Evaluation Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Of

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Evaluation Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Of EVALUATION MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE GEORGIA ECONOMIC PROSPERITY INITIATIVE June, 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Mendez, England & Associates and NORC. MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE GEORGIA ECONOMIC PROSPERITY INITIATIVE (EPI) Final Report Prepared under Contract Number: AID-114-TO-13-00002, Task Order No: AID-113-I-13- 0001 Submitted to: USAID/Georgia Submitted by: Steve Butler (Team Leader) Nana Adeishvili (Team Member) George Murvanidze (Team Member) Contractor: Mendez England & Associates 4300 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 103 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301- 652 -4334 www.mendezengland.com DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions.............................................................................. 1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 2 Main Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Main Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 4 Main Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSES AND PRIORITY QUESTIONS ............................. 1 1.1 Evaluation Purpose .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 EPI Activities ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Evaluation Questions .............................................................................................................. 2 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 2 2.1 Historical Context ................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 EPI Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 5 4.0 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS .............................................................................. 7 5.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 8 5.1 General Findings On Project Activities............................................................................... 8 5.2 Component 1: Business Enabling Environment .............................................................. 12 5.2.1 High Level Indicators for Component 1 .......................................................... 12 5.2.2 Required Outputs and Targeted Results of Component 1 ......................... 13 5.2.3 Other Accomplishments of Component 1 ..................................................... 13 5.3 Component 2: Agricultural Sector ................................................................................... 20 5.3.1 High Level Indicators for Component 2 .......................................................... 20 5.3.2 Required Outputs and Targeted Results for Component 2 ................... 2423 5.3.3 Other Accomplishments of Component 2 .................................................... 24 5.4 Component 3: Manufacturing and Services .................................................................... 20 5.4.1 High Level Indicators for Component 3 ...................................................... 2827 5.4.2 Required Outputs and Targeted Results for Component Three .............. 29 5.4.3 Other Accomplishments of Component 3 ................................................. 3029 5.5. Component 4: Cross-Cutting Activities .......................................................................... 38 5.5.1 High Level Results for Component 4 ........................................................... 3938 5.5.2 Required Outputs and Targeted Results for Component 4 ....................... 39 5.5.3 Other Accomplishments of Component 4 ..................................................... 39 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 4342 6.1 Priority Question One ........................................................................................................ 43 6.2 Priority Question Two ........................................................................................................ 44 6.3 Priority Question Three ..................................................................................................... 45 6.4 Priority Question Four ........................................................................................................ 46 6.5 Priority Question Five ......................................................................................................... 47 6.6 Priority Question Six ........................................................................................................... 49 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 4948 7.1 General Recommendations ............................................................................................ 4948 7.2 Component 1: Business Climate ................................................................................... 5049 7.3 Component 2: Agricultural Sector ............................................................................... 5150 7.4 Component 3: Manufacturing & Services .................................................................... 5150 7.5 Component 4: Cross-cutting Activities ........................................................................... 51 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................... 5453 ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK ..................................................................................... 5554 ANNEX 2: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 6160 ANNEX 3: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED................................................................... 6766 ANNEX 4: SCRIPTS .................................................................................................................... 7170 ANNEX 6: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ............................................................ 9190 ANNEX 7: WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE ....................................................................... 9493 ANNEX 8: OUTPUTS AND RESULTS TABLES ............................................................. 137136 LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1: Georgian GDP Growth (Mil. GEL) Figure 2: Year to Year Nominal GDP % Growth Figure 3: Long Term Trends in Mandarin Production (Tons) Figure 4: Year to Year % Growth of Production in Nut and Citrus Sectors 2005-2012 Figure 5: Year to Year % Growth in Value of Nut Exports for Sector and EPI Farmers Figure 6: Year to Year % Growth in Value of Mandarin Exports for Sector and EPI Farmers Figure 7. Growth in Georgian Total Exports 2005-2012 Figure 8. Growth in Apparel Exports 2001-2012 LIST OF TABLES: Table 1: Growth of External Trade 2007 – 2012 (Mil. GEL) Table 2. Key Person Interviews Table 3: Discussion Groups Table 4: Status of Laws and Regulatory Acts Promoted by EPI Table 5: Aggregate High Level Performance Indicators for AG, End of Year 2 Table 6: Increase in Yields per Hectare (Productivity) For EPI Farmers Table 7: Increases in Exports Table 8: Key Performance Benchmarks for the AG Component at End of Year 2 Table 9: Aggregate High Level Performance Indicators for M&S Component, End of Year 2 Table 10. EPI Reported Gains in M&S Productivity Indicators Table 11: Key Performance Benchmarks for the AG Component at End of Year 2 Table 12: Aggregate High Level Performance Indicators for Cross Cutting Activities Component, End of Year 2 ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank AG EPI Agricultural Component ANSI American National Standards Institute BAS Business Advisory Services BDS Business Development Services BEE EPI Business Environment Component BPR Business Process Reengineering BSP Business Service Provider CC EPI Cross Cutting Activities Component U.S. Department of Commerce Commercial Law Development CLDP Project CSPA Competition and State Procurement Agency CTC Caucasus Transportation Corridor DEA Georgian Data Exchange Agency DMC Destination Management Company EIBTM Exhibition for the Incentive Business Travel and Meetings EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ELFA Equipment Leasing and Finance Association EPI Economic
Recommended publications
  • Practical Information
    13TH MEETING OF THE GROUP OF EXPERTS ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES (Monday 24th and Tuesday 25th June 2019) Batumi, Adjara Region, (Georgia) PRACTICAL INFORMATION 2 VENUE Address of the meeting venue: Batumi Shota Rustaveli Stage University Ninoshvili/Rustaveli str. 35/32 6010 BATUMI / Georgia WORKING LANGUAGE The working language will be English. REGISTRATION Participants are requested to return the participation form by 31st May 2019 for the attention of: Ms Véronique de Cussac Ms Mariam Sulkhanishvili Council of Europe Ministry of Environmental Protection and 67075 Strasbourg, France and Agriculture of Georgia Tel: +33 388 41 34 76 Tel: +995598390645 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] 3 VISA All participants must hold a valid passport or ID to enter Georgia.Here is the list of countries whose citizens may enter Georgia without visa: Detailed information about visa requirements can be found at: https://www.geoconsul.gov.ge/en/visaInformation. If you need a visa, please visit the e-visa portal: https://www.evisa.gov.ge/GeoVisa/ TRANSPORTATION Batumi airport is the most suitable one for reaching Batumi. It is located about 8 km from the meeting venue. Taxi: The city taxi rank is located outside the arrival lounge, it will cost around 15-25 GEL (about 6-9 €) from airport to the hotel. Bus: Batumi municipal bus No10 has a fixed route: Airport-Batumi Centre. Bus stop is in front of the terminal and it takes 20 minute for a bus to get to the city centre. The travel fee is about 1 Gel.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Prosperity Initiative
    USAID/GEORGIA DO2: Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth October 1, 2011 – September 31, 2012 Gagra Municipal (regional) Infrastructure Development (MID) ABKHAZIA # Municipality Region Project Title Gudauta Rehabilitation of Roads 1 Mtskheta 3.852 km; 11 streets : Mtskheta- : Mtanee Rehabilitation of Roads SOKHUMI : : 1$Mestia : 2 Dushet 2.240 km; 7 streets :: : ::: Rehabilitation of Pushkin Gulripshi : 3 Gori street 0.92 km : Chazhashi B l a c k S e a :%, Rehabilitaion of Gorijvari : 4 Gori Shida Kartli road 1.45 km : Lentekhi Rehabilitation of Nationwide Projects: Ochamchire SAMEGRELO- 5 Kareli Sagholasheni-Dvani 12 km : Highway - DCA Basisbank ZEMO SVANETI RACHA-LECHKHUMI rehabilitaiosn Roads in Oni Etseri - DCA Bank Republic Lia*#*# 6 Oni 2.452 km, 5 streets *#Sachino : KVEMO SVANETI Stepantsminda - DCA Alliance Group 1$ Gali *#Mukhuri Tsageri Shatili %, Racha- *#1$ Tsalenjikha Abari Rehabilitation of Headwork Khvanchkara #0#0 Lechkhumi - DCA Crystal Obuji*#*# *#Khabume # 7 Oni of Drinking Water on Oni for Nakipu 0 Likheti 3 400 individuals - Black Sea Regional Transmission ZUGDIDI1$ *# Chkhorotsku1$*# ]^!( Oni Planning Project (Phase 2) Chitatskaro 1$!( Letsurtsume Bareuli #0 - Georgia Education Management Project (EMP) Akhalkhibula AMBROLAURI %,Tsaishi ]^!( *#Lesichine Martvili - Georgia Primary Education Project (G-Pried) MTSKHETA- Khamiskuri%, Kheta Shua*#Zana 1$ - GNEWRC Partnership Program %, Khorshi Perevi SOUTH MTIANETI Khobi *# *#Eki Khoni Tskaltubo Khresili Tkibuli#0 #0 - HICD Plus #0 ]^1$ OSSETIA 1$ 1$!( Menji *#Dzveli
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia, Adjara Autonomous Republic
    Georgia, Ajara Autonomous Republic: Ajara Solid Waste Management Project Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) April 2015 Rev May 2015 1 List of abbreviations EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EHS Environmental health and safety ESAP Environmental and Social Action Plan ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment EU European Union GHG Greenhouse Gas (e.g. methane, carbon dioxide and other gases) Ha hectare HH Households HR Human resources Km kilometer R/LRF Resettlement/Livelihood Restauration Framework M meter MIS Management Information System MoFE Ministry of Finance and Economy of Ajara OHS Occupational Health and safety PAP Project affected people PR Performance Requirement RAP Resettlement Action Plan SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SWC Solid Waste Company SWM Solid Waste Management ToR Terms of Reference 2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4 2 Brief Project Description .................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Closure of Batumi and Kobuleti ............................................................................................. 5 2.2 Construction of Tsetskhlauri landfill ................................................................................... 5 2.3 Organisation .................................................................................................................................. 7 3 Applicable Regulations
    [Show full text]
  • Batumi Bypass Road Project (Complaint Received: 2 October 2018)
    Final Report of the Special Project Facilitator Project Number: 50064-001 Loan Numbers: 3520/8328 September 2019 Georgia: Batumi Bypass Road Project (Complaint Received: 2 October 2018) This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB’s Access to Information Policy. ABBREVIATIONS ADB - Asian Development Bank CRO - complaint receiving officer CWRD - Central and West Asia Department EIA - environmental impact assessment GRM - grievance redress mechanism LARP - land acquisition and resettlement plan OSPF - Office of the Special Project Facilitator RDG - Roads Department of Georgia SPF - special project facilitator NOTE In this report, “$” refers to United States dollars unless otherwise stated. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. CONTENTS Page KEY DATES I. BACKGROUND 1 A. The Project 1 B. The Complaint 1 C. Determination of Eligibility 1 II. REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT AND PROBLEM-SOLVING 2 A. Review and Assessment 2 B. Negotiated Settlement 3 III. LESSONS LEARNED 4 IV. CONCLUSIONS 4 APPENDIXES 1. Project Summary 6 2. Complaint Letter 7 KEY DATES 1. Project approved by ADB Board 28 March 2017 2. Complaint filed with CRO 25 July 2018 3. Complaint forwarded to OSPF 2 October 2018 4. Complaint declared eligible for OSPF problem-solving 9 October 2018 5. Review and Assessment Mission 16–17 October 2018 Action Plan Implementation 6. Independent valuation report 24 April 2019 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Unionsare Fighting Back
    #09 UNION VIEW #09 • 1 May 2008 UNION UNION VIEW Union Confederation ITUC International Trade May 2008 g Zviad Nikolaishvili Georgia: labour code tears fundamental rights to shreds The highly deregulatory labour code adopted by Georgia in 2006 has under- mined fundamental workers rights. This “the market is king” policy has done nothing to create decent jobs and instead has led to rising poverty among Georgian workers, two thirds of whom are still in the informal economy. The Georgian unions are fighting back. The ITUC reports. #09 The havoc wreaked by a neo- liberal code The highly deregulatory, pro-business labour code that has been in force for two years has led to the disappea- rance of several trade unions. Despite pressure from the ILO, the European Union and the ITUC, the government is UNION VIEW standing its ground. • 2 May 2008 We’ve lost about 20,000“ members altogether across Georgia as a result of the harassment and dismissals “ made possible by this labour code Irakli Petriashvili, président of GTUC g Zviad Nikolaishvili g Zviad Nikolaishvili n May 2006, the Georgian parliament adopted a new The new labour code also enables employers to sign a Ilabour code that was particularly unfavourable to workers. collective agreement with a minimum of two workers, but Described by the government as one of the most “pro- does not include provisions on how the negotiations should business” pieces of legislation in the world, the code allows be carried out. There is nothing therefore to prevent an employers, for example, to dismiss a worker for no reason, employer from ignoring the trade union delegation and provided that they give him severance pay equivalent to choosing two workers close to him/her to lead the negotia- one month’s salary.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change National Adaptation Plan for Georgia's Agriculture Sector
    ENVIRONMENTALEE INFORMATION AND EDUCATION CENTRE Climate Change National Adaptation Plan for Georgia’s Agriculture Sector Tbilisi, 2017 1 This document is prepared by the LEPL “Environmental Information and Education Center” of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia, under the joint or- der of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection and the Ministry of Ag- riculture. The project has been initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture within the frameworks of the “Agriculture Modernization, Market Access and Resilience” (AMMAR) project. This proj- ect is implementing by the Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia with the support of IFAD / GEF. LEPL “Environmental Information and Education Center” of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia thanks to all participants of the project: Marina Shvangiradze - Sustainable Developmen Center Remissia (project team leader); Davit Bedoshvili - impact of climate change on wheat and corn; Salome Gelashvili - Argiculture Policy Research Center (ISET), cost-benefit analysis of the measures for adaptation to climate change; Gizo Gogichaishvili - National Environmental Agency (impact of climate change on potato); Vakhtang Goguadze - LEPL Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara (citrus, potato and livestock breeding in Adjara); Medea Inashvili - project expert (guide on preparation of national adaptation plan on climate change for agriculture sector); Nato Kutaladze - National Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Scaling-Up Multi-Hazard Early Warning System and the Use of Climate Information in Georgia
    Annex VI (b) – Environmental and Social Assessment Report Green Climate Fund Funding Proposal I Scaling-up Multi-Hazard Early Warning System and the Use of Climate Information in Georgia Environmental and Social Assessment Report FP-UNDP-5846-Annex-VIb-ENG 1 Annex VI (b) – Environmental and Social Assessment Report Green Climate Fund Funding Proposal I CONTENTS Contents ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 8 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 10 1.2 Description of the Project ............................................................................................................ 10 1.2.1 Summary of Activities .......................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Project Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 27 1.3.1 Do Nothing Alternative ........................................................................................................ 27 1.3.2 Alternative Locations ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA Second Edition March 2010
    WHO DOES WHAT WHERE IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN GEORGIA Second edition March 2010 Georgian National Committee of Disaster Risk Reduction & Environment Sustainable Development FOREWORD Georgia is a highly disaster-prone country, which frequently experiences natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes, floods, landslides, mudflows, avalanches, and drought) as well as man-made emergencies (e.g. industrial accidents and traffic accidents). Compounding factors such as demographic change, unplanned urbanization, poorly maintained infrastructure, lax enforcement of safety standards, socio-economic inequities, epidemics, environmental degradation and climate variability amplify the frequency and intensity of disasters and call for a proactive and multi-hazard approach. Disaster risk reduction is a cross-cutting and complex development issue. It requires political and legal commitment, public understanding, scientific knowledge, careful development planning, responsible enforcement of policies and legislation, people-centred early warning systems, and effective disaster preparedness and response mechanisms. Close collaboration of policy-makers, scientists, urban planners, engineers, architects, development workers and civil society representatives is a precondition for adopting a comprehensive approach and inventing adequate solutions. Multi-stakeholder and inter-agency platforms can help provide and mobilize knowledge, skills and resources required for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development policies, for coordination of planning and programmes,
    [Show full text]
  • Reserved Domains
    Countries: (.ge; .edu.ge; .org.ge; .net.ge; .pvt.ge; .school.ge) afghanistan cameroon ghana lebanon nigeria spain zambia albania canada greece lesotho norway srilanka zimbabwe algeria centralafricanrepublic grenada liberia oman sudan andorra chad guatemala libya pakistan suriname angola chile guinea liechtenstein palau swaziland antiguaandbarbuda china guinea-bissau lithuania palestina sweden argentina colombia guyana luxembourg panama switzerland armenia comoros haiti macau papuanewguinea syria aruba congo honduras macedonia paraguay taiwan australia costarica hongkong madagascar peru tajikistan austria croatia hungary malawi philippines tanzania azerbaijan cuba iceland malaysia poland thailand bahama curacao india maldives portugal timor-leste bahrain cyprus indonesia mali qatar togo bangladesh czechia iran malta romania tonga barbados denmark iraq marshallislands russia trinidadandtobago belarus djibouti ireland mauritania rwanda tunisia belgium dominica israel mauritius saintlucia turkey belize dominicanrepublic italy mexico samoa turkmenistan benin ecuador jamaica micronesia sanmarino tuvalu bhutan egypt japan moldova saudiarabia uganda birma elsalvador jordan monaco senegal ukraine bolivia equatorialguinea kazakhstan mongolia serbia unitedarabemirates bosniaandherzegovina eritrea kenya montenegro seychelles uk botswana estonia kiribati morocco sierraleone england brazil ethiopia northkorea mozambique singapore unitedkingdom brunei fiji korea namibia sintmaarten uruguay bulgaria finland southkorea nauru slovakia uzbekistan burkinafaso
    [Show full text]
  • Realizing the Urban Potential in Georgia: National Urban Assessment
    REALIZING THE URBAN POTENTIAL IN GEORGIA National Urban Assessment ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK REALIZING THE URBAN POTENTIAL IN GEORGIA NATIONAL URBAN ASSESSMENT ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2016 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 632 4444; Fax +63 2 636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2016. Printed in the Philippines. ISBN 978-92-9257-352-2 (Print), 978-92-9257-353-9 (e-ISBN) Publication Stock No. RPT168254 Cataloging-In-Publication Data Asian Development Bank. Realizing the urban potential in Georgia—National urban assessment. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2016. 1. Urban development.2. Georgia.3. National urban assessment, strategy, and road maps. I. Asian Development Bank. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. This publication was finalized in November 2015 and statistical data used was from the National Statistics Office of Georgia as available at the time on http://www.geostat.ge The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Defender of Georgia
    2012 The Public Defender of Georgia ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 1 The present report was published with financial support of the EU funded project “Support to the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia”. The views expressed in this publication do not represent the views of the European Union. EUROPEAN UNION 2 www.ombudsman.ge ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN GEORGIA 2012 2012 THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA ANNUAL REPORT OF THEwww.ombudsman.ge PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 3 OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 6, Ramishvili str, 0179, Tbilisi, Georgia Tel: +995 32 2913814; +995 32 2913815 Fax: +995 32 2913841 E-mail: [email protected] 4 www.ombudsman.ge CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 7 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM .................................................... 11 SITUATION AT PENITENTIARY ESTABLISHMENTS ....................... 11 PROTECTION OF HEALTHCARE IN PENITENTIARY SYSTEM AND TORTURE PREVENTION MECHANISMS ................................... 58 MONITORING OF AGENCIES SUBORDINATED TO THE GEORGIAN INTERIOR MINISTRY ............................................... 82 TEMPORARY DETENTION ISOLATOR (TDI) UNDER THE SUBORDINATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION AND MONITORING MAIN DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF GEORGIA ............. 87 REPORT ON CONDITIONS IN PSYCHIATRIC ESTABLISHMENTS IN GEORGIA .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Grape and Wine Culture in Georgia, the South Caucasus
    BIO Web of Conferences 7, 03027 (2016) DOI: 10.1051/bioconf/20160703027 39th World Congress of Vine and Wine Grape and wine culture in Georgia, the South Caucasus David Maghradze1,a, Giorgi Samanishvili1, Levan Mekhuzla1, Irma Mdinaradze1, George Tevzadze1, Andro Aslanishvili1, Paata Chavchanidze1, David Lordkipanidze2, Mindia Jalabadze2, Eliso Kvavadze2, Nana Rusishvili2, Eldar Nadiradze2, Gvantsa Archvadze2, Patrick McGovern3, Patrice This4, Roberto Bacilieri4, Osvaldo Failla5, Gabriele Cola5, Luigi Mariani5, Nathan Wales6, M. Thomas P. Gilbert6, Laurent Bouby7, Tina Kazeli8, Levan Ujmajuridze9, Stephen Batiuk10, Andrew Graham10, Lika Megrelidze11, Tamar Bagratia11, and Levan Davitashvili12 1 National Wine Agency of Georgia, 6 Marshal Geloveni Ave., 0159 Tbilisi, Georgia 2 National Museum of Georgia, 3 Purtseladze Str., 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia 3 University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA 4 INRA-CIRAD-SupAgro, UMR AGAP, 1334 Montpellier, France 5 University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 6 University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5–7, 1350 Copenhagen, Denmark 7 Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, University of Montpellier, Place Eugene` Bataillon, 22, 34095 Montpellier, France 8 Georgian Wine Association, 12 Mtatsminda Str., 0108 Tbilisi, Georgia 9 Scientific – Research Center of Agriculture, 6 Marshal Geloveni Ave., 0159 Tbilisi, Georgia 10 University of Toronto, Dept. of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations, 4 Bancroft Ave, Toronto, Canada 11 Environmental Agency of Georgia, David Aghmashenebely Ave., 0112 Tbilisi, Georgia 12 Minister of Agriculture of Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia Abstract. In 2014, the National Wine Agency of the Republic of Georgia initiated a three-year “Research Project for the study of Georgian Grapes and Wine Culture.
    [Show full text]