Partnership in coffee trade is what we all need

The issue of fair trade has been gathering momentum for the past few years bringing about a new thrust in regards to global trade where poor countries are demanding fairer prices for their commodities. In most cases, the producers of cash crops often are the losers in terms of gaining income as their share in the price of their produce is minimal in contrast to the middle men as well as retailers involved. Coffee is Ethiopia’s green gold generating much of the nation’s foreign exchange earnings, despite the significant contributions gained from the sector , poor Ethiopian farmers continue to languish in abject poverty.

Unlike most trade disputes, which are in regards to subsidies, the dispute between Starbucks and Ethiopian coffee growers is a commercial dispute and is not the type where no compromises can be made. Starbucks knows well about the plight of Ethiopian coffee farmers and has supported various initiatives to help curb these problems but the issue of corporate responsibility should not overshadow commercial ties. Ethiopia’s attempt at establishing brands for its coffee is to use it as a sort of leverage to gradually boost the prices that buyers pay for coffee. Starbuck should understand this as it does the same in its business dealings as well. Ethiopia is determined to have its coffee types branded and the sooner we all come to grips with it the better.

The impact in terms of price change is minimal compared to the revenues Starbucks gets and as such the wrangling over the branding issue should not persist. One would rather that Ethiopian and Starbucks instead of creating tensions should rather focus on the priority of helping poor coffee farmers that produce the actual coffee beans which is at the center of all this controversy.
The problems affecting Ethiopian coffee farmers can be best alleviated if efforts are made, if the sector is supplemented with a cocktail of simple initiatives that help boost productivity as well as quality. Initiatives of the likes of introducing better farming techniques, disease control and prevention, best practices as well as processing innovations can go a long way towards enhancing production. This, of course, should be a concerted efforts among coffee growers’ cooperatives, government, sellers as well as producers. Although such initiatives exist, there is a growing need to scale up on such initiatives. The goal here is to bring a quality product that earns more revenues because of the stature it produces.

More earnings will mean more productivity resulting in more investment in infrastructure for producing areas ultimately bringing prosperity to coffee farming households as well as efficient production levels. It would be a moral outrage that we do not strive to this end. What matters is feasibility. If we strive to promote the coffee trade without the farmers in mind, we stand to achieve nothing. It is hardly surprising if people subjected only to these limited points of view are confused. That situation would be easier to justify if understanding of the issues were in short supply. But the fact is we have a massive amount of relevant knowledge - quite a lot of it enshrined in reports, documentaries, and even form the farmers themselves. If their lives do not see any changes for the better, opting for other cash crops would be an imperative thus reducing the volume of coffee produced.

Failure in these tasks is not an option. Therefore progress on the deadlock between Ethiopia and Starbucks on the branding issue should be resolved as soon as possible. firmer commitments is required here from all stakeholders to make sure that we implement fair trade not in Western capitals but in rural areas of the likes Kaffa, Yirgacheffe, Harar, Sidamo, Jimma and others.

February 16, 2007