A background note can be accessed here: GI Tags Move Beyond Protection to Markets and Export Growth
India has more than 800 registered GI products and is targeting 10,000 by 2030, while authorised users have grown to about 29,000. How should India judge whether this expansion is creating economic value for producers rather than simply increasing the number of protected products?
India has registered over 800 Geographical Indication (GI) products and aims to reach 10,000 by 2030. Success should be measured by sustained economic benefits for producers. A producer-focused framework should track the share of eligible producers registered and actively using the GI; realised prices and producer incomes before and after recognition, accounting for market conditions, quality, and input costs; and the share of the final consumer price accruing to farmers, artisans, and other primary producers versus traders, processors, and retailers. This can show whether GI protection reduces or shifts value-chain inequalities. Other indicators should include market access, exports, branded sales, demand growth, product differentiation, and consumer willingness to pay.
Assessment should also cover the conditions needed for value-chain development: quality standards, traceability, collective marketing, certification, enforcement against misuse, infrastructure, finance, and access to organised markets. Regular product- and producer-level impact assessments can establish whether registration leads to higher incomes, wider participation, and sustainable livelihoods.
The emerging GI ecosystem seeks to connect traditional products with new markets through packaging, design, digital commerce, tourism and modern retail, while preserving the characteristics associated with their geographical identity. How should India balance the need to maintain authenticity with the need for producers to adapt products and business models to changing consumer demand?
India may consider a “protected core, adapted periphery” approach to balance GI authenticity with commercialisation. Core characteristics such as geographical origin, traditional production methods, distinctive quality, and cultural attributes should be safeguarded through clear GI specifications and strong quality standards. Controlled innovation in packaging, branding, processing, product format, and marketing should be permitted as long as the essential identity is preserved.
Producer organisations, cooperatives, and associations should help define acceptable adaptations. Collective governance can set quality protocols, monitor compliance, and prevent individual firms from undermining the GI’s reputation for short-term gain. Excessive rigidity, however, may constrain adaptation to consumer preferences, retail requirements, and digital markets.
India should distinguish innovations that add market value from those that compromise authenticity. Certification, traceability, periodic specification reviews, and stronger group governance can support modern packaging, e-commerce, tourism linkages, and branding. Commercialisation should reinforce the cultural and geographical identity of GI products while ensuring producers capture a meaningful share of the additional market value created.
India is increasingly linking GI protection with export promotion and trade negotiations, but domestic registration does not automatically secure protection in overseas markets. How should India prioritise international GI protection and export support when thousands of products may have potential but limited capacity to compete internationally?
India may adopt a strategic, market-oriented approach to internationalising GIs rather than seeking overseas protection for every registered product. Priority should go to export-ready GIs with demonstrated international demand, distinctive geographical characteristics, production capacity, scalability, price competitiveness, and producer groups capable of meeting international quality and traceability standards.
For selected high-potential GIs, India should support overseas registration and protection in priority markets, especially where counterfeiting, imitation, or misappropriation poses significant risks. Trade agreements should be used strategically to seek stronger recognition and protection of Indian GIs, with commercially meaningful registration commitments.
International protection alone cannot guarantee export success. Producer organisations require support for consistent quality, adequate supply, standardised packaging, certification, logistics, and destination-market compliance. Collective branding and digital traceability can strengthen consumer confidence and positioning.
India needs stronger coordination among the GI registry, relevant ministries, export promotion councils, producer organisations, and Indian missions abroad. A dedicated mechanism to monitor infringement and facilitate foreign-market enforcement would also be valuable. A tiered strategy should identify commercially viable GIs, build supply and quality capabilities, secure priority-market protection, and integrate these products with export promotion and trade negotiations. This would maximise economic returns from international GI protection while avoiding inefficient expenditure across thousands of products.