Coffee Board of Kenya’s archaic rules are discriminatory

By K’OKOTH SYLVESTRE

Part 2, of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Kenya, and the new Agriculture Fisheries and Food Authority (AFFA) Act, 2013 at Clause 29 (1) and (2) and Clause 40 (1) anticipates and provides that production, sales and marketing of agricultural produce be carried devolved  to the counties.

Coffee is a key export of Kenya with the potential of improving many livelihoods by providing employment and income to a vast majority of people in rural areas.

Current legislation does not allow marketing of the product at counties despite the robust efforts of farmers to set up coffee mills and roasters in most coffee growing regions and zones.

In particular, the new Rules gazetted on October 5 last year under Legal Notice Number 111 don’t recognise cooperatives as coffee marketers, yet this is their future if counties are to leverage on volumes and regional branding based on the unique qualities of coffee from each region arising from the diverse micro-climates.

Sadly, as recently as July this year, the Coffee Board of Kenya (CBoK) warned all coffee Saccos not to invest in milling facilities, claiming there are already enough.

This is partisan, gross impunity, ignorance of the law and favours only coffee cartels at a time when Bungoma County was just installing its brand new mill to save coffee farmers from that region costs associated with transporting their produce to Kiambu County.

Why would CBoK license only multinational coffee cartels to build commercial mills in central Kenya (five in Kiambu County alone)?

The savings by farmers associated with the recent construction of a milling facility by coffee saccos in Kipkelion, and a roasting facility at Othaya Farmers Co-operative Society prove that farmers need space and a break from the colonial rules still used by coffee cartels through CBoK. 

Legal framework

Under Article 22.1 of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement geographical indications are defined as “Indications which identify a good/product originating in the territory of a member, a region or locality in that territory where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of a product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”.

This agreement, under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), requires a national and legal framework for protection and use of geographical indication names for specific products. To that extent, CBoK should be preparing a Geographical Indications Bill for debate in Parliament, instead of  issuing unconstitutional and discriminative circulars  to discourage entrepreneurship and competition.

Consumers worldwide are increasingly seeking transparency and information on the quality of the goods that they wish to purchase, the people behind their production, the production techniques and the health effects among other qualities.

And, because the geographical indicator scheme responds to such needs, consumers are ready to pay a premium price for single origin products.

Through geographical indicators, products can be differentiated in the market based on their geographical source, and this forms a brand positioning strategy that would be very important and relevant for the coffee industry in Kenya.

Every society develops a certain knowledge base over a period of time. Ethiopia, Guatemala and Brazil are coffee growing countries that have successfully branded and marketed their coffees through geographical branding also known as (appellation d’Origin controlle’).

Our coffee is renown on international markets for its unique and specific qualities but low prices in past years and poor payout rates to farmers have pushed production down by 65 per cent between 1989 to 2013.

 

The writer is Head of Communications at Kenya Coffee Producers & Traders Association (KCPTA), and an agribusiness policy consultant.