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

Geographical Indication (GI) Options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa
Ethiopian coffee (Fairtrade, n.d.; McCarthy, 2007). Therefore, the alternative value
chains for Ethiopian coffee and Ghanaian cocoa were not found to be broad in
scope. However, given consumers’ increased interest in certification schemes – due
to the work of advocacy networks – there is reason to believe that the bolstering
of certification initiatives via GI initiatives could improve the market share for
GI-protected goods.
Challenges of introducing GIs: structural
Introducing a functional system of GIs requires the establishment of institutional,
legislative and organisational frameworks. As in many other developing countries,
Ethiopia and Ghana do not have a developed system of GIs. At the time of writing,
Ethiopia had draft legislation on GIs: the Proclamation for the Registration and
Protection of Designation of Origin, and the Draft GIs Proclamation. These two
pieces of draft legislation were under the auspices of the Ethiopian Environmental
Protection Authority (EPA) and the EIPO, respectively. The EIPO had taken
responsibility for integrating the legislation and preparing laws that would drive
the application of GIs for a wide variety of agricultural products (Adelo interview,
2012). Meanwhile, Ghana was in the process of revising its Geographical
Indications Act of 2003 to make it applicable to cocoa, pineapple, kente, adinkra
and other export-based Ghanaian products.
In addition to a legal framework, GI protection requires institutional and
administrative mechanisms for the identification and registration of eligible
products. Also required are infrastructure and expertise to establish, monitor and
control production methods to ensure that products are GI-compliant. Active
coordination and cooperation between national, regional and local administrative
authorities and producer groups are also necessary in order to adopt and administer
compliance mechanisms for agricultural production (Rangnekar, 2007).
Once GI protection is extended to the product, these mechanisms are neces sary
to ensure that the GI product does not become generic through unregulated production
processes.
At least four government branches in Ethiopia claim to have a mandate
relevant to the implementation of GIs: the MOA, the EIPO, the EPA and the
Ministry of Trade. The MOA provides farmer support programmes that
extend to the lowest administrative levels through its Agricultural Extension
Directorate. A task force of nine people, composed of farmers, farmer association
representatives and MOA employees, oversees the maintenance of quality
in coffee production and processing (MOA interviewee, 2012). The MOA official
interviewed for this research expressed concern that the cost of monitoring
production, demarcating areas of production and ensuring quality in the
91