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

Geographical Indication (GI) Options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa
Europe and most notably in France, was not considered feasible, given the enormous
efforts required to implement it (Adelo interview, 2012; Mengistie interview,
2012). This decision is understandable because of the need to build institutional
infrastructures and expertise that ensure the establishment, monitoring and controlling
of production and marketing of the GI product. However, as this research
study has found, there is evidence to suggest that the establishment of the structures
necessary for GI protection in Ethiopia would not need to start from nothing
as far as coffee production in the alternative value chain is concerned. Some of the
structures – and motivations from producers – with regard to GIs already exist in
the Ethiopian coffee sector. If a sui generis system of GIs were found to be suitable
– and perhaps more suitable than a trademark-based IP strategy – the tasks
involved in introducing and implementing GIs do not appear to be out of reach.
6. Conclusions
There is demonstrable evidence of a networked collaborative tradition of knowledge
generation among local communities and diverse stakeholders involved in
the production of premium Ethiopian coffee and Ghanaian cocoa. These entities’
suitability to adapt GIs as sui generis IP models for open development outcomes
in the two countries is a very plausible potential of their traditional orientation
and operational module. It is clear, however, that the practical implementation of
GIs in the two countries could involve significant burdens, given that the system
of GIs is relatively foreign to them. What is required is a strategic approach to
using GIs in ways that alleviate, not increase, cost burdens for producer groups.
The research findings suggest that the burdens of implementing GIs are not
insurmountable, for three reasons. First, the experience of differentiation through
certification marks (for fair trade and organic certification) has meant that the
preconditions for success of GI strategies already exist in the alternative value
chains of each country. GI strategies for the two products could thus be based
on the experience and strength of existing differentiation strategies, in cooperation
with farmer cooperatives and associations. Second, cost implications could
be contained by exploiting the flexibility offered by the choice between sui generis
and trademark-based systems of GI protection. Third, the potential of GI implementation
in harmony with the practice and institutional settings of cooperative
unions and farmers’ associations, as well as the involvement of the state in the process,
are important considerations. Together these factors help mitigate the cost
concerns usually presented in arguments against the adoption of GIs in developing
countries. Developing countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana must weigh these
considerations in determining whether to introduce GIs in their jurisdictions.
99