Read the real story behind the Starbucks-Ethiopia joint press statement here
Hot Coffee, Mild Voices
Addis Fortune
February 18, 2007
This week, Addis Abeba hosted the fourth annual African Fine Coffee Conference and Exhibition. The conference attracted exporters, roasters, buyers, and retailers specializing in specialty coffees from all over the world, providing an excellent mix of distinguished international and regional speakers presenting a wide range of topics, as well as providing opportunities for networking, connecting various stakeholders from around the world.
The theme of the conference, appropriately named A Pilgrimage to the Birth Place of Coffee, included an African Coffee Safari to the coffee growing regions of Ethiopia.
It is ironic though that this pilgrimage to the birthplace of coffee came at a time when Ethiopian coffee has taken center stage as a hot issue. The trademark standoff between Ethiopia and Starbucks has recently stirred up a bitter debate among stakeholders, and consequently, the conference atmosphere owed its meaning and shape to the notion of unfair trade practices and existing inequity of global economies.
It is also paradoxical, but symptomatic of the highly imbalanced relations of power and privilege, that the keynote speech at the conference was delivered by none other than Willard (Dub) Hay, senior vice president of Starbucks, who also plays the role of the Chairman of Government Affairs Committee for the National Coffee Association (NCA), a US agency that submitted a letter of protest to the USPTO against Ethiopia's trademark application for its specialty coffees.
That such contradictory events could occur simultaneously is not surprising: moments of transition are often rife with contradictions, and will be the key to beginning the process that will end the vicious cycle of vulnerability.
The evolution of the world coffee market has left millions of people in coffee growing countries in a state of despair, while giant coffee corporations in consuming countries are getting richer by leaps and bounds. The original source of coffee is no exception to this predicament. Ethiopia finds itself at the bottom of the market chain.
International trade policies favor the developed countries - since they are in a position to create, implement and insist on the rules of the game. This very uneven pattern of global economic development keeps us under pressure to accept dictation from creditor nations and financial institutions.
Unfortunately, the convention was a reflection of the continuation of the same trend. The subordination to, and preference of external relations to the detriment of internal development was clear. It did nothing to rebuild our national image, or give us the opportunity to command the terms of our membership in the coffee economy. A convention held in a producing country should have had a keynote speech by an authority representing the producers' end of the market.
We were largely represented by existing aid agencies from the developed world that are operating here in Ethiopia. These aid agencies have every appearance of not having a grasp of the real issues, and are here to maintain the interest of the donor countries they represent. The programs they create, like spending a huge sum of money to train Ethiopians for a coffee barista competition during the conference for example, are purely cosmetic in nature, and do nothing to empower the intended beneficiaries of these programs. The money earmarked for improving coffee production and subsequent access to premium markets, is largely being spent on hiring highly paid implementing agents and consultants from their respective countries.
Instead of changing the plight of millions of individuals in the coffee industry, they are essentially creating jobs for their own citizens in our country, who in most cases are also pursuing their own economic interests.
It is a shame that underdevelopment has been further reinforced by the agents of development. The use of aid dollars for such superficial purposes and projects that do not contribute towards making a dent in solving the real issue not only ignores the reality of the indigenous community's needs, but also emphasizes the notions of cultural superiority.
Ethiopia's recognition of this recurrent theme has prompted it to take action against such victimization. The current conflict between Ethiopia and Starbucks manifests Ethiopia's effort in severing the apron strings of domination by the developed world. Utilizing the same tool of economic development that the well-to-do nations use is one way of breaking out of this cycle.
Intellectual Property (IP), assets such as technological know-how, patents, trademarks, brand names and copyrights, increasingly make up the majority of the profits from international trade. Developed countries protect and strategically exploit their IP assets, and Ethiopia's initiative to trademark three of its coffee names Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgachefe is aimed at raising the incomes of the more than 15 million Ethiopians who are dependent on coffee.
While being applauded by cutting edge roasters and traders that are coming on board, and over 30 countries that have granted Ethiopia the trademarks, this innovative move has met resistance from Starbucks and the US National Coffee Association.
Starbucks' relationship to Ethiopia is reminiscent of colonial powers. It pretends to be the guardian of poor coffee farmers, by telling Ethiopia and concerned citizens around the world that trade marking its coffees will be of no benefit to the farmer, and advising our government to go with a geographical indication (GI) instead.
It points to its CAFÉ practices, hoodwinking the consumer into thinking that it is doing something beneficial for the farmer. It consistently stresses its "help" and contribution towards social developments in Ethiopia, instead of the price it pays for the coffee. By disguising how it makes its profit, and dwelling on what it does with the profits afterwards instead, Starbucks refuses to recognize the extent and value of the labor Ethiopian farmers invest in producing the specialty coffees it sells for much higher value than it paid for it.
Ethiopians who depend on the crop for their living are hot; angry at not being able to demand the price that their coffee is actually worth. Customers who have turned activists from Seattle to New York to Europe are hot; outraged at Starbucks for working through their lobbying group, National Coffee Association (NCA), to block Ethiopia's efforts to secure trademarks for its known coffee brands. And the names Harrar and Sidamo are allowed to be hot; stolen from their rightful owners.
For the cradle of the coffee bean, where poverty prevails despite the country's stupendous resources, this controversy signifies the immense need to discard the status quo, and use it as a springboard toward creating changes that need to be made. We need to review the mistakes that have led us to this point, and work on strategies that recognize the control we have over our own lives.
Our coffees have earned their names and specialty status. Farmers, the custodians of the original coffee trees, have worked for generations to produce its unique taste. They have every right to demand what the coffee is worth. Ethiopia will remain adamant in its efforts to trademark its coffee, as our Prime Minister recently notified Starbuck's CEO during his recent visit here with Guatemalan farmers trying to convince him that their plan has worked for other poor exploited countries.
Existing conditions need a paradigm shift. Let us own our own voices, our coffees, and our names. We will tell the world what our coffees are worth. We will determine what is fair.
Hot Coffee, Mild Voices
Addis Fortune
February 18, 2007
This week, Addis Abeba hosted the fourth annual African Fine Coffee Conference and Exhibition. The conference attracted exporters, roasters, buyers, and retailers specializing in specialty coffees from all over the world, providing an excellent mix of distinguished international and regional speakers presenting a wide range of topics, as well as providing opportunities for networking, connecting various stakeholders from around the world.
The theme of the conference, appropriately named A Pilgrimage to the Birth Place of Coffee, included an African Coffee Safari to the coffee growing regions of Ethiopia.
It is ironic though that this pilgrimage to the birthplace of coffee came at a time when Ethiopian coffee has taken center stage as a hot issue. The trademark standoff between Ethiopia and Starbucks has recently stirred up a bitter debate among stakeholders, and consequently, the conference atmosphere owed its meaning and shape to the notion of unfair trade practices and existing inequity of global economies.
It is also paradoxical, but symptomatic of the highly imbalanced relations of power and privilege, that the keynote speech at the conference was delivered by none other than Willard (Dub) Hay, senior vice president of Starbucks, who also plays the role of the Chairman of Government Affairs Committee for the National Coffee Association (NCA), a US agency that submitted a letter of protest to the USPTO against Ethiopia's trademark application for its specialty coffees.
That such contradictory events could occur simultaneously is not surprising: moments of transition are often rife with contradictions, and will be the key to beginning the process that will end the vicious cycle of vulnerability.
The evolution of the world coffee market has left millions of people in coffee growing countries in a state of despair, while giant coffee corporations in consuming countries are getting richer by leaps and bounds. The original source of coffee is no exception to this predicament. Ethiopia finds itself at the bottom of the market chain.
International trade policies favor the developed countries - since they are in a position to create, implement and insist on the rules of the game. This very uneven pattern of global economic development keeps us under pressure to accept dictation from creditor nations and financial institutions.
Unfortunately, the convention was a reflection of the continuation of the same trend. The subordination to, and preference of external relations to the detriment of internal development was clear. It did nothing to rebuild our national image, or give us the opportunity to command the terms of our membership in the coffee economy. A convention held in a producing country should have had a keynote speech by an authority representing the producers' end of the market.
We were largely represented by existing aid agencies from the developed world that are operating here in Ethiopia. These aid agencies have every appearance of not having a grasp of the real issues, and are here to maintain the interest of the donor countries they represent. The programs they create, like spending a huge sum of money to train Ethiopians for a coffee barista competition during the conference for example, are purely cosmetic in nature, and do nothing to empower the intended beneficiaries of these programs. The money earmarked for improving coffee production and subsequent access to premium markets, is largely being spent on hiring highly paid implementing agents and consultants from their respective countries.
Instead of changing the plight of millions of individuals in the coffee industry, they are essentially creating jobs for their own citizens in our country, who in most cases are also pursuing their own economic interests.
It is a shame that underdevelopment has been further reinforced by the agents of development. The use of aid dollars for such superficial purposes and projects that do not contribute towards making a dent in solving the real issue not only ignores the reality of the indigenous community's needs, but also emphasizes the notions of cultural superiority.
Ethiopia's recognition of this recurrent theme has prompted it to take action against such victimization. The current conflict between Ethiopia and Starbucks manifests Ethiopia's effort in severing the apron strings of domination by the developed world. Utilizing the same tool of economic development that the well-to-do nations use is one way of breaking out of this cycle.
Intellectual Property (IP), assets such as technological know-how, patents, trademarks, brand names and copyrights, increasingly make up the majority of the profits from international trade. Developed countries protect and strategically exploit their IP assets, and Ethiopia's initiative to trademark three of its coffee names Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgachefe is aimed at raising the incomes of the more than 15 million Ethiopians who are dependent on coffee.
While being applauded by cutting edge roasters and traders that are coming on board, and over 30 countries that have granted Ethiopia the trademarks, this innovative move has met resistance from Starbucks and the US National Coffee Association.
Starbucks' relationship to Ethiopia is reminiscent of colonial powers. It pretends to be the guardian of poor coffee farmers, by telling Ethiopia and concerned citizens around the world that trade marking its coffees will be of no benefit to the farmer, and advising our government to go with a geographical indication (GI) instead.
It points to its CAFÉ practices, hoodwinking the consumer into thinking that it is doing something beneficial for the farmer. It consistently stresses its "help" and contribution towards social developments in Ethiopia, instead of the price it pays for the coffee. By disguising how it makes its profit, and dwelling on what it does with the profits afterwards instead, Starbucks refuses to recognize the extent and value of the labor Ethiopian farmers invest in producing the specialty coffees it sells for much higher value than it paid for it.
Ethiopians who depend on the crop for their living are hot; angry at not being able to demand the price that their coffee is actually worth. Customers who have turned activists from Seattle to New York to Europe are hot; outraged at Starbucks for working through their lobbying group, National Coffee Association (NCA), to block Ethiopia's efforts to secure trademarks for its known coffee brands. And the names Harrar and Sidamo are allowed to be hot; stolen from their rightful owners.
For the cradle of the coffee bean, where poverty prevails despite the country's stupendous resources, this controversy signifies the immense need to discard the status quo, and use it as a springboard toward creating changes that need to be made. We need to review the mistakes that have led us to this point, and work on strategies that recognize the control we have over our own lives.
Our coffees have earned their names and specialty status. Farmers, the custodians of the original coffee trees, have worked for generations to produce its unique taste. They have every right to demand what the coffee is worth. Ethiopia will remain adamant in its efforts to trademark its coffee, as our Prime Minister recently notified Starbuck's CEO during his recent visit here with Guatemalan farmers trying to convince him that their plan has worked for other poor exploited countries.
Existing conditions need a paradigm shift. Let us own our own voices, our coffees, and our names. We will tell the world what our coffees are worth. We will determine what is fair.
Comments
Post a Comment
Join the conversation