Ecotourism
• Endemic species adapted to local conditions but current huge threat due to largely uncontrolled expansion
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
11
Comparison with other SA GI cases / with fair trade
• Pilot case in SA: more advanced GI initiative, wide facilitation support from IPR DURAS project
• Emblematic case: indigenous resource valorised by small and large scale producers / National patrimony
• GI protection building in a highly dynamic market context• Collective industry-based coordination process to set up GI
standard (GI committee)– Biodiversity strategy as an integral part of GI specification: adapted to
local conditions ≠ Fair trade: global envtal standards with unanticipated social and envtal impacts
– Not a differentiation strategy inside SA ≠ Fair trade: high price premium for SSF but sustainability? (large scale farmers certification by FLO)
– Evolution from mere name reservation to quality and biodiversity management tool: arena for discussion
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
12
Trends and perspectives: GI system
(value chain structure/technology/market)
• Expansion and diversification of export marketing channels and volumes
• Consolidation of ‘new’ SA players / Increased competition at processor and trader level
• Significant production potential but quality concerns + environment (new entrants and changes in practices)
• New needs for coordination at SA industry level• Channel captain (corporate governance) but
evolution towards sectoral governance (SARC)
Budapest, Regional Meeting, 24-26 Oct. 2007
13
Trends and perspectives:GI protection schemes
(organization and political strategies )• Rooibos industry lobbying power + other ‘DURAS
project’ related GIs initiatives• SA international versus local positioning / GIs:
– Agricultural negotiations, ‘new world’ country, (local production of port, sherry, camembert, brie…)
– Indigenous knowledge and resources: SA patrimony and empowering local communities
• Lack of local skills and knowledge / GIs– Not a priority?
• But trademark Act revision– More private initiatives expected?