Starbucks deserves full recognition for its announcement of a proposed Farmer Support Centre to be established in Addis Abeba. When completed, it will represent tangible compensation for its misguided opposition to Ethiopia's trademark programme. Other announcements - to manufacture clothing for Starbucks workers in Ethiopia and to fund some projects in rural communities - are also welcome.
 

According to Melissa Allison, business reporter with the Seattle Times, where the company's corporate headquarters are located, Scott McMartin, Starbucks director of coffee and tea education, said that he was not sure when the support centre would open, how many employees it would have or how much it would cost to establish and operate.
 

Starbucks has made a welcome announcement, which can, if it is more than a token gesture, have a positive impact. Such a centre will, of course, do at least as much good for Starbucks as for Ethiopia, since it gives them better access to premium quality coffee at a time when demand is growing and a shortage is on the horizon.   
 

The Ethiopian News Agency announced that at their meeting Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Chairman Schultz "also discussed ways to expand the branding and marketing of Ethiopia's world-renowned fine coffees in order to achieve better prices for farmers and improved opportunities for those who depend on coffee for their livelihood." This is truly at the heart of the matter.
 

Without revealing trade secrets, Starbucks should indicate how its agreement with Ethiopia will lead to better prices for hardworking farmers and others in the coffee sector. Some degree of transparency in the agreement with Ethiopia would indeed be welcome. Starbucks had previously rejected Ethiopia's right to own the trademarks.
 

What has it now agreed to? What is the practical effect of Starbucks' acknowledgment of Ethiopia's ownership of the names Yirgacheffe, Harar and Sidamo? Does it involve any payments to Ethiopia? How firm and substantial a commitment has Starbucks made to marketing Ethiopian coffee? What rights did Ethiopia grant to Starbucks? What does Ethiopia gain in exchange?
 

The public deserves to know something of what has been agreed to on its behalf.  It is hard to believe that nothing at all can be revealed without causing harm to Starbucks. 
 

Overlooking the matter of the secret agreement and the vagueness about how it will lead to better prices for farmers, the bottom line, as the cliché says, is whether the farmers will receive a bigger portion of the retail price of its coffee that Starbucks sells. This was one of the most important goals of the trademark programme when it was launched.

Coffee prices will rise and fall with market conditions, beyond the control of Starbucks or anyone else. But whatever the price may be, will the farmers get their fair share? Until now, Ethiopia's farmers have gotten a smaller share than farmers in other producing nations, according to the NGO that has been Ethiopia's trademark advisor, Oxfam International.

How will the agreement improve this situation?

With or without more transparency in the agreement, some things will be known: the prices paid to farmers and the prices charged by Starbucks. A few years from now it will be clear who has benefited from this agreement. Will Ethiopia and the farmers be among them?