Originally posted by ^spidee^:
This is the letter that will be sent:
As a Starbucks customer, I'm concerned about your opposition to
Ethiopia's right to own its coffee names. I am asking Starbucks to
honor its commitment to farmers by signing an agreement with
Ethiopia that recognizes the country's rights to the names of its
coffees. If Starbucks and other companies sign such agreements,
estimates suggest that Ethiopians could see up to $88 million of
extra income a year.
Ethiopia ranks among the poorest countries in the world; [b]more
than 75 percent of its population lives on less than $1 per
day. About 15 million people in Ethiopia depend on coffee
to make a living, the majority of them growing their crop on small
plots of about two and a half acres.
Meanwhile, coffee lovers pay up to $26 per pound for fine Ethiopian
coffees because they're willing to pay for high quality and great
taste. Ethiopian farmers, however, often earn just 5-10 percent of
the retail value.
With this disparity in mind, the Ethiopian government launched a
project to get legal ownership of its fine coffee names -
Sidamo, Yirgacheffe, and Harar. By owning the names,
Ethiopia will be able to occupy a stronger negotiating position
with foreign buyers, capture a larger share of the market value
associated with those names, and protect the reputations of its
brand names. In a country with a per capita income of around $100
per year, that amount of money could have a profound impact on the
lives of millions of Ethiopians.
As you know, Ethiopia approached Starbucks more than a year ago
asking the company to lead by example and to discuss an agreement
that would acknowledge Ethiopia's ownership of these names. So far,
Starbucks has refused to sign the agreement, or even talk seriously
about it with the Ethiopian government.
I want to see Starbucks do the right thing by the poor farmers who
grow its coffee. I urge you to sign the licensing agreement and
recognize Ethiopia's rightful ownership of its coffee names.
[/b]
unfortunately it doesn't really explain much. why will the
negotiation stand be ctronger just because they own the names?
they're buying the coffee not the name.
the government luanched the move but then is it really entitled to
that ownership? what else can be done with the ownership( if its
really useful)? will it really benefit the coffee growers and not
the government coffers or the rich pple?
alot of questions unanswered and unexplained.......
i'm for helping the poor but not on such vague terms
