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

Geographical Indication (GI) Options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa
small-scale producers. 4 However, even though the differentiation schemes have
proved to be largely successful instruments for improving market access for agricultural
producers in the international market, the lack of domestic certification
capacity – and hence, reliance on foreign standards and certifying bodies – was
cited by interviewees as raising a number of concerns.
One such concern cited is the fact that the system of certification in fair trade
and eco-labelling incorporates expensive procedures of rigorous inspection and
certification that some producers claim are too burdensome (G/Kidan interview,
2012). Interviewee Asinakech Thomas, Ethiopia’s only female miller-exporter of
Amaro Gayo Coffee, and who works closely with farming communities in the
Amaro Gayo district, said she does not see the need for such an expensive process
of organic certification through foreign-based certifiers (Thomas interview,
2012). Thomas argued that the farmers in her coffee-producing region already
strive for the finest quality of coffee through traditional production methods that
preserve the natural ecosystem and the human culture connected to that ecosystem.
As noted earlier in this chapter, agricultural production in Africa is largely
de facto organic. Given this context, the use of GIs could provide an opportunity
to implement the standards of organic certification by incorporating requirements
(such as preferences for environmentally sensitive methods of production,
GM-free production, and maintenance of production conditions free of chemical
pesticides and contaminants) in GI regulations as recognised methods of production.
With effective implementation of GIs, small-scale farmers could be empowered
to participate in international trade on their own terms.
A second concern arising from dependence on certification schemes relates
to the fact that most of the schemes focus on a homogeneous set of certification
practices that sometimes deviate from local realities (Mutersbaugh, 2002).
Interviewee Tsegaye Anemo, General Manager of the Sidama Coffee Farmers
Cooperative Union, stated that production standards in certification schemes
do not take the unique circumstances and existing methods of production into
account (Anemo interview, 2012). This opinion is commonly held among critics
of certification schemes who often point out that the formalisation and standardisation
of certification practices do not accommodate “varied and complex ecological,
economic, and socio-cultural contexts” (Getz and Shreck, 2006). In contrast,
GI protection is fundamentally premised on a desire to preserve local, national
and regional distinctness in agricultural production (FAO, 2008).
A third concern expressed by interviewees was that the existing certification
schemes prescribe different sets of standards and criteria that often overlap. Fair
trade certification prescribes environmental standards that are also required in
4 Focus group discussion with Ato Tadesse Meskela (OCFCU) and Isa Mustapha (Executive, CAA).
89