Case Studies presentations Rooibos Estelle Biénabe, Dirk Troskie
description
Transcript of Case Studies presentations Rooibos Estelle Biénabe, Dirk Troskie
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 strategies2. 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 potentialBut 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 3.2Name 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?