Geographical Indication (GI) options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa

Innovation & Intellectual Property
production and advance open development outcomes, because they increase the
competitiveness and overall empowerment of traditional agricultural communities.
However, they do not have as broad recognition as other differentiation strategies
typically adopted in developing countries.
3. The research
The overarching research question for this case study was: how do stakeholders
in the value chains of Ethiopian coffee and Ghanaian cocoa participate in international
trade, and what roles do/could GIs and other types of PBIP have in empowering
participants and facilitating open development? From the central research
question, sub-questions arose: (1) To what extent do/could GI and other PBIP
strategies offer potential for local agricultural producers to collaboratively control
their knowledge-based agricultural products in order to effectively participate in
the global economy? (2) Which initiatives are under way to support GI and other
PBIP initiatives in Ethiopia and Ghana? (3) How do different forms of GIs compare
with existing initiatives? (4) Which legislative and regulatory approaches are
needed to support GI models?
The study deployed two research methods, both qualitative. A desk-based
analysis of primary and secondary sources was conducted, which focused on mapping
the existing legal framework for PBIP in the two jurisdictions. The second
method was an empirical value chain analysis of Ghanaian cocoa and Ethiopian
coffee. A value chain is defined as the
[...] full range of activities which are required to bring a product […] from
conception, through the different phases of production […], delivery to final
customers, and final disposal after use. (Hellin and Meijer, 2006)
Actors identified as being in the value chain of the two products included individual
producers (farmers) and their producer groups (farmer associations, farmer
cooperatives and cooperative unions); local collectors (buyers), wholesalers and
exporters; importers, processors, roasters and retailers; sector-specific regulatory
agencies in production and marketing; and farmer support groups and experts
related to production and marketing. Due to time and logistics constraints, the
research concentrated on the roles of producer groups in each value chain. The
study covered, to a lesser extent, the roles and activities of regulatory bodies, support
institutions, traders and other relevant actors, i.e. all the other categories of
actors in the chain of activities and linkages to the products (as is customary in
value chain analysis). This primary focus on producer groups was recognised as
a potential research limitation. However, an advantage of this somewhat narrow
82