Poor Farmer

Update Nicholas Sho of Murky Coffee recently met with Gatachew Mengistie, Director General of Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office , in a casual setting, to discuss the Ethiopian coffee names issue that has been escalated to a public dispute between Ethiopia and Starbucks. Listen to the podcast in MP3 format, 44 MB The 1 hour 35 minutes and 56 seconds long podacst is also found here . See below for more information and how to subscribe or download. Choose a format: AAC XML feed MP3 XML feed Click here to go to the Portafilter Podcast on iTunes Music Store. MAC OS users, click HERE (for a one-click to subscribe in iTunes) To Download the Podcast Choose your format (AAC or MP3) WIN: right-click and "Save As" OSX: Ctrl-Click and select "Download" My special thanks go to Nicholas Sho for kindly allowing us to share his experience with the wider readers. Coming up: In-depth analysis of Ethiopia's IP strategy

Is the company ready to listen to the poor farmers' plea over there? The Seattle Times reported that Starbucks has opened its first store in Africa on Thursday. The Cairo location will be run by Kuwait-based company M.H. Alshaya, which also operates more than 170 Starbucks stores in Kuwait, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan and Turkey. The coffee shop chain opened its first stores in Brazil about a month ago and has plans to open locations in India and Russia in 2007. The poor coffee farmers in Africa are still asking Starbucks to honor its commitments. Few weeks back, The Standard , posted here , reported that "angry farmers from a coffee factory in Nyeri District have blasted officials of the Starbucks Coffee Company for refusing to respond to their questions on a project the multinational is undertaking in the area.” According to the report, Mr John Kabira, a farmer said "Starbucks interests are only in making profits from our c...

Goliath & David? We are in the last days of year 2006 and Starbucks is still being asked to sign a voluntary Licensing Agreement acknowledging Ethiopia's ownership of its own coffee names. While I keep an eye on any developments through the end of the year, I hope the following summary of the major events and issues surrounding the dispute between Ethiopia and Starbucks helps you reflect on the past several days. The first section of this summary tracks the chronological order of major events since the dispute erupted and the second section enlists links to and a brief description of articles, issues, and references posted on this blog through the end of 2006. TIMELINE 2004 : Starbucks filed application to register “ Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo ” trademark. Ethiopia asked Starbucks to drop its application because the country is preparing to register the names Sidamo and Harar ; Starbucks refused to talk 2005 : NCA filed a letter of protest asking Ethiopia's application t...

Starbucks released a two minutes video on YouTube in response to that of Oxfam. No surprise there for a defensive and desperate party. What is striking in the video interview is the attempt by Dub Hay, Head of Starbucks coffee Team, to mislead the public. Here is the first segment of the one-man show: Question on the screen : Why won't Starbucks sign the trademark agreement with Ethiopia? Dub Hay : ( from narration ) For us to do what we've been asked to do, which is to sign a licensing agreement recognizing the trademark name to the geographies is something against the law. US law does have and allow it, and allow it for this, it does specifically allow it, called certification and we have proposed for this as an alternative; we are very committed to finding a solution with the Ethiopian government as it is in the best interest of the coffee farmers. Simply put, trademark is illegal because the law allows for certification [also]. The argument is insencere but the intrinsic mo...

Few days ago, I posted highlights of Oxfam's call for public action under Starbucks: Honor Your Commitments to Ethiopian Coffee Farmers . The first comment on this came from Starbucks. The comment posted by a writer who preferred to remain anonymous (have you ever read a name when the company comments?) reads: I recommend you visit www.starbucks.com to see what this company does do to support farmers in every country they buy from. All of this bad press is false. December 14, 2006 2:58:00 PM PST At the time, I appreciated Starbucks' response and encouraged everyone to discuss on how to let the Ethiopian coffee farmers benefit from owning the trademarks of their own coffee names. Well, Shayna has a response: Starbucks has taken some good steps, but it can do better. Recognizing Ethiopia’s rights to its coffee names would complement these efforts. Starbucks has made positive contributions to coffee-growing communities, but now that Ethiopia is proposing a long-term poverty solut...

Given the current government's repeated violation of law and order even in terms of the constitution it wrote, its tarnished human rights records, and attempts to silence the public in every way possible including repression and war, the role it plays in such initiatives is rightly questionable. Also, the current marketing system in the country is skewed towards favoring government affiliated middlemen and exporters more than the poor farmers. My upcoming post will discuss this topic in further depth and attempt to explain or suggest systems that will reinforce the farmers' opportunity to directly benefit from this and other projects.

By Wondwossen Mezlekia The recent Starbucks Day of Action escalated the public dispute to another level, described by an activist as color orange or “severe” – red being “imminent” - in a scale of likelihood of public actions. Starbucks has not commented on this to date but there are indications suggesting that the company did feel the heat. Whether the giant would move from its stance remains an interesting story to follow. On December 16, many Starbucks customers including Ethiopian Americans, Fair Trade activists, and University students made it out to the busy streets in the US, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Germany, and other countries. In addition, in what is seen as proof of Oxfam’s sophistication in campaign strategies and the organization’s intimacy with grassroots supporters, a video of the public action was released through YouTube on December 19th - another surprise. The three minutes video is both alarming and full of striking contrasts. It is amazing to see people ...

An interviewee on Starbucks Day of Action video said that this is an opportunity for Starbucks to “show they are what they say they are.” Is Starbucks missing this opportunity? More soon...

Global voices against the bitter tastes of coffee trade Here is an opportunity for you to share with friends what the Starbucks Vs Ethiopia public dispute is all about. Click here to watch the video on Oxfam's Starbucks Campaign. Check out the Starbucks Day of Action photo gallery here . For an independent analysis of the trademark dispute, please read this .

After a sleepless night on the eve of December 16, activists from the Ethiopian community, consumer groups, University of Washington students, and Fair Trade activists in Seattle took the international public campaign to the doorsteps of Starbucks coffee houses today. Starbucks Day of Action was full of surprises for Starbucks as something unexpected happened at where it hurts most - the customer base at its Capital City, Seattle. Similar surprises were held in several cities around the world. Read this release. More coming soon.

Countdown Policy Innovations ' article says it all: "If you consider yourself a good global citizen, Starbucks Coffee could be keeping you up at night—and it might not be the caffeine. " Sleepless from Seattle tells the stories of many in Settle and all over the globe on this eve of December 16. Tomorrow is Starbucks Day of Action day, when we will join thousands of activists across the globe to let the public know about the coffee trademark dispute. Starbucks employees and consumers need to know more about Ethiopia's demand to own its own coffee names. It does not really make sense that the country asks Starbucks' permission to be the owner of it's own name. But that is the question; you may be told one day that you do not own what you have always thought you do. We will do our best to let Starbucks employees know the facts buried underneath the company's press releases . Starbucks' CEO, Jim Donald told them that he can’t talk about the details b...

Starbucks Day of Action Special Edition Oxford professor, Douglas Holt blasts Starbucks’ argument as disingenuous and patronizing in this commentary on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the main daily newspaper in Seattle. "Perceptions that Starbucks works hard to benefit its poor coffee farmers have become a valuable part of the Starbucks brand for the company's customers. But when it comes to making the tough decisions, between caring and profit, does Starbucks really care? Starbucks claims that awarding trademarks would violate the economic interests of Ethiopian coffee growers. That is a disingenuous and patronizing argument. Starbucks opposes Ethiopia's efforts in order to shore up its market power, not out of paternal concern for Africans. It's not for Starbucks to deny Ethiopians the right to participate in the marketplace with the same legal rights that have allowed Starbucks to prosper. Trademarks would allow Sidamo, Harar, and Yirgacheffe to be managed by thei...

Starbucks responds to COFFEE POLITICS' call. The message posted under the comment section of Starbucks: Honor Your Commitments to Ethiopian Coffee Farmers by the writer who preferred to remain anonymous reads: Anonymous said... I recommend you visit www.starbucks.com to see what this company does do to support farmers in every country they buy from. All of this bad press is false. December 14, 2006 2:58:00 PM PST COFFEE POLITICS appreciates Starbucks' response and welcomes other comments. Let's discuss to let the Ethiopian coffee farmers benefit from owning the trademarks of their own coffee names.

Ready to take action? Special Edition of COFFEE POLITICS On December 16, join thousands of activists around the world who are standing by Ethiopian coffee farmers and asking Starbucks to honor its commitments. Many Starbucks employees have asked to know more about the campaign. We need your help to let them know the facts. Talk to your local Starbucks baristas (employees) about your support for Ethiopia's trademark initiative. Ask them to communicate back to Starbucks headquarters about your conversation. What you'll need : Your voice. Starbucks has a team of lawyers to protect its name; the Ethiopian coffee farmer has you. Amplify the voices of Ethiopian farmers by speaking to Starbucks directly. What you'll do: 1. Download the Starbucks Day of Action Toolkit . 2. Go into your local Starbucks store, and ask the baristas (employees) for a cup of Ethiopian coffee. 3. Say: "I am here to show support for Ethiopia’s initiative to trademark its coffee names." 4. Hand ...

Time line 2004: Starbucks filed application to register “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo” trademark. Ethiopia asked Starbucks to drop its application because the country is preparing to register the names Yirgacheffe, Sidamo and Harar; Starbucks refused to talk 2005: NCA filed a letter of protest asking Ethiopia's application to register all the names be denied. Starbucks then drop its application for “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo” but continued to ignore Ethiopia's call to discuss. Ethiopia's application for Yirgacheffe trademark has been granted; the contestants expressed their regrets for lack of preparations to block it. Ethiopia continued to seek Starbucks' voluntary agreement acknowledging the country's ownership of the names Sidamo and Harar 2006 October: Oxfam and 85,000 Starbucks customers asked Starbucks to come to the table to discuss and sign a Licensing Agreement with Ethiopia acknowledging Ethiopia's ownership of the names Sidamo and Harar 2006 November: Ox...

The Times of London interviewed Jim Donald, Starbucks CEO, who said that he “told Mr Zenawi the company prefers “certification” over trademarking.” "“So what’s the difference? Mr Donald shifts slightly in his Starbucks-regulation armchair. “I can’t talk about the details because I don’t understand them,” he says. “I’m not a trademark lawyer.” It’s quite an admission for the chief executive of one of the world’s most successful trademarked brands, especially since it’s a distinction that customers seem to care about,” said the Times. Read the full article “ Starbucks seeks the right blend of global ambition and ethical trade ” here . In a separate report, “ Ethiopia argues trademark would give coffee growers an extra shot ”, the Times quoted the director-general of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office, Getachew Mengiste as saying, “It ( certification ) is costly and, in countries such as Ethiopia, it may not be feasible where coffee grows in the back yards of millions of far...

This entire trademark wrangling finds its roots to those early days in 2004 when Ethiopia was preparing to file an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register the names Harar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe. Though Starbucks won't discuss the issue in public, I found out that at least three reasons are driving the company’s decisions which might bear risks to its own brand . In 2004, just before filing their applications to register the coffee brands, Ethiopian government officials discovered that Starbucks had already submitted an application to trademark “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo.” The government attempted to engage Starbucks in discussions because it had become evident that the company’s application might jeopardize Ethiopia’s plans to trademark the name, Sidamo. The company later dropped its application to register “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo” but only after, the National Coffee Association (NCA), whom Starbucks is the influential member , had fil...

Ethiopia’s coffee trademarking initiative and Starbucks’ refusal to acknowledge the country’s ownership of the names Sidamo and Harar stirred up both scholarly and jingoistic dialogue. So far, the taboo surrounding intellectual property as a matter of rights has been unveiled. This has left some corporations, such as Starbucks, shocked while the public, whose trust in Capitalism obstructed their views through Corporate Social Responsibility, is angered. The government in Ethiopia and Starbucks proved to be making a bad blend. Starbucks’ damage control measures have electrified the majority of consumers to campaign against unethical business practices. Critics of the government in Ethiopia, on the other hand, suspect that the project is the government’s plan to control the coffee industry. The confusion left some people disillusioned and cynical. Situations in Ethiopia substantiate the claim by those who are convinced that the government’s dictatorship, abusive practices, and widespread...

Gemeda Humnasa of American Chronicle warns that Starbucks’ refusal to accept Ethiopia’s ownership of its own coffee names will have consequences. “There are many factors contributing to Ethiopia’s inability to remove poverty including costly wars, dry weather, unfair international trade barriers and subsidized corresponding sectors in other well-off nations” Gemeda said. I add absence of democracy and human rights abuses to the list. Gemeda continues, “But Starbucks’ refusal to allow Ethiopia to control the three names of its coffees might end up hurting the reputation of the company as well as spark activists against globalization & “Trade Injustice” around the world. This current case might add new recruits to their cause, which is a new development that can escalate quickly and become a concern for many other international corporations. “Trade Injustice” is one of the various issues organizations like CORPWATCH monitor in order to help poor nations stand up against unfair inter...

Human rights groups are the latest voices accusing Starbucks of its indecency and for abusing its market power, a style widely seen as dictating a remotely controlled colonial market system. Despite consumers' repeated calls for Starbucks to honor its promises to coffee growers, the company refused to budge from its position of blocking Ethiopia’s plan to trademark its gourmet coffees in the US markets. The dispute over Ethiopia’s coffee names unmasked the disingenuous business ethics deeply rooted in the corporate world. Starbucks prides itself as a leader of “Corporate Social Responsibility” in the industry. After CEO Jim Donald’s visit to Ethiopia, the company said that it "is committed to working with the Ethiopian government to find a solution that supports the Ethiopian coffee farmer." In reality, this commitment is translated into the company’s denying of poor coffee farmers’ of a rare opportunity that could change their lives. Ethiopia, paradoxically stereo-typed ...

What are the economic reasons why Starbucks is unyielding to Ethiopia's rights to the names Sidamo and Harar? Do companies, such as Starbucks have rights to deny farmers of their cultural heritages? Analysis coming up soon. Related: To read Starbucks' responses, click here . For Oxfam's recent call to Starbucks, please read this . For an independent analysis on the dispute, please click here .

Nyeri Coffee Farmers Rage at Starbucks Officials Starbucks officials made a stop over in Kenya last week to visit the progress of the Kenya Heartland Coffee project, which is aimed at helping Kenyan farmers to improve their coffees’ quality and production. Jim Donald, CEO and other senior Starbucks officers’ visit to Kenya followed the failed talks with the government in Ethiopia regarding the coffee trademark dispute. The report by Moses Njagih and agencies said that "angry farmers from a coffee factory in Nyeri District have blasted officials of the Starbucks Coffee Company for refusing to respond to their questions on a project the multinational is undertaking in the area.” The Standard quoted Mr John Kabira, a farmer as saying, "Starbucks interests are only in making profits from our coffee, and yet they are not even mindful about our welfare." Read the news here .

Throughout this public dispute over Ethiopia’s move to trademark the country’s best coffee names, Starbucks’ position has been to refrain from discussing the issue publicly. As a result, those who have attempted to listen to Starbucks’ points of views are puzzled because the only information available to the public is through the press releases where Starbucks insists its hands are not behind the blocking of Ethiopia’s application. The company does not even talk about what it knows as an influential member of the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA). The following statement issued on August 08, 2006 by the SCAA and which should be familiar to Starbucks explains why Ethiopia’s first application to register the name “Yirgacheffe” was accepted in the US while the applications for “Harar” and “Sidamo” have been blocked: ” Apparently, the Yirgacheffe examining attorney had not concluded the word “Yirgacheffe” was generic and merely descriptive, which had been the case with the “H...

Aaron Glantz of OneWorld US , a non profit global network for information on international issues, exemplified the dispute over Ethiopia’s application to trademark its best-known coffees as being over the disparity between an average income per day in Ethiopia and the cost of a Latte in the rest of the world. “Human rights groups accuse Starbucks of trying to stop Ethiopia from trademarking its best-known coffee beans Sidamo and Harar, thereby denying farmers potential income of more than $90 million a year,” said One World US whereas “Fair trade advocates look at the dispute as a clash between David and Goliath. In Starbucks, they see a $6.4 billion giant with more than 10,000 stores in 37 countries; in Ethiopia, they see the impoverished, hillside farmers of Ethiopia's premium coffee-growing regions.” According to the online network, Starbucks refused to be interviewed for the story. The company preferred to issue an electronic statement. The documentary movie, Black Gold also ...