Doctor Legum - LLD / The need to harmonise laws in Africa has grown in importance in view of the envisaged African common market. Economic integration cannot flourish without an effective regional legal framework. There is fragmentation in trade mark protection in Africa as evidenced by the existing two sub-regional organisations namely, the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) and the Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI). The absence of a single regional legal framework has resulted in African countries not having a coherent strategy for advancing their common interests in regional and multilateral negotiations. African countries have acceded to agreements which do not reflect their interests such as Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). African countries have also been signing Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) which contain higher intellectual property protection standards than the minimum standards prescribed by TRIPS. The purpose of this study is to formulate a proposal for the integration of trade mark laws in Africa, with a view to strengthening the regional legal framework. A consolidated regional position, based on an integrated legal framework, will strengthen Africa’s participation in negotiations. This will in turn ensure greater regard for, and better protection of, Africa’s interests and concerns. Trade mark laws are important as they can hinder or promote trade. Harmonised trade mark laws will create legal and commercial certainty as well as predictability, which is crucial for the promotion of trade and foreign direct investment. The central argument advanced is that the areas of convergence in the laws under study and in the way the laws are interpreted can form the basis for the harmonisation of Africa’s trade mark laws.

The Plant Breeder’s Right (PBR), also known as Plant Variety Protection (PVP), is a form of intellectual property afforded to breeders of newly bred plant varieties. In South Africa, intellectual protection of new plant varieties is afforded through the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, 1976 (Act No. 15 of 1976) as amended in 1996. / The writer has been Registrar: Plant Breeders’ Rights since November 2007. Over the years the writer has interacted with several stakeholders with interest in plant breeders’ rights, including breeders, farmers, patent attorneys, growers, plant breeders’ rights administrators from other countries and civil society organisations. Although South Africa has had Plant Breeders’ Rights legislation since 1976, it has been observed that this piece of legislation is relatively unknown and often misunderstood even by the users of the system. In engagements with various stakeholders, it has been established that there are conflicting views amongst the stakeholders on pertinent issues related to the plant breeders’ rights system. There are views, among others, include: that the plant breeders’ rights system is only relevant and benefits breeders from big multinational companies such as Monsanto and farmers can never benefit in such a system; that the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act is synonymous with genetically modified organisms; that indigenous plants are neglected, and that the system only promotes protection of foreign varieties. The most contentious issue is however around the impact of plant breeders’ rights on the tradition of farmers to save, sell and exchange seed. / Very little is documented on the South Africa plant breeders’ rights system, more so from the administrator’s perspective. This study explored some aspects of the plant breeders’ rights system that may need policy interventions and legislation amendments, such as matters around the plant breeders’ rights system in relation to farmers’ rights, possible dual protection of Genetically Modified varieties in terms of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act 1976 and the Patents Act 1978, as well as the participation of indigenous ornamental crops in the plant breeders’ rights system. / On the issue of the farmers’ rights: results of this work show that the current provision in the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act deals with Farmers’ Rights in a narrow sense, i.e. with the rights of farmers to save seed. It was established that this provision is inadequate for both the breeders and the farmers. A survey was also conducted among smallholder farmers from four provinces, namely Eastern Cape, Free State, Limpopo, and Western Cape. The interesting finding was that although there is so much debate around the impact of the plant breeders’ rights system on farmers’ rights, the majority of the farmers from this study group have never heard of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act. There are farmers who are continuing with the practice of seed saving; however some farmers have indicated that they do not save seed they believe that this practice lowers yield. Those who do save seed mostly save their traditional seed, i.e. locally adapted seed lacking formal crop improvement as opposed to modern commercial seed. Some farmers have indicated that they do develop varieties through their own selections and believe that their varieties could qualify for protection in terms of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act. It is evident that both government and the civil society organisations need to do more to educate smallholder farmers about laws and policies that impact their livelihood. Based on this study, a proposal was made to have the farmers’ privilege provisions in the current Plant Breeders’ Right Act amended to allow the Minister responsible for Agriculture to prescribe among others: the crops in which this provision will apply; the category or categories of farmers that would benefit; the circumstances under which royalties should be paid. This proposal was welcomed by most stakeholders and has since been incorporated in the draft Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill. It is envisaged that specific details around these factors will be included in the Regulations to the Act after extensive consultations with all relevant stakeholders. / There is a gap in policy and legislation with regard to the recognition of Farmers’ Rights as envisaged in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). As such there are calls from some stakeholders including the civil society organisations that legislation on plant breeders’ rights must address these gaps and/or an alternative sui generis (of its own kind) system should be explored as the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (UPOV) system is not tailored for developing © University of Pretoria vii countries. In South Africa, legislation dealing with some aspects pertaining to Farmers’ Rights is spread over different government departments, e.g. Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries dealing with intellectual property protection only in as far as plant breeders’ rights; Department of Trade & Industry being custodians of intellectual property laws in South Africa and administrators of, among others the Patents Act; Department of Environmental Affairs dealing with Access and Benefit Sharing matters; Department of Science and Technology dealing with Indigenous Knowledge Systems and intellectual property protection emanating from publicly funded research institutions. More discussions are needed on South Africa becoming a member of the ITPGRFA as these will pave the way for further discussions and policy interventions addressing Farmers’ Rights in a broad sense. / As far as the Genetically Modified Organisms are concerned, South Africa has approved only three Genetically Modified (GM) crops for commercialization in terms of the GMO Act, 1997, namely cotton, maize, and soybean. This is contrary to some statements made by members of the public that much more crops, including pumpkin, potato, banana and tomato are genetically modified. In terms of intellectual property protection, of the total number of GM varieties protected by plant breeders’ rights per crop: 60% of varieties are GM for cotton, 61% for yellow maize, 34% for white maize and 63% for soybean. Currently there are no GM events used in these crops protected in terms of the Patents Act 1978, which effectively means that there is currently no dual protection for these crops. Dual protection is however one of the most hotly debated issues because of the impact it might have on the rights of farmers to save seed. It has been argued that in South Africa dual protection is possible. Scrutiny of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act 1976, the Patents Act 1978 and the draft National Policy on Intellectual Property shows that all are silent on the issue of dual protection of plant varieties. The Departments of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries together with the Department of Trade and Industry need to initiate discussions around dual protection as well the use of Technology Agreements, between technology holders and technology users, in protecting GM varieties and the impact thereof for all role players in the value-chain in order to come up with the country position in this regard. / This study showed that ornamental plants attract the highest number of plant breeders’ rights applications. Of the applications received between 2000 and 2010 about 20% are of varieties developed from indigenous plants. Of plant breeders’ rights in ornamental plants, 84% are owned by foreign entities. Of the 16% owned by local entities, 12% are privately owned and 4% are owned by public research institutions. Some of the challenges facing this industry include the fact that there is inadequate turnover to allow for breeding programs and research initiatives; this is exacerbated by plant breeder’s rights infringements which lead to further revenue losses. Other challenges the industry face include high labor costs and lack of market information. The national Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries together with the other relevant departments, e.g. the Department of Labour and the Department of Trade and Industry need to engage more with the floricultural industry stakeholders to discuss the challenges facing the industry and come up with policies that would be conducive for the further development of the industry in order for South Africa to benefit from its unique biodiversity. Literature study has also established that breeders are keen on developing varieties of medicinal plants that are uniform and stable. This would call for domestic legislation on intellectual property protection that is aligned with legislation on Biodiversity and Access and Benefit-Sharing. / This study highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders from both the formal and informal sector and brings attention to gaps in our policies and legislation. This study has already made a major contribution in the draft Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill through the inclusion of the revised provision on farmers’ privilege. This revision is aimed at ensuring that the legitimate interests of the breeder are protected whilst the rights of the farmers are recognized. It is hoped that this study will make a positive contribution to future policy developments and will lay a foundation for future studies pertaining to the plant breeders’ rights system and its impact in the agricultural sector. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2016. / Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries / Paraclinical Sciences / PhD / Unrestricted

Lee, Chui Mei. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 171-185). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Abstract / 提要 --- p.vi / Acknowledgement --- p.vii / Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Urban Renewal and Heritage Conservation in Hong Kong --- p.2 / Chapter 1.2 --- The Blue House Complex Revitalization Project --- p.9 / Chapter 1.3 --- Fieldsite Specification: Why the Blue House Complex in Hong Kong? --- p.14 / Chapter 1.4 --- Introduction of the Blue House Complex Community-led Conservation Movement --- p.16 / Chapter Chpater 2 --- Literature Review --- p.18 / Chapter 2.1 --- Construction of Heritage --- p.19 / Chapter 2.2 --- Uses of Heritage --- p.21 / Chapter 2.3 --- Community in Heritage Conservation --- p.26 / Chapter 2.4 --- Politics in Heritage Conservation --- p.29 / Chapter 2.5 --- Heritage Conservation in Hong Kong Urban Renewal --- p.36 / Chapter Chapter 3 --- Objectives and Methodology --- p.39 / Chapter 3.1 --- Objectives --- p.39 / Chapter 3.2 --- Methodology --- p.40 / Chapter 3.3 --- Ethical Concerns --- p.48 / Chapter Chapter 4 --- The Blue House Complex --- p.50 / Chapter 4.1 --- History of Wan Chai --- p.51 / Chapter 4.2 --- History of Stone Nullah Lane and the Blue House Complex --- p.53 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Stone Nullah Lane --- p.53 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- History of the Blue House Complex --- p.56 / Chapter 4.3 --- Architectural Features and Specific Lifestyles in the Blue House Complex --- p.59 / Chapter 4.4 --- Lifestyle of Current Residents in the Blue House Complex --- p.60 / Chapter 4.5 --- The Demographics of the Blue House Complex --- p.63 / Chapter 4.6 --- Economic Structure of the Blue House Complex --- p.66 / Chapter 4.7 --- Social Structure of the Blue House Complex --- p.70 / Chapter 4.8 --- Cultural Significance of the Blue House Complex --- p.76 / Chapter 4.9 --- Various Interpretations of the Blue House Complex --- p.78 / Chapter 4.9.1 --- Interpretation of the Antiquities Advisory Board and Antiquities and Monuments Office --- p.78 / Chapter 4.9.2 --- Interpretation of the Urban Renewal Authority and Hong Kong Housing Society --- p.81 / Chapter 4.9.3 --- "Interpretation of the Community, Including Locals and Other Outsiders" --- p.81 / Chapter 4.10 --- Chapter Summary --- p.84 / Chapter Chapter 5 --- The Conservation of the Blue House Complex --- p.86 / Chapter 5.1 --- Interest Groups in the Blue House Complex Conservation Project --- p..86 / Chapter 5.1.1 --- The Government and Local Authorities --- p.86 / Chapter 5.1.2 --- Residents and Local Businesses --- p.",91" / Chapter 5.1.3 --- Outside Volunteers --- p..96 / Chapter 5.2 --- Different Conservation Approaches to the Blue House Complex --- p.102 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Government Authorities' Conservation Approach to the Blue House Complex --- p.102 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- Community´ةs Conservation Approach to the Blue House Complex --- p.105 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- The Impact of the Mass Media on the Conservation of the Blue House Complex --- p.109 / Chapter 5.3 --- Chapter Summary --- p.111 / Chapter Chapter 6 --- Politics in the Blue House Complex Conservation Project --- p.113 / Chapter 6.1 --- Possession of Power by Different Parties --- p.113 / Chapter 6.2 --- The Negotiations inside the Local Community --- p.117 / Chapter 6.3 --- The Negotiations between the Local community and Outsiders --- p.118 / Chapter 6.4 --- The Negotiations of Interests between the Authorities and the Community --- p.126 / Chapter 6.5 --- The Networks among Conservation Activities and Dispositions from Them --- p.137 / Chapter 6.6 --- Chapter Summary --- p.142 / Chapter Chapter 7 --- Effects of the Blue House Complex Community-led Conservation Movement on the Local Community and Outside Volunteers --- p.138 / Chapter 7.1 --- Empowerment among the Outsiders and Locals --- p.144 / Chapter 7.2 --- Reflections of and Changes in the Participants --- p.148 / Chapter 7.3 --- Chapter Summary --- p.158 / Chapter 8 Conclusion --- p.160 / References --- p.171

published_or_final_version / Architecture / Master / Master of Landscape Architecture

published_or_final_version / Architecture / Master / Master of Landscape Architecture

Thesis (M. Tech. Design technology) -- Central University of Technology, Free State, 2011 / This dissertation outlines a procedural scanning process using the portable ZCorporation ZScanner® 700 and provides an overview of the developments surrounding 3D scanning technologies; specifically their application for archiving Cultural Heritage sites and projects. The procedural scanning process is structured around the identification of 3D data recording variables applicable to the digital archiving of an art museum’s collection of sculptures. The outlining of a procedural 3D scanning environment supports the developing technology of 3D digital archiving in view of artefact preservation and interactive digital accessibility. Presented in this paper are several case studies that record 3D scanning variables such as texture, scale, surface detail, light and data conversion applicable to varied sculptural surfaces and form. Emphasis is placed on the procedural documentation and the anomalies associated with the physical object, equipment used, and the scanning environment. In support of the above, the Cultural Heritage projects that are analyzed prove that 3D portable scanning could provide digital longevity and access to previously inaccessible arenas for a diverse range of digital data archiving infrastructures. The development of 3D data acquisition via scanning, CAD modelling and 2D to 3D data file conversion technologies as well as the aesthetic effect and standards of digital archiving in terms of the artwork – viewer relationship and international practices or criterions of 3D digitizing are analysed. These projects indicate the significant use of optical 3D scanning techniques and their employ on renowned historical artefacts thus emphasizing their importance, safety and effectiveness. The aim with this research is to establish that the innovation and future implications of 3D scanning could be instrumental to future technological advancement in an interdisciplinary capacity to further data capture and processing in various Cultural Heritage diagnostic applications.

published_or_final_version / Urban Planning / Master / Master of Science in Urban Planning

published_or_final_version / Urban Planning / Master / Master of Science in Urban Planning

published_or_final_version / Urban Planning / Master / Master of Science in Urban Planning

published_or_final_version / Urban Planning / Master / Master of Science in Urban Planning