Organization and Legal Regimes Governing Seed Markets and Farmers’ Rights in Ethiopia

Journal of African Law

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 285-315

  Lightbourne, Muriel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955551690     PISSN: 00218553     EISSN: 14643731     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0021855307000319     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Ethiopia is one of the 12 Vavilov centres of diversity (others include China, India, Russia and Colombia). Research into the flora of the Horn of Africa is ongoing; current estimates are that there are about 6,000 species of vascular plants, of which 600 are endemic. However, owing to prevailing poverty and to a lack of awareness of sustainable uses of biological resources, overgrazing and subsequent land degradation are a problem in Ethiopia. See E Kelbessa Plant Conservation Strategy in Ethiopia (2005) available at (last accessed 26 June 2007).
2. R. Feyissa Farmers' Rights in Ethiopia - A Case Study (study paper no 5, 2006, Fridtj of Nansen Institute) at 14.
3. African Economic Outlook - Ethiopia (2005, African Development Bank - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) at 227.
4. The Ethiopian fiscal year runs from 1 July to 30 June. Grain exports were banned by the Derg, a Marxist-Leninist military junta that deposed Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974. The Derg was in turn defeated in 1991 by the EPRDF, a coalition of rebel forces. The ban on grain exports was only lifted in 1996, according to W Amha and E Gabre-Madhin “Structure and conduct of grain marketing in Ethiopia” (summary paper 17 from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) workshop on Policies for Improved Land Management and Agricultural Market Development in the Ethiopian Highlands, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2004), available at (last accessed 26 June 2007).
5. World Bank News release no 2004/331/PREM, available at (last accessed 23 January 2006).
6. See African Economic Outlook - Ethiopia (2006, AfDB-OECD) at 263, available at (last accessed 26 June 2007).
7. See UN Food and Agriculture Organization / World Food Programme (FAO/WFP) Crop and Food Supply Assessment - Mission to Ethiopia (January 2005) part 2.1, available at
8. T. Kuma “Trends in agricultural production, technology dissemination, and price movements of outputs and inputs” (paper presented at the Policy Forum on Agriculture Technology Diffusion and Price Policy - IFPRI, Addis Ababa, 2002) at 36.
9. See FAO / WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment, above at note 10 at part 2.3.
10. Published in Megeleta Oromia (21 August 1995).
11. African Economic Outlook, above at note 9 at 265.
12. E. Wale, J Mburu and D Virchow “The economics of incentive mechanisms for biodiversity conservation: contract mechanisms” (paper presented at the Third BioEcon Workshop, Bonn, 22 - 25 May 2003) at 16.
13. R. Tripp Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Agriculture Technology Development in Sub-Saharan Africa (working paper 212, March 2003, Overseas Development Institute, London) at 7.
14. Farmers used to be required to sell an important amount of their production at a fixed price to the state-owned Agricultural Marketing Corporation created in 1976, which was restructured and renamed Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise (EGTE) in 1992. In 1999, the status of the EGTE was revised again and its role reoriented to operate in export markets as a commercial enterprise and to stabilize grain prices by maintaining buffer stocks (about 30% of its total grain purchase). After the grain market liberalization, prices increased and then decreased after 1995–1996 owing to an exceptional harvest. The EGTE started operating a seed warehouse system in 2005; farmer cooperatives bring their produce (cereals, pulses and oilseeds) to the EGTE for storage. The EGTE charges them for this service and issues a certificate that is used as collateral to obtain a bank loan. T Bonger, E Gabre-Madhin and S Babu (ed) Agriculture Technology Diffusion and Price Policy (policy brief 1, June 2002, IFPRI).
15. Amha and Gabre-Madhin “Structure and conduct of grain marketing in Ethiopia”, above at note 5, at 61.
16. Amha and Gabre-Madhin “Structure and conduct of grain marketing in Ethiopia”, above at note 5 at 78.
17. Kuma “Trends in agricultural production”, above at note 11 at 46.
18. African Economic Outlook - Ethiopia, above at note 4 at 228.
19. G. Hansson Country Economic Report 2004:4 - Ethiopia: Economic Performance and the Role of the Private Sector (November 2004, Sida, Sweden) at 25.
20. The ESE is supervized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). Its main role consists of providing improved seeds. Actually, this role is three-fold, as it entails breeding, multiplying and distributing improved seeds. These are received both from breeders and from the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization. The concerned crops are essentially cereals (wheat, barley, maize, teff), oilseeds (sesame, mustard) and pulses (faba bean and field peas - generally used as forage for livestock). In the long run, the ESE is deemed to concentrate on high value crops, such as vegetables, and leave cereals, pulses and oilseed crops to private seed producers. K Tafesse “Towards seed industry development in Ethiopia” (paper presented at the International Workshop on Seed Security for Food Security, Florence, Italy, 30 November - 1 December 1997), available at (last accessed 30 November 2005).
21. Personal communication from G Alemu, General Manager, Ethiopian Seed Enterprise, 15 December 2005.
22. Apparently, this rate varies from region to region. According to M Worede, T Tesemma and R Feyissa, “In some of the more developed regions of Ethiopia, such as the central highlands, this practice is becoming less and less common with the availability of new, improved cultivars.” “Keeping diversity alive: an Ethiopian perspective” in S Brush (ed) Genes in the Field - On-Farm Conservation of Crop Biodiversity (1999, International Development Research Centre / International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA) at 145.
23. Amha and Gabre-Madhin “Structure and conduct of grain marketing in Ethiopia”, above at note 5 at 51.
24. The coffee industry generated around US$70bn in global retail sales in 2002 according to the International Coffee Organization's (ICO) estimates, quoted by D Brough and R Ewing “Decaf coffee find brews into ownership spat” (13 July 2004) Reuters news wire, available at (last accessed 26 January 2006).
25. The ICO, located in London, United Kingdom, was established in 1963 by an agreement renewed five times since then and deposited at the United Nations; see (last accessed 26 June 2007).
26. C. L. Gilbert “The long run impact of the ending of coffee control” (paper presented at the Second World Coffee Conference, Salvador (Bahia), Brazil, 23–25 September 2005) at 13, figure 7 (production shares, ICO exporting members)
27. Also ICO “Letter from the Executive Director - coffee market report” (May 2005) at 3. Available at (last accessed 26 January 2006)
28. ICO “Letter from the Executive Director - coffee market report” (May 2005) at 6–7.
29. Figures taken from the table “Nationally organized second level co-operatives / union / detail information as of May 2005” (MARD, Cooperatives Promotion Agency). “Second level cooperative” means a union of small local cooperatives. For instance, the Oromia Coffee Cooperatives Union has 101 such cooperatives as members, representing 74,570 farmers, ie around 500,000 individuals in total (assuming an average composition of farm households).
30. The Rainforest Alliance certification scheme covers several aspects of the farming system, such as labour conditions. For a comparison of the different collective and private coffee certification schemes, see D Giovannucci and S Ponte “Standards as a new form of social contract? Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry” (2005) 30(3) Food Policy at 284–301.
31. All these developments are recorded in a transcript of a personal communication with D Jena, Deputy General Manager of the Oromia Coffee Union, Addis Ababa, 16 December 2005.
32. Published in the Federal Negarit Gazeta no 34 (7 February 2003).
33. Previous negotiations with a British firm called the Commonwealth Development Corporation failed “because of unacceptable preconditions set by the company to the government”, as reported in an online article by M Worku “Al Amoudi to venture into vegetable, flower farming” (4 March 2001) Fortune available at (last accessed 22 December 2005).
34. Quoted by C Richerzhagen and D Virchow in “Sustainable utilization of crop genetic diversity through property rights mechanisms? the case of coffee genetic resources in Ethiopia” (paper presented at Bio-Econ Workshop, Bonn, Germany, May 2002) at 11.
35. See the trademark electronic search system of the USPTO website at (last accessed 29 June 2007).
36. The Specialty Coffee Association of America argues against the government of Ethiopia that certification marks should be the chosen route for protection; see R Teuber “Geographical indications of origin as a tool of product differentiation - the case of coffee” (paper presented at 105th European Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar, Bologna, Italy, March 2007) at 5, available at (last accessed 29 June 2007).
37. Ethiopia Trademark Registration and Protection Proclamation 501/2006 does not contemplate the protection of certification marks. See (last accessed 29 June 2007).
38. Teuber “Geographical indications of origin”, above at note 39.
39. The description of this proclamation draws on G Hailu Ethiopia: Biodiversity Conservation and Seed Banking to Alleviate Poverty (year unspecified, United Nations Development Programme, Ethiopia).
40. W. Sawahel “Ethiopian biotech institute planned” (2005) 6/1 The Scientist, originally available at . Please note that this url is no longer available in its original version and the figure of US$1.8m has been removed; however, the article was reproduced by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas in (2006) 30 Seed Info, available at (last accessed 29 June 2007).
41. Draft proclamation, art 4.
42. Id art 5.
43. Id art 17 (1).
44. Id art 29 (1) and (8).
45. Id art 29 (10).
46. The following developments are taken from the National Seed Industry Agency booklet National Variety Release Procedures and Mechanism (November 2001).
47. Proc 206/2000, third recital.
48. Id art 2.
49. Id art 4.
50. Proclamation 206/2000, art 25 (5) and (6). Art 18 of the Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act 53 of 30 October 2001 likewise prohibits the granting of plant breeders' rights on varieties containing gene sequences involving “terminator technology”.
51. The official exchange rate was 8.57 ETBirr to US$1 in 2002. Expressed in terms of purchasing power parity (ppp), prices in US$ are the same as those in ETBirr, as the ppp rate between Ethiopian Birr and US$ was 1 in 2002. See (last accessed 13 March 2006).
52. This description draws from G Hansson Country Economic Report 2004:4 - Ethiopia: Economic Performance and the Role of the Private Sector (November 2004, Sida, Sweden) at 29–30.
53. Art 4. The whole wording (except a strange mention of non-copyright works) of this article is reminiscent of art 53 of the European Patent Convention. Ethiopia has observer status within the African Regional Intellectual Property Office.
54. Art 2 indent 9 of the proclamation on PBRs.
55. Ethiopia has observer status in the WTO and its request for accession was circulated on 13 January 2003.
56. Id art 5.
57. TRIPS entered into force on 1 January 1995. It constitutes annex IC of the Marrakesh Treaty instituting the World Trade Organization and is the outcome of the Uruguay Round in this field. It defines minimum rights.
58. Arts 12 and 13 of the proclamation on PBRs.
59. Id arts 21 and 22.
60. Proclamation 482/2006. See the Ethiopian News Agency at (last accessed 13 January 2006).
61. Art 5.
62. This was probably inspired by art 23 (3) of the AUML.
63. Art 15(2).
64. Art 1.
65. Art 2.
66. S. Demissew and T B G Egziabher “Expectations of biodiversity rich countries from commercial and non-commercial users like botanic gardens: the Ethiopian case” in UN Environment Programme document UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/4/INF/10 at 67, available at, http://www.cbd.int/doc/meeting.aspx?mtg5ABSwg-04&tab51> (last accessed 26 June 2007).
67. M. Bayou “Bio-prospecting experience in Ethiopia” (paper presented at the Regional ABS Capacity Building Workshop for eastern and southern Africa, Addis Ababa, 2 - 6 October 2005).
68. Tadesse et al (2001), Demel (1999) and Wrigley (1988), quoted by Richerzhagen and Virchow in “Sustainable utilization of crop genetic diversity”, above at note 36 at 20.
69. The montane forest is an endangered area: out of 2.3 million ha of remaining forest, 1.6 million ha are highly disturbed by human activities. It seems that, whereas a century ago, it covered 40% of Ethiopia's highlands, it now represents only 3% of this area and is disappearing at up to 200,000 ha pa, according to Gebre and Deribe (2001), quoted by Richerzhagen and Virchow in “Sustainable utilization of crop genetic diversity” above at note 36 at 10.
70. Coffee - The Gift of Ethiopia to the World (MARD, Agricultural Marketing Sector) at 4.
71. See the Reuters report (13 July 2004) available at and for a focus on intellectual property rights issues in this context (both last accessed 26 January 2006).
72. Compared to Coffea arabica, which is a self-pollinated species, highly sensitive to pests and diseases, C. canephora, used mainly to produce instant coffee powder, is a cross-pollinated species with higher genetic diversity.
73. The Bourbon species was introduced in the 18th century by a French navigator into the island of Réunion, from where it further travelled to Brazil and Hawaii. For an account of coffee germplasm historical flows, see M Pendergrast Uncommon Grounds - The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World (1999, Basic Books, New York) at 16 and introductory map.
74. SCAA/SCI proposal: A Global Coffee Framework For Cooperative Action at 1, available at (last accessed 27 January 2007).
75. As underlined by J Lanjouw and P Levy in “A study of formal and informal property rights in urban Ecuador” (2002) 112 (482) Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society 986–1019 at 988: “Even for households who do not intend to sell, the ability to alienate property may be valuable in permitting the use of land as collateral for formal loans.” Further (at 1011), “there are two ways in which conferring formal rights might increase the welfare of … households: by increasing households' security from eviction or boundary disputes and by reducing the transfer uncertainty associated with transactions undertaken in an environment where all rights are informal.”
76. Feyissa Farmers' Rights in Ethiopia above at note 2 at 28.