Dr. Xiomara F. Quiñones Ruiz, MA University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Austria

17 December 2020

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND

ITS RELATION TO SPECIALTY COFFEE –

Opportunities, challenges and case studies

PART I:

Understanding the essence of

geographical indications

Geographical names associated to a product (e.g. food, alcoholic

drinks) with specific qualities linked to a determined geographical

area, local resources, know-how and expertise.

The protection of the geographical names is needed to valorize the

product in the market, to guarantee the origin to final consumers

(avoid confusion), to contribute to rural development and to avoid

opportunistic behavior (e.g. free-riders)

What are geographical indications (GIs)?

Protection of the name Intellectual property right

Protection of GIs

With the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994, GIs were

included in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The TRIPS Agreement is regarded as the

minimum standard for protecting goods and services for WTO members.

Article 22 defines GIs as: “indications which identify a good as originating

in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a

given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially

attributable to its geographical origin […].

The TRIPS Agreement does not require that a particular standard is

associated to a protected GI good; it mainly stipulates some intrinsic quality

or a mere reputation.

First origins of GIs

Regulating indications of geographical origin started with the trade of wine.

As a matter of fact in the Greek empire the wine trade regulation laid the

basis for creating legal systems and institutions for diverse GIs identifying

food products (e.g., olive oil, cheese) (Allaire et al. 2011).

Why wine? Wine is not only an agri-food product which can be traded in

remote areas due to long storage periods; it also has a cultural significance

in Greek and Roman civilizations (Allaire et al. 2011).

It is not surprising that the wine regulatory framework existed separately

from legislations for other agricultural products and foodstuffs; and it is also

more robust due to tax revenues and health issues related to alcoholic

products (Hughes 2009).

EU GI regulation – a robust legislation (1)

Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 for agrifood, food and wine:

Protected designation of origin (PDO): Every part of the production,

processing and preparation process must take place in the specific region.

For wines, this means that the grapes have to come exclusively from the

geographical area where the wine is made.

Protected geographical indication (PGI): For most products, at least one

of the stages of production, processing or preparation takes place in

the region. In the case of wine, this means that at least 85% of the

grapes used have to come exclusively from the geographical area

where the wine is actually made.

EU GI regulation – a robust legislation (1)

Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 for agrifood, food and wine:

Geographical indication of spirit drinks and aromatized wines (GI):

For most products, at least one of the stages of distillation or preparation

takes place in the region. However, raw products do not need to come

from the region.

Traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG): TSG highlights traditional

aspects such as the way the product is made or its composition,

without being linked to a specific geographical area. The name of a product

being registered as a TSG protects it against falsification and misuse.

The relationship between GIs and collective action

Since these geographical names face the risk of free-riding…

… there is a need to define clear rules which

implies to apply for registration and protection;

… ideally after these aspects are to be jointly decided

decided: Geographical area (and social delimitation),

code of practice, control and surveillance mechanisms,

communication and marketing strategies.

The rules are collectively defined,

the issue is to understand

why whom and/or for whom?

Examples of recognized PDO/PGI

PART II:

Coffees safeguarded as PGI

in the EU – Case studies

Table 1: Examples of protected coffees in Europe and in the United States

Note: CM: Certification Mark, CTM: Community Trade Mark, FNC: Federación Nacional de

Cafeteros, GI: Geographical Indications, PGI: Protected Geographical Indications, TM: Trademark

Source: Teuber 2010, 281

Name Type of protection Year of registration Managing entity/authority

Coffees registered as PGI in the EU

Café de

Colombia

Kafae Doi Tung

(Thailand)

Kafae Doi Chaang

(Thailand)

Gayo Arabika

Kopi (Indonesia)

Year of

registration at

origin

Denominación de

Origen Café de

Colombia in 2005

กาแฟดอยตุง (Kafae

Doi Tung) in 2006

กาแฟดอยชา้ง (Kafae

Doi Chaang)

in 2007

Indikasi Geografis

Kopi Arabika in

2010

Year of

registration as

PGI in the EU

2007

2015

2017

Table 2: Registration dates of GIs at origin and in the EU

Source: Quiñones-Ruiz et al. 2020

Note: Café de Valdesia (Dominican Republic) is the only DOP for coffee registered in the EU to date!

GI

administration

Federación

Nacional de

Cafeteros (FNC)

de Colombia

Mae Fah Luang

Foundation under

Royal Patronage

(MFLF)

The Doi Chaang

Coffee planters’

group

Gayo Coffee

Protection Society

(MPKG)

PGI coffees – issues to be discussed…

What was the motivation to obtain the registration and

certification (strategy)?

Who initiated the process and who takes the decisions?

Who supported the process?

Café de Colombia Motivation: Long trajectory and experience with trademark protection (e.g. Café de Colombia

in the USA and Canada; Juan Valdez coffee shops) and the intellectual and physical infra-

structure to evaluate, monitor and guarantee quality at national and international level.

Opportunity to obtain a legal recognition and guarantee of origin in all EU member states

at once (Quiñones-Ruiz et al. 2015).

Start of the process: FNC staff on behalf of the federated coffee producers

(top-down approach).

Support: Specialized lawyers in intellectual property, Cenicafé (Colombian

coffee research center), coffee institutions put in place (e.g. Cooperatives,

Almacafé, Cafecert).

Achievement and challenges: Relatively short process to obtain the registration.

Need for an active communication strategy to communicate the meaning/essence

of GIs to all coffee chain/circuit actors: producers, buyers, roasters, brand owners. The

Number of PDO/PGI users is increasing (FNC 2020).

Figure 1: Approximated value chain – Café de Colombia

Cooperatives

Associations

Exporters

Local & international

traders

Local consumption

(e.g. shops)

International buyers Mainly imported as green beans The Federation defined the rules governing the GI use without including

international buyers, however, they can voluntary become GI users (GI agreements/contracts).

Producers Buyers & processors

at origin

Consumption

at origin Consumption abroad

Federated

producers

Source: own elaboration

Table 3: Database example of DO/GI register – Café de Colombia and local GIs

Kafae Doi Tung (Thailand 1) Motivation:

Project to eradicate the opium cultivation and to act against the problems faced

by ethnic minorities (Renard 2010) and to communicate the recognition of

quality following European standards (Nigmann 2015).

Start of the process:

Project financed by the Thai Royals and creation of the “social enterprise”

Doi Tung Development Project-DTDP.

Support:

Private-public support (e.g. Ministry of Commerce, Navuti company) to also

promote the registration of GIs.

Achievement and challenges:

All coffee chain/circuit actors are involved, according to the interviews (in 2015),

a price premium has been achieved. Though coffee roasting is done in the

region, the DTDP decided to apply for a PGI to allow the export of green coffee.

Coffee producers still need more training on GI.

Domestic

consumption

The social enterprise defined the GI rules; the GI is mostly used nationally through the local coffee shops and domestic consumption. Importers may comply voluntarily as GI users.

Producers Processors Consumption

at origin

Consumption

abroad

Doi Tung project

participating

Doi Tung coffee

shops

Mae Fah Luang Foundation + Navuti

International

buyers

Social enterprise →

processing facility,

including roasting and

packaging

External buyers A small % is imported as green beans

Source: Nigmann s.a.

Figure 2: Approximated GI coffee value chain – Kafae Doi Tung

Kafae Doi Chaang (Thailand 2) Motivation:

Mainly business-driven (e.g. differentiated strategic product);

The company already had other certifications (e.g. organic, Fairtrade).

Start of the process:

Business people (joint venture: Thailand-Canada) under the name

Doi Chaang Coffee planters’ group

Support:

Public support to facilitate the protection of intellectual property

(in compliance with the WTO guidelines)

Achievement and challenges:

The entire coffee chain/circuit (plantation, processing, consumption at

coffee shops) is managed by the coffee planters’ group. However, coffee

producers and processors located in the delimited GI area do not use the

name; some of them trade the coffee as “Doi Chang” (with a single “a”)

(Nigmann 2015).

Domestic

consumption

The for-profit company defined the GI rules; the GI is mostly used nationally through the local coffee shops and domestic consumption. Monitoring of roasted coffee outside Thailand is traced by joint venture contracts.

Producers Processors Consumption

at origin

Consumption

abroad

Independent

growers Doi Chaang

coffee shops

International

buyers

For-profit company,

processing facility,

including roasting

and packaging

External

buyers

Doi Chaang coffee

planters’ group

Mainly imported as green beans

Figure 3: Approximated GI coffee value chain – Kafae Doi Chaang Source: Nigmann s.a.

Kopi Arabika Gayo (Indonesia)

Motivation:

Government intervention to contribute to the improvement of the zone

after the 2004 tsunami, to add value to the coffee already produced and

to protect the appropriation of the name abroad (Schreiber 2018)

Start of the process:

International donors, regional governmental entities organized in a public and

private partnership (including producers and local processors and buyers)

Achievement and challenges:

Although actors from the coffee chain/circuit are present, a monitoring and

quality control system for GIs is still needed at the national level as well as

educational campaigns concerning GIs.

Domestic

consumption

The Gayo coffee protection society (MPKG) was established through diverse local actors from the Gayo coffee value chain (producers, processors, cooperatives and village collectors, local traders/processors) and local government. GI rules have been established, however, controlling and monitoring mechanisms are still to be put in place.

Producers Buyers & processors

(origin)

Consumption

at origin Consumption abroad Collectors

Village collectors

Independent

producers

Local coffee shops

in Gayo

Local

(and external)

traders and

processors

Cooperatives

Inernational buyers

Mainly imported as green beans

Source: Schreiber s.a.

Figure 4: Approximated GI coffee value chain – Kopi Arabika Gayo

PART III:

What is specialty coffee

and its relation to

geographical indications?

Some facts to bear in mind… Europeans initially imported coffee from the Arabian Peninsula, over which Britain, France, the

Netherlands, Portugal and Spain did not have any control; in the 17th century these countries

started to grow coffee in their colonies.

The coffee beverage is produced from the coffee cherries cultivated in farms.

Coffee is the most consumed processed beverage aside from water; and green coffee beans

are the most traded agriculture commodity after petroleum in the world (Hameed et al. 2018).

Countries such as i.e. Indonesia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Kenya, Peru, Colombia or Guatemala

mainly produce a raw material, that is, green coffee, which is then processed (roasted)

largely by European, North American or Asian countries, but also in Australia (Oceania).

Producing countries still follow post-colonialist patterns.

Coffee paradox (Daviron and Ponte 2005)

Alternatives for producing countries… ? (1)

To add value: How?

Considering or actively implementing policies that include:

Improving physical quality starting at farm level

(agro-environmental offer: i.e. soil, seeds), following

good practices during and post-harvest (processing,

drying, warehousing), but also cup quality

Considering the compliance to quality certification

schemes (e.g. GI, organic)

Fuente: autor

Alternatives for producing countries… ? (2)

The producer is also consumer:

Producers need to learn to drink their own coffee and

compare it with others to also identify quality defects,

as the quality checking/evaluation is mainly made by

external people (cuppers, Q graders (certified by a Coffee

Quality Institute))

Motivate the youth at the end of the circuit/chain,

namely, barismo (coffee preparation) and cupping

so that they understand the importance of the

good farming and processing practices

(generational renewal)

Also part of the good coffee for their own consumption

Producers are consumers similar to the wine producers.

Source: author

Alternatives for producing countries… ? (3)

Consider local/national consumption and

not only exports (e.g. experience from

Café de Agaete, Gran Canaria, Spain)

Continue with campaigns for local/national

consumption starting with the youth (i.e. at

universities)! (with a processed coffee

following quality parameters where the

coffee is treated as a consumption good and

not only as a raw material).

Foster the opening of coffee (specialty)

coffee shops in big and small towns,

hopefully also managed by producer groups.

Source: Coffee shop run by Cooperativa Cooagronevada,

Sierra Nevada Santa Marta, Colombia

Source: https://steemit.com/gayocoffe

What is then the relation between the

production of a good coffee and GI user?

Avoid the misuse and free-riding of the product name

due to recognized characteristics, know-how, reputation,

quality, geographical and social delamination

Prevent consumer confusion

Intangible and tangible recognition

(i.e. identity, collective good) for what it is produced

Is a GI coffee also

a specialty coffee?

What is a specialty coffee? (1) The Specialty Coffee Association – SCA (United States and Europe) defines specialty coffee as

those coffees that achieve certain scores (Table 4) during the evaluation of the following

attributes: fragrance/aroma, flavor, acidity, body, sweetness, balance, clean cup, uniformity, as

well as the absence of defects (SCA s.a).

The specialty market for the Arabicas is around 20-27% of the total Arabica production

(Fischer 2020). These coffees are negotiated with a premium (C Price as base + negotiation of

coffee differentials).

Total score Quality Classification

90-100 Outstanding Specialty

85-99.99 Excellent Specialty

80-84.99 Very good Specialty

<80 Below specialty quality Not specialty

Table 4: Quality score according to the SCA

Source: SCA s.a.

What is specialty coffee? (2) Specialty coffees: single origin, single farms/states,

micro-lots or nano-lots.

Europe is the biggest market for specialty coffees,

together with the United States:

This is reflected in the growing number of specialty roasters,

coffee shops and local coffee brands in Europe, as well as

in the more knowledgeable and demanding consumers.

In general, coffee shops as well as small and medium

coffee roasters are leading the way for the introduction of

high-quality coffees (CBI 2020).

Moreover, Asian countries also value specialty coffees:

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan; and Australia in Oceania

So, a GI certified coffee can be classified as specialty coffee

if it meets the quality parameters established by the SCA.

Source: Coffee Pirates Specialty Shop, Vienna

Final remarks (1)

Difficulty for non-European countries to internalize the concept of GIs / DOs, since generally in

the first place it is related to “a certification that increases the monetary value of the products”.

In principle the price increases but also costs.

Need to understand the essence of protection: Recognizing and guaranteeing the origin

and differentiating it; and to achieve minimum quality standards throughout the coffee

chain/circuit ..., in the long term, premium will be obtained as in the case of some

European products (Areté 2013)

The biggest work begins after officially obtaining registration for protection.

Need for control and surveillance bodies in the country of origin and where it is exported

(i.e. the Colombian coffee federation manages a complete control system inside and

outside Colombia).

In the words of a GI certified coffee producer: “More promotion of it [DO/GI] should be fostered,

[GI protection] should be understood more as a seal of protection in the market".

Final remarks (2) What strategy to follow: Involvement of all vs. certain actors of the coffee chain/circuit?

Who defines and establishes the rules (i.e. geographical and social delimitation)?

Who manages the GI (e.g. with what interests)?

How to pursue the inclusion of the actors? (role of neutral actors such as universities,

research centers, etc. to guide the process)

If only producers are included in the GI project, the challenge is then to look for buyers

willing to recognize the certification of origin (e.g. in the case of Café de Colombia, it is

voluntary).

If several actors in the coffee chain/circuit are included in the GI project, efforts and time

invested will be greater to make decisions (transaction costs), but there would be greater

control of the chain. Furthermore, coffee is commercialized roasted and as a beverage

(cups of coffee) at specialty coffee shops (as in the Thai case)

Final remarks (3) In either way, those who manage GIs need to bear in mind:

Carrying out communication and marketing campaigns for local and international buyers to

appreciate or become GI users (hopefully willing to pay more for quality)

If the goal is to increase quality (e.g. > 83 SCA points, which implies an increase in efforts,

time, money and infrastructure), it is necessary to have an secured client.

The words of the manager of a coffee association (with GI, organic and Fairtrade

certification in Colombia):

“Yes we can work to achieve quality, but not with the absolute promise that [the

producer] will be paid more, there is one thing that can be done, which is

physically, which can be done and it is achievable, yes if you improve quality,

you get a better performance factor (in Colombia), they will pay you more, but the

discourse cannot be sold, that is, that if producers already have a super ultra

profile "wow" [with more than 86 points], they will get better paid, because if there

is no customer to pay for it, it will not happen ” if there is no customer for

specialty coffees, they end up in the conventional market ...

Final remarks (4)

Valorize not only the GI green beans, but also:

+ a roasted coffee (ground & beans)

with a minimum quality (clean cup)

+ sold at (specialty) coffee shops

(cups sold vs. green beans sold)

+ also managed by the GI groups

+ fostering the coffee consumption at origin

and not only as exports!

Promoting the education and culture of coffee

at origin starting with the producers/coffee growers

and the population in general!

Source: Reto Meili

xiomara.quinones-ruiz@boku.ac.at

Terima kasih atas perhatiannya!

36

Literature

Allaire, G., Casabianca, F., & Thevenod-Mottet, E. 2011. Geographical Origin: A Complex Feature of Agro-food Products. In E. Barham and B. Sylvander (Eds.), Labels of origin for food:

local development, global rrecognition (pp. 1–12). Wallingford: Cabi.

Areté.2013. Areté. 2013. Study on Assessing the Added Value of PDO/PGI Products. Executive Summary. Commissioned Study by the European Commission. Retrieved from

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7ec0d921-8630-4acc-96e3-1ccad465282a (accessed November 28, 2020).

CBI 2020. https://www.cbi.eu/market-information/coffee/trade-statistics (accessed November 27, 2020)

Daviron, B. & Ponte, S. 2005. The Coffee Paradox: Global Markets, Commodity Trade and the Elusive Promise of Development. London, UK, New York, US: Zed Books.

Fischer, E., Victor, B., & Asturias de Barrios, L. 2020. Quality versus solidarity: Third Wave coffee and cooperative values among smallholding Maya farmers in Guatemala. The Journal of

Peasant Studies, 1–18.

FNC 2020. Empresas y marcas autorizadas. https://www.cafedecolombia.com/particulares/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-14-Reporte-Especifico-DO.pdf (accessed November 18,

2020).

Hameed A., Hussain S.A., & Suleria H.A.R. 2018. “Coffee Bean-Related” Agroecological Factors Affecting the Coffee. In: J. M. Merillon & K. Ramawat K. (eds), Co-Evolution of Secondary

Metabolites. Reference Series in Phytochemistry. Cham: Springer.

Hughes, J. 2009. Coffee and Chocolate - Can We Help Developing Country Farmers through Geographical Indications. Retrieved from http://iipi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Coffee-

and-Chocolate-J.-Hughes.pdf (accessed December 2, 2020).

Nigmann, T. 2015. Collective action milieus for registering GIs in Thailand: The cases of “Kafae Doi Tung” and “Kafae Doi Chaang”. Unpublished master thesis. University of Natural

Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Austria.

Quiñones-Ruiz, X. F., Penker, M., Vogl, C. R., & Samper-Gartner, L. F. 2015. Can origin labels re-shape relationships along international supply chains? – The case of Café de Colombia.

International Journal of t he Commons 9(1): 416–439.

Quiñones-Ruiz, X. F., Nigmann, T., Schreiber, C., & Neilson, J. 2020. Collective Action Milieus and Governance Structures of Protected Geographical Indications for Coffee in Colombia,

Thailand and Indonesia. International Journal of the Commons 14(1): 329–343.

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs Official Journal of the

European Union, L 343/1, 14 December. Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1151/oj (accessed November 18, 2020).

Renard, R. D. 2010. Mainstreaming Alternative Development in Thailand, Lao PDR and Myanmar: A Process of Learning. Vienna, Austria: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

(UNODC).

SCA (Specialty Coffee Association). Protocols & Best Practices. Retrieved from https://sca.coffee/research/protocols-best-practices (accessed November 28, 2020)

Schreiber, C. 2018. Evolving and interacting quality conventions – a value chain analysis of certified coffee in Aceh, Indonesia. Unpublished master thesis. University of Natural

Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Austria.

Teuber, R. 2010. Geographical Indications of Origin as a Tool of Product Differentiation: The Case of Coffee. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 22(3–4): 277–298.