Content uploaded by Tadesse Woldemariam Gole
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tadesse Woldemariam Gole
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Certification of wild coffee in Ethiopia:
Experiences and challenges
(Article submitted to Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, April 2007)
K.F. Wiersum
1*
, T.W. Gole
2
, F. Gatzweiler
3
, J. Volkmann
4
, E. Bognetteau
5
and Olani
Wirtu
6
1
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
2
Ethiopian Coffee Forest Forum (ECFE), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
3
Center for Development Research, Bonn University, Germany
4
Amber Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
5
Sustainable Livelihood Action, Wageningen, the Netherlands
6
NTFP Southwest Ethiopia Research & Development Project, Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia
* Corresponding author, E-mail freerk.wiersum@wur.nl
ABSTRACT
Coffea arabica originates from montane forests in South and Southwest Ethiopia, which
form part of Eastern Afromontane biodiversity hotspot region. Wild coffee refers to
coffee that grows and regenerates spontaneously in these forests and that is genetically
different from commercial cultivars. Wild coffee is collected as a non-timber forest
product from little disturbed forest coffee systems as well as more intensively managed
semi-forest coffee systems; in addition coffee is also produced in garden systems and
plantations often using landraces or cultivars. Recently several programmes have started
to conserve the coffee forests and the coffee genetic variety. In 2003 a first initiative was
started to market forest coffee in Germany as a certified authentic product; this initiative
was followed by additional schemes for forest coffee as an environmentally friendly and
socially responsible product. As in the coffee market already well established criteria for
coffee quality exist, the forest coffee certification schemes depart from these existing
criteria. In order to obtain premium prices, it is important to fulfill the consumers demand
for good cup-quality and to use quality criteria regarding production systems as
additional marketing criteria. In developing those additional criteria questions arise as to
the precise objective of forest coffee certification: does it concern the certification of a
product originating in the forest or with natural product authenticity and/or the
certification of a sustainable production practice in biodiverse organic production systems
and/or the certification of a socially-responsibly produced and marketed product. And
also as to what extent it is efficient and effective to develop different certification
schemes and different marketing strategies for forest-based, organically grown, and/or
socially responsible produced NTFPs and their crop equivalents. In order conserve the
unique characteristics of the Ethiopian coffee forests as well as prevent confusion due to
co-existence of different certification schemes, it might be considered to base
certification on an area-based approach focused on the sustainable management of
forested landscapes involving both forests and environmentally responsible agricultural
lands.
Key words: forest coffee, garden coffee, organic production, fair trade, biodiversity,
genetic diversity
2
INTRODUCTION
As demonstrated by the certification of timber, certification is increasingly being
accepted as a tool to defining standards for social and environmental performance in
forest management. Certification started in response to consumer demands for
sustainably produced timber, but since the early 2000 it is gradually being extended to
include non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (Shanley et al., 2002). NTFP certification is
more problematic than timber certification, because of several reasons (Shanley et al.,
2002; Karki and Rawat, 2003):
• There exists a huge variety in NTFP products ranging from plant to animal products
and including both complete individuals or only specific organisms. Consequently, it
is not possible to set a simple set of criteria on ecological sustainability, but criteria
must be product category-specific.
• NTFPs production systems range from extraction from open-access natural forests to
controlled production in managed forests and to cultivation in a variety of (mixed)
plantations and agroforestry systems (Belcher et al., 2005; Ros-Tonen and Wiersum,
2005). In the case of several products there is no clear dividing-line but only a gradual
continuum between nature products or domesticated products.
• The quality of many NTFPs depend to a much greater extent than timber on proper
storing, transportation and processing. Consequently, sustainability should not only
be defined in respect ecological sustainability and socially responsible production
methods in respect to the production systems, but may have to be extended to socially
and environmentally responsible manufacturing systems.
Thus, the certification of NTFPs deserves in many cases a wider set of criteria than
considered in timber certification. As a result of the wide variety of production and
manufacturing conditions to be considered in NTFP certification, gradually different
certification schemes have been developed. In similarity to timber certification some
schemes focus primarily on the role of NTFP production in relation to sustainable forest
management, but other schemes approach certification from the perspective of organic
production or from the perspective of socially responsible manufacturing and trade. Four
major types of NTFP certification schemes can be distinguished (Taylor, 2005;
Chowdhury et al., 2005):
• Certification based on sustainable forest management criteria
• Certification based on organic crop production criteria
• Certification based on Fair Trade criteria
• Certification based on area-based schemes.
Arabica coffee as example of different approaches to NTFP certification
Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) offers an excellent example of the various challenges
faced in developing a certification system for NTFPs (Chowdhury et al., 2005; Schmitt
and Grote, 2006). The species originates from Southwestern and Southeastern Ethiopia,
where it occurs as a gregarious sub-canopy species in the Afromontane forest at an
altitude between 1,000 and 2,000 meter (Tadesse and Nigatu, 1996). The coffee forest
areas are part of the Eastern Afromomtane Biodiversity Hotspot area, which is one of 34
global biodiversity conservation priority areas in the world. Due to the favorably brewing
3
characteristics of the coffee beans, the species has a long history of use in Ethiopia.
Already in the 8
th
and 9
th
century the species was introduced to Yemen, from where it
was further distributed to Asia and Latin America in the late 17
th
century; at present about
66% of the world coffee production comes from Coffea Arabica (Gole et al., 2000;
Mekuria et al., 2004) The important role which coffee plays in the Ethiopian culture is
illustrated not only by the intricate coffee ceremonies that are still common, but also by
the development of different coffee production systems ranging from forest extraction to
cultivation in commercial plantations (Chekun, 1995; Gole et al., 2000). Although the
species has gradually become domesticated, collection of wild coffee as a non-timber
forest product still remains significant. The term wild coffee is used as referring to coffee
that grows and regenerates spontaneously in its natural (although sometimes
manipulated) forest habitat and is genetically different from known commercial cultivars.
During the last decade, the potential of wild coffee production as a means towards forest
and biodiversity conservation in general and coffee genetic conservation specifically has
received increasing attention (Gole et al., 2000; Gole et al., 2001; Gatzweiler, 2005). The
conservation of the coffee gene pool is essential for future breeding to further enhance
global coffee production, e.g. with respect to resistance to pests and diseases, lower
caffeine contents and increased yields (Hein and Gatzweiler, 2006). Several development
projects
1
have been initiated to preserve the genetic diversity of wild coffee by
developing models for sustainable wild coffee production. These efforts are not only
focusing on improved forest conservation and management, but also on improved
marketing as a means to increase the incomes of smallholder coffee producers in the
remote areas where wild forest coffee still occurs. In this context attention has been given
towards certification of wild forest coffee for either the fair trade, the organic or the
speciality coffee markets (Schmitt and Grote, 2006).As a result of these activities,
Ethiopian wild coffee has attracted trader’s and consumer’s attention in Europe and the
USA, and at present an estimated 100 Mt of wild coffee are traded internationally. These
experiences provide an interesting example of the various approaches and challenges in
developing certification of non-timber forest products. This article reviews these
experiences. The following questions will be addressed:
• What type of coffee production systems exist, ranging from natural forests to
commercial plantations?
• What coffee certification systems have been suggested and on which principles were
they based?
• What are the main experiences gained with the development of wild coffee
certification and which challenges still have to be faced in its further
operationalization?
• What lessons can be learned from these experiences regarding the scope for
certification of non-timber forest products?
4
ETHIOPIAN COFFEE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Within Ethiopia a variety of coffee production systems can be found. In its area of origin
such as the Kaffa region (from which the coffee derives its name) coffee is still collected
in natural forests. These coffee forests form an important part of the remnant forest
blocks found in Ethiopia. In several highland areas the production of forest coffee is a
major household activity supplying between 20 and 50% of all household income; this
livelihood activity is supplemented by subsistence agricultural production and collection
of other forest products. The presence of wild coffee and its economic importance for the
local community has contributed to the conservation of the coffee genetic resources and
the forest biodiversity. Nonetheless, due to a variety of reasons, including immigration
and opening up of lands for commercial estates, the conservation of these forests is not
assured. In different areas the coffee forests are considerably fragmented. In the Kaffa
Zone for example, the percentage of forest cover in the wild coffee producing
municipalities (Kebeles) that provide coffee to the Kaffa Forest Coffee Farmers
Cooperative Union ranges from 28 % to 80 % with an average of 59%. In order to assure
that the wild coffee genetic resources are not lost, recently three coffee gene reserves
have been established; these will be managed through a community-based participatory
forest management approach (Gatzweiler, 2005).
Due to the economic importance of coffee, the coffee forests are often consciously
managed to stimulate coffee production through activities such as thinning of overstorey
trees, removal of ground vegetation, stimulating coppice shoots and/or transplanting of
naturally regenerated or artificially raised coffee seedlings (Schmitt, 2006; Senbeta and
Denich, 2006). Depending on intensity of management, level of coffee domestication,
and diversity of shade trees and other plants different forest-based coffee productions are
distinguished:
1) Forest coffee system: collection of natural stands of coffee in open access areas of
little disturbed rainforest.
2) Semi-coffee forest system: limited management interventions in plots with
customary individual access rights, using natural regeneration of coffee plants,
complemented with wild coffee seedlings from the forest. Due to the stimulation
of coffee the overall species richness is lower in these production systems than in
the less disturbed forest coffee systems (Senbeta and Denich, 2006) ,
3) Garden coffee systems with more intensive management: coffee plants are mostly
regenerated from selected wild seedlings or with nursery-raised cultivars. The
original forest species mostly are limited to shade trees and in addition a variety
of other crops, such as fruit trees, tubers, spices and false banana (Enset
ventricosum) are grown ((Teketay and Tegineh, 1991; Tesfaye Abebe et al, 2006).
4) Smallholder and estate plantations.
In general, the forest and semi-forest systems include a high number of tree species, the
number of overstorey trees is generally higher than any other comparable coffee
production system in the world. The productivity of the coffee in these systems is
generally low, mainly due to the low intensity coffee management and limited
interference in forest cover. The estimated average yield from forest, semi-forest, garden
and plantation systems are in the order of 50-150, 100-200, 400-500 and 450-570 kg/ha
5
respectively. From the total Ethiopian coffee production about 10% is obtained from
forest coffee systems, 35% from semi-forest coffee systems, 35% from garden coffee
systems and 20% from plantations (Gole et al., 2000).
This variety in production systems illustrates that it is difficult to establish a clear
dividing-line between wild forest coffee and cultivated coffee. The gradual shift between
wild and cultivated coffee does not only impact on the structure and species richness of
the production systems, but also the genetic diversity of coffee (Gole et al., 2001). As
indicated by recent research (Geletu, 2006) most wild coffee regions possess their own
genotypes with high levels of genetic variety within regions. However, coffee
management practices involve a gradual domestication of the coffee plants, and with
increasing management intensity a gradual decrease in the original genetic diversity
occurs. Whereas in wild forest coffee systems mainly wild genotypes are present, in
semi-forest coffee and garden systems landraces predominate, and in plantations cultivars
(Table 1). Consequently, ideally ‘wild forest coffee’ should be interpreted as referring not
only to a low level of disturbance of forest structure and regeneration, but also to a low
level of human interference with the natural gene flow. However, such a definition is
difficult to apply in coffee certification schemes, as it requires clear and easy to apply
standards on how much human interference is still acceptable in a natural forest
environment as well as on the desired genetic composition of coffee.
Forest coffee
system Semi-forest
coffee
system
Garden
coffee
system
Plantation
Wild
genotypes Very
common Occasionally Not very
common Hardly
present
Landraces Hardly
present Common Common Occasionally
Cultivars Hardly
present Not very
common Common Common
Table 1 Genetic composition of coffee grown in different production systems
FOREST COFFEE CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS
In view of the fact that it is not easy to unequivocally define and identify wild forest
coffee it is not surprising that rather than focusing attention exclusively on schemes to
certify wild forest coffee as a non-timber forest product derived from a natural forest
environment, various other approaches are being experimented to certify coffee from
forest-based production systems.
These started when in 2003 in a cooperative effort of the two German conservation and
development organizations GEO Schützt den Regenwald and the Amber Foundation a
start was made with the import and sale of Ethiopian forest coffee in Germany as a
6
specialty product. The scheme was explicitly presented as concerning wild coffee from
its area of origin and as contributing towards the conservation of original coffee forest by
providing the local smallholder forest owners incomes from their traditional coffee
systems (Klingholz, 2003). Thus, an explicit relation between forest conservation and
livelihood improvement was indicated. The scheme involved cooperation with both
government organisations such as the Kaffa Zone Agricultural and Natural Resources
Development Desk and with unions of coffee farmers cooperative,
This first initiative to establish a market for wild coffee in Germany gained much public
attention. Its success triggered some attempts of fraudulent free riding by some coffee
traders who also claimed to sell Ethiopian wild coffee. But it also stimulated the
development of follow-up development projects (Schmitt and Grote, 2006; Bognetteau et
al., 2007) to further develop this market and to upscale the relatively small-scale initial
effort. As the Forest Stewardship Council has not yet established a base in Ethiopia, these
efforts did not focus on certification of wild forest coffee as deriving from sustainably
managed forests, but rather on schemes for socially responsible and environmentally
friendly production systems. In addition to the fact that such schemes were already
operating in Ethiopia and offered opportunities for certification under short timeframes
and relatively low costs, there was an important additional argument to select schemes
which were primarily market-oriented rather than forest conservation oriented. In order to
be acceptable at the international market good coffee quality and a careful manufacturing
to assure good taste are essential. Consequently, certification aimed at supporting
smallholders to enter either mainstream and specialty markets with good potential for
obtaining premium price, should be cognizant of the fact that not only the origin and
production process of coffee is important, but also quality standards for the product. As
the established coffee trading networks are most familiar with these requirements, it was
decided to work with two internationally-established schemes for marketing responsible
produced coffee, i.e. the Utz Kapeh system for socially and ecologically responsible trade
and the organic production certification system. These schemes are essentially focused on
agricultural coffee production systems rather than forest-based coffee production
systems, and forest conservation is not a specific criteria in these schemes. Nonetheless, it
was considered that the schemes provided a good opportunity for obtaining premium
prices and that the references to the origin of the coffee could serve as an additional
marketing tool enabling the forest coffee to gain a specific market niche. It was
hypothesized that this would assure the Ethiopian forest coffee producers would obtain
increased incomes, and that this would recreate an incentive to conserve the coffee
forests.
The Utz Kapeh certification programme was initiated in 1997. It started as an initiative of
some large Guatemalan coffee producers and the Ahold Coffee Company and later
became an independent NGO with the objective to stimulate further market penetration of
organic and Fair Trade products. It is an example of a voluntary regulatory system for
governing the coffee chain (Muradian and Pelupessy, 2005) and is based on the general
principle that coffee production should be socially responsible, environmentally
sustainable and economically feasible. Traceability and responsibility along the market
chain are key issues in the certification process. The Utz Kapeh Code of conduct has been
7
benchmarked as equivalent to the EurepGap Coffee Reference Standard. Both Estates and
smallholder groups can be certified. Utz Kapeh does not only certify the production
standards, but also facilitates the matching between producers and buyer through a web-
based tracking and tracing system and information on registered producers and buyers.
End buyers include both mainstream and specialty roasters. Premium prices are being
paid to producers, but the precise amount depends on direct negotiation between buyer
and seller. Web-based market information on premiums is provided as a means to
facilitate these negotiations.
The Utz Kapeh certification activities in Ethiopia started in 2004 and in 2005-2006 five
certificates were given for a total area of 12.337 hectares in the SW Ethiopian highlands.
The certified coffee production systems consists of plantations managed by two
companies (15% of the area) and three state-owned plantations (60% of the area), and of
semi-forest management systems of about 1000 smallholders (25% of the area) organized
in two coffee cooperatives.
In addition several Coffee Farmers Unions also market their coffee under the organic
certification system. This certification ensures that products claiming to be organic are
actually produced according to organic farming principles. Principles and criteria for
certification are set by IFOAM (
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements),
in order to achieve
one clear certification system within an extending global market.
The
aim of organic certification is to support and strengthen biological production processes
without use of chemical inputs. Certification also helps producers to access organic
markets and obtain premium prices, but this is highly depending on market dynamics.
The first organic coffee certification in Ethiopia dates from 1999. Although an estimated
90% of the coffee produced in Ethiopia is de facto organic, only a very small fraction
(about 0.1%) of this coffee is certified as such (Mekuria et al., 2004). No official
information is available on the type of production systems involved, but most of this
production is probably produced in garden systems. Only in one case the scheme has
been explicitly used to certify forest coffee production. However, on the basis of
experiences gained with marketing of forest coffee, it has been suggested that organic
certification was almost a must for the specialty coffee market segment and that double
certification under both the responsible trading and organic production approaches could
potentially lead to increased prices.
DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES IN WILD COFFEE CERTIFICATION
Due to its economic importance, within the coffee sector there has been given a lot of
attention to defining coffee quality (Slob and Oldenziel, 2003). According to the
Speciality Coffee Association of America (quoted in Mekuria et al., 2004) overall coffee
quality refers to not only the coffee taste (organoleptic cup-quality), but also to the
quality of life of its producers and the quality of the environment in which the crop is
produced. As demonstrated by the earlier description of the schemes operating in
Ethiopia, the major coffee certification schemes focus specifically on the environmental
and social quality of the production systems, but with the implicit understanding that the
8
cup-quality of coffee has to be maintained. An important question is whether to develop
forest coffee certification within the frameworks of existing marketing schemes for
responsible forest production or under new schemes focused specifically on the need to
conserve the forest environment.
Environmental requirements
Regarding the environmental quality of coffee production, the existing coffee
certification schemes depart from the interpretation that coffee production is an
agricultural activity; consequently regarding production environment attention has mainly
been focused on organic coffee production. Originally, attention was mainly given to
organic production in the sense of not using chemical inputs, but recently in Central
America also efforts are undertaken by FSC and the Rainforest Alliance to certify
biodiversity-friendly production systems in the form of polycultures with a diverse shade
canopy (Gobbi, 2000; Perfecto et al., 2005). However, up till the present no specific
scheme has been developed to stress the uniqueness of wild coffee in its natural forest
environment in respect to biodiversity at genetic level. In view of the relatively small
area of origin of coffee compared to the present area of coffee cultivation, it might be
questioned whether a scheme which focuses specifically biodiversity at genetic diversity
holds much promise or whether this would unduly compete with alternative biodiversity-
friendly production schemes. Hence, it might be more realistic to position wild coffee
production as a special form of biodiversity-friendly production in general rather than as
an original non-timber forest products with unique genetic diversity.
A second important difficulty in defining wild forest coffee in a strict manner, is the fact
that due to the co-existence of several coffee production systems farmers often collect
coffee from different areas with a range of management practices, cultivation intensities
and genetic diversities. They may collect coffee berries from forest coffee systems
consisting of mainly wild coffee specimen, from semi-forest plots with replanted stands
or from home gardens, where the use of landraces and cultivars is common. Thus, the
specific branding of wild coffee as a forest product requires that techniques are developed
for authentication of wild coffee. In this context progress has been made with the
development of a bio-molecular approach for genetic fingerprinting of coffee (Zeltz et al.,
2005; Geletu, 2006), which distinguish the various regional patterns in the genetic make-
up of wild coffee. By using genetic fingerprinting, wild coffee stands could be mainly
defined by the authenticity of genetic patterns. This methodology is at present being
tested for the standardized typecasting of the regional origin of wild coffee. The typecasts
resulting from the genetic fingerprinting can prove the origin of coffee at a regional meso
level. It cannot (as yet) attest whether coffee berries belong to a certain wild genotype or
whether it originates from a particular forest patch or a neighbouring coffee garden. Such
techniques could also be used to prevent fraud, e.g. by farmers growing cultivars in the
forests and presenting those as wild coffee.
Social requirements
Regarding the social quality of coffee production, as illustrated by the earlier description
of the certification schemes in Ethiopia, especially in the fair trade oriented coffee
certification schemes much attention is focused on the stimulation of smallholder
9
systems. This emphasis on proper benefit-sharing by smallholders is much more
pronounced than in the present certification systems for basically timber-based
sustainable forest management. As within Ethiopia smallholder coffee producers are by
law required to sell their products through cooperatives, this has facilitated in setting up
certification schemes. However, for the participatory management of the recently
established coffee forest reserves, formal community-based organisations need to be
established because the customary user-rights to semi-forest coffee plots are not
recognized by the government. The Ethiopian laws define all forest lands as public estate,
and only recently the government has introduced the possibility for participatory
management by officially recognized forest user groups. Hence, the question arises how
best to dovetail the official requirements regarding formation of forest user groups and
regarding coffee cooperatives (Gatzweiler, 2006).
As indicated by the Ethiopian experiences, an important factor influencing effective
benefit-sharing of smallholders in forest coffee production is their ability to meet the
international standards for coffee quality. Within the coffee sector well-developed quality
standards exist which form the basis for effective coffee marketing. The Ethiopian
experiences show that the introduction of certification systems without enhancement of
the quality of the harvesting and post-harvest handling practices will not be successful.
Coffee quality is of paramount importance, and without improvement of the grade and
cup quality of the forest coffee, it is difficult for the smallholder producers to access the
different niche markets and negotiate premium prices. Consequently, certification
organisations should not limit their activities to assessing quality production standards,
but actively assist within a policy of social responsibility towards smallholders by
providing extension and training in order that the intended beneficiaries of certification
can really participate in and profit from the scheme. Certification of wild coffee in itself
will not constitute an effective marketing tool which could motivate local farmers to
sustainably manage the coffee forests and conserve the coffee biodiversity, unless
improved cup quality and an appropriate marketing strategy can substantially increase
premium prices for it.
Another social aspect to consider is that the smallholders living in forest areas are often
involved in multi-enterprise activities. This does not only mean that they may be engaged
in both the extraction of wild product as well as the cultivation of (semi)domesticated
crops of the same product, but also that they may collect different types of forest products
depending on the season and livelihood needs. For instance, in the coffee forest region of
Ethiopia not only wild coffee forms an important NTFP, but also honey. Similarly to
coffee production several honey production systems are present ranging from wild honey
collection to traditional bee management in log-hives which are hung in forest trees and
to modern beehive management in homegardens. In some areas efforts are undertaken to
also certify such local honey production, but these efforts require separate arrangements
than the certification of coffee (Bognetteau et al., 2007). This creates high transaction
costs for the smallholder producers, and it should be considered whether the various
products can be certified under one general scheme.
10
CONCLUSION
As a result of the growing acceptance of certification as a means to assure that timber is
produced in sustainably managed forests, attention is now being given towards the
extension of the certification system towards non-timber forest products. As illustrated by
the experiences in respect of the certification of forest-derived wild coffee the
extrapolation of timber certification to certification of non-timber forest products is
problematic, especially in respect to products which originate in the forests, but which
have already become domesticated due to their high market demands. In such cases, a
diversity of production systems may exist ranging from forest-based systems to
agroforestry systems and plantations. These systems do not only vary in respect to
structure and species composition, but also in respect to use of management inputs
including genetic make-up of artificial regeneration. Under such circumstances it is not
easy to define clear boundaries between forest, garden and agricultural systems and their
respective products. Moreover, producers may mix the products from the various
production systems. In view of the complex and co-existing production systems for
commercially attractive NTFPs, questions arise as to the main objectives of NTFP
certification. Is it the certification of a product originating in the forest or with natural
product authenticity and/or the certification of a sustainable production practice in
biodiverse organic production systems and/or the certification of a socially-responsibly
produced and marketed product? And to what extent will it be efficient and effective to
develop different certification schemes and different marketing strategies for forest-
based, organically grown, and/or socially responsible produced for a specific NTFP and
its crop equivalents.
In deciding upon such questions it should be born in mind that certification is often
conceived of as a market tool, with production characteristics being used to attract
consumer’s attention. For several of the widely cultivated forest-derived crops already
crop-based certification systems for environmentally and socially responsible
certification systems exist. Thus, also the question of whether it is effective to add a
specific forest-oriented certification system becomes relevant. In answering this question
it is important to realize that the production-oriented certification systems are additional
to the basic sector standards for product quality. These product quality standards for
forest-derived products such as coffee are more specific than the quality standards for
timber. The potential premium prices to be paid to producers often depend more on the
product quality and uniqueness (such as cup quality in the case of coffee), with stories on
production systems only serving as an addition to the marketing story. Hence, it is not
realistic to base certification of commercially interesting NTFPs only on standards
regarding forest management conditions. While adding the sustainable forest
management story to the marketing story on product quality requires specialized
marketing skills which are not yet available in several conservation-oriented
organizations working in the field of certification of forest management.
An important reason for developing wild coffee certification in Ethiopia is the idea that it
might contribute towards the conservation of the coffee forests which form part of one of
the world’s biodiversity hotspots. It is hoped that the certification will help in public
11
recognition of the unique characteristics of the Ethiopian Afromontane region. An
intriguing question is to whether this objective can best be met through certification of a
combined product/production system approach or through an area-based approach
focused on the sustainable management of forested landscapes involving both forests and
environmentally responsible agricultural lands. Such a multi-functional landscape
approach would not only solve the problems of having to delineate forest-based and
agricultural-based products, but would also prevent duplications of efforts in the case that
within an area different NTFPs and its domesticated derivates are produced, which under
the present product-based certification system each require their own certification system.
NOTE
1
The four main development programmes are the EU financed ‘Coffee Improvement
Programme Phase 4’, a BMBF (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research)
sponsored collaborative research programme of Ethiopian and German scientists and
organizations on ‘Conservation and use of wild populations of Coffea arabica in the
montane rainforest of Ethiopia’, a PPP (private-public partnership) project on ‘Use and
conservation of wild Coffea arabica’ financed by GTZ, private trade companies and
NGOs, and the mainly EU-financed collaborative project ‘NTFP Southwest Ethiopia
Research and Development project’ implemented by Ethiopian, British and Dutch
scientists and organizations.
REFERENCES
Belcher, B., Ruiz-Perez, M. and Achiawan, R. (2005) Global patterns and trends in the
use and management of commercial NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and
conservation. World Development 33(9): 1435-1452.
Bognetteau, E., Abebe Haile and Wiersum, K.F. (2007). Linking forests and people, a
potential for sustainable development of the Southwest Ethiopian highlands.
Proceedings International Conference on Participatory Forest Management,
Biodiversity and Livelihoods in Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 19-21,
2007.
Chekun, T. (1997) The culture of coffee in Ethiopia. Agroforestry Today Jan-March
1997, p.
Chowdhury. Q., Van de Graaf, R., Hazenberg, S., Erniwati, E., Maris, W. and Tesfaye,
P., (2005) Options for certification of coffee and honey for poverty alleviation and
forest conservation. Non Timber Forest Product Research and Development
Project in S-W Ethiopia, Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia, Student Research Series No. 2.
Gatzweiler, F.W. (2005) Institutionalising biodiversity conservation – The case of
Ethiopian coffee forests. Conservation and Society 3(1): 201-223.
Gatzweiler, F.W. (2006) Organizing a public ecosystem economy for sustaining
biodiversity. Ecological Economics 59 (3): 296-304.
Geletu, K.T. (2006) Genetic diversity of wild Coffea arabica populations in Ethiopia as a
contribution to conservation and use planning. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen,
Germany, Ecology and Development Series No. 44.
12
Gobbi, J.A. (2000) Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? An analysis of five
different coffee production systems in western El Salvador. Ecological Economics
33: 267-281.
Gole, T.W., Denish, M., Teketay, D. and Vlek, P.L. (2000) Human impacts on the Coffea
arabica gene pool in Ethiopia and the need for its in situ conservation. In: J.
Engels, V.R. Rao, A.H.D. Brown and M. Jackson (eds), Managing plant diversity.
Proceedings of an international conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, p.237-247.
Gole, T.W.M., Demel, T., Denich, M. and Bosch, T. (2001) Diversity of traditional
coffee production systems in Ethiopia and their contribution to conservation of
genetic diversity. Conference on International Agricultural Research for
Development, Deutscher Tropentag 2001, Bonn, Germany
Hein, L. and Gatzweiler, F. (2006) The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica)
genetic resources. Ecological Economics 60: 176-185.
Karki, M. and Rawat, R.B.S. (2003) Definitions, good practices and certification.
Elsevier, Encyclopedia of Forest Science, p. 1357-1367.
Klingholz, R.2003. (Where the wild berries grow). Geo 01/2003: 44 – 60 (in German):
Mekuria T., Neuhoff, D. and Kopke, U. (2004) The status of coffee production and the
potential for organic conversion in Ethiopia. Conference on International
Agricultural Research for Development, Deutscher Tropentag 2004, Berlin,
October 5-7, 2004.
Muradian R. and Peluppessy, W. (2005) Governing the coffee chain: the role of voluntary
regulatory systems. World Development 33(2): 2029-2044
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer J., Mas, Al and Soto Pinto, L. (2005) Biodiversity, yield, and
shade coffee certification. Ecological Economics 54: 435-446.
Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. and Wiersum, K.F. (2005) The scope for improving rural livelihoods
through non-timber forest products: an evolving research agenda. Forests, Trees
and Livelihoods 15: 120-148.
Schmitt, C.B. (2006). Montane rainforest with wild Coffea arabica in the Bonga region
(SW Ethiopia): plant diversity, wild coffee management and implications for
conservation.Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany, Ecology and Development
Series No. 48.
Schmitt, C. and Grote, U. (2006). Wild coffee production in Ethiopia: the role of coffee
certification for forest conservation. Report project ‘Conservation and use of wild
populations of Coffea arabica in the montane rainforest of Ethiopia’, Bonn,
Germany.
Senbeta, F. and Denich, M. (2006) Effects of wild coffee management on species
diversity in the Afromontane rainforests of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and
Management 232(1): 68-74.
Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A. and Guillen, A. (eds) (2002). Tapping the gree
market: certification and management of non-timber forest products. Earthscan,
London, 480 p.
Slob, B. and Oldenziel, J. (2003) Coffee and codes. Overview of codes of conduct and
ethical trade initiatives in the coffee sector. SOMO, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tadesse, M. and Nigatu, L. (1996) An ecological and ethnobotanical study of wild or
spontaneous coffee, Coffea arabica in Ethiopia. In: J.G. van der Maesen et al
(eds), The biodiversity of African plants, p. 277-294.
13
Taylor, P.L. (2005) In the market but not of it: Fair Trade coffee and Forest Stewardship
Council certification as market-based social change. World Development 33(1):
129-147.
Teketay, D. and Tegineh, A. (1991) Traditional tree based agroforestry in coffee
producing areas of Harerge, Eastern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems 16: 257-267.
Tesfaye Abebe, Wiersum, K.F., Bongers, F. and Sterck, F. (2006). Diversity and
dynamics in homegardens of southern Ethiopia. In: B.M. Kumar and P.K.R. Nair
(eds) Tropical homegardens, a time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry.
Springer, Advances in agroforestry Vol. 3, p.123-142.
Zeltz, P., Schneider, S., Volkmann, J. and Willmund, R. (2005) (Control of the origin of
wild coffee from the Ethiopian rain forest with the help of genetic fingerprints).
Deutsche Lebensmittel Rundschau 101(3): 89-92 (in German).
