Brands that could earn farmers more

Kenyan coffee and French champagne might not taste the same, but they could soon be treated similarly under an international branding scheme.

It emerged last week that Kenya could eventually follow France in the way it markets and exports unique agricultural products and specialties.

The Government could soon introduce marketing policies giving special designations to coffee, tea and other goods produced in hand-picked areas of Kenya in order to create demand, raise prices and encourage sustainable development.

The system would be identical to that of France where certain labels are reserved for products originating in certain geographical areas.

For example, spirits can only bear the name Cognac if they originate in the French town of Cognac and are manufactured using specific types of grapes and distillation procedures.

Made in Italy

Similarly, cheeses can only bear the word Roquefort if they come from the village of Roquefort and are aged inside its natural caves.

Labels like these are called Geographical Indications (GIs), and are currently used in more than one hundred countries around the world.

Unlike products that simply say “Made in Italy,” for example, those bearing GIs come from specific localities that have unique growing conditions, determined by factors including elevation, climate, soil quality and rainfall patterns.

Few countries

In addition, producers in these localities sometimes use traditional farming methods. The GI system is a way to reward resulting products and raise their market profile.

Few countries in Africa have introduced the system, but Kenya could eventually become a regional leader with the help of France and other donor countries.

Last week, the French embassy organised a seminar in Nairobi about the GI system where experts from France discussed it and debated its prospects in East Africa.

“It is a long process lasting several years, and there are many steps before you get to the GI system,” said Mr Christian Saillard of the French embassy’s economic division.

“But it is a good way of recognising special tastes or qualities within a country,” he continued, “and these qualities cannot be counterfeited because countries accepting the GI framework have an obligation to act against fraud,” he explained.

According to Prof James Otieno from the Kenya Industrial Property Institute, the Government is considering giving special designations to a handful of hand-picked products.

Teas and coffees from Kericho and Mt Kenya are on the list as well as lamb from Molo, wild silk from Lamu, soapstone from Kisii and honey from both Kitui and Baringo.

“Right now, we are trying to develop the legal framework, raise awareness and organise producers,” he said during the seminar.

According to Mr Otieno, the Trademarks Act was amended to accommodate the GI system. Section 40A states that “geographical names or other indications of geographical origin may be registered as collective trademarks or service marks.”

But a separate, more comprehensive Geographical Indications Bill is currently in the works. “Last year, the Bill went to the Attorney General’s office, and was referred back to us to share with stakeholders,” he said.

Detailed tests

According to Mrs Sandrine Thomas, who helps administer France’s GI system, a number of things need to be done for the framework to succeed here in Kenya.

Researchers must first carry out detailed tests of certain districts to scientifically demonstrate that they are unique.

Second, agricultural goods produced in those areas must be shown to be distinctive, and their specifications must be submitted to the governmental body administering the GI system.

Third, a control organisation must be created to assign labels, assist farmers’ groups and ensure that no counterfeits appear in foreign markets.

To help kick-start this lengthy process, Mr Fabrice Pinard, a French researcher, studied coffee produced in Nyeri and Kirinyaga districts in May 2005.

He tested 178 samples for their intensity, aroma, bitterness, acidity and other qualities, and brought in experts to judge which samples they preferred.

His study showed that certain parts of the two districts yielded higher quality coffee than other parts.

This kind of work would lay the groundwork for the drawing of GI boundaries. Produce that is grown inside the borders can be marketed using the special designation while produce from outside cannot.

But there are a number of arguments against the system. The main reason why the GI system is so economically rewarding is that demand increases while the geographic area remains fixed, leading to lucrative price increases.

This could be abused by politicians to promote and reward certain regions and companies at the expense of others.

Also, arbitrary designations could be given to products that are non-unique. For example, tea from one part of Mt Kenya could be given an exclusive label even if it is no different than tea from other areas surrounding the mountain.

Trick consumers

This would essentially trick consumers into paying more and would distort the free market. Thirdly, the ability to sell specialised products depends on having consumers who are discerning and sophisticated in their tastes.

Because many consumers of Kenyan products live on modest incomes, perhaps they do not have the time or money to discriminate between specialised goods.

Mr Otieno dismissed these concerns saying that most goods that would benefit from the special branding scheme would be destined for Europe and other developed regions.