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

Geographical Indication (GI) Options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa
adherence to traditional production methods provides cost savings via shunning
of agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilisers and pesticides. 5 Some argued
that the largely small-scale nature of production does not allow for the use of
mechanised agriculture (Tessema interview, 2012) (meaning that the adoption
of GIs could help to prevent the displacement of small-scale farmers by commercial
producers who resort to large-scale agricultural production methods). In any
event, we came to the conclusion that, in a successful implementation of GIs
for Ethiopian coffee or Ghanaian cocoa, any decrease in yield due to the nonapplication
of mechanised agriculture would likely be offset through improved
prices for the products that would remain clearly differentiated from generic
products in commodity markets.
Operational challenges
Getting consumers to know the quality, reputation or characteristic of a
GI-protected product would be crucial to broad recognition of the product
in the market. A significant number of respondents in the study recognised
the need for strategies that broaden the market share for their products. One
interviewee, a cocoa farmer from the Western region of Ghana, expressed the
view that it would be worth the risk to invest in promotional activities in international
markets, given the quality of his products (Quam interview, 2012).
Meanwhile, all of the respondents in the Ethiopian coffee and Ghanaian cocoa
sectors gave the response “agree” or “somehow agree” with the view that because
some varieties of their products have existing market reputation, no significant
expenses in advertisement and brand management would be expected. The
leaders of farmers’ associations and cooperative unions said they recognised
that any GI strategy would present the opportunity to further engage in promotional
activities. 6
There is evidence that many distinctive agricultural products from African
countries already have broad reputations in their respective markets. 7 But a problem
for most producers of these products is that the premium prices that the
products garner tend to benefit outside commercial entities, namely, intermediaries
in the value chain of the products. In this context, it can be argued that,
5 Focus group discussion among coffee farmers, 15 June 2012, held at the office of the OCFCU.
6 Personal communications with leaders of the OCFCU, Sidama Coffee Farmers Cooperative
Union, Yirgacheffe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union and the CAA.
7 These products include, for example, Madagascar Bourbon, Ugandan Vanilla, Kenya’s
indigenous tea varieties such as Kericho tea, South Africa’s indigenous tea product Rooibos,
and the Chili de Mamou from the Republic of Guinea.
95