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 should judge the success of its Geographical Indication (GI) ecosystem by economic outcomes for producers, rather than simply by the number of products registered or authorised users added. The key question is whether the GI allows producers to earn more, sell more, or access better markets.
This requires tracking a small set of indicators. First, authorised users matter less in absolute terms than as a share of the eligible producer community, which shows how broad-based participation is. Registration is only an intermediate indicator. What matters is how many actively use the GI in commercial transactions and whether this improves market access and returns.
Second, India should measure whether GI recognition generates a genuine price premium, comparing farm-gate prices for GI and comparable non-GI products, ideally before and after registration. A higher retail price may not reach farmers or artisans, while intermediaries and retailers capture the gain. Tracking how the premium is distributed across producers, traders and retailers is therefore essential to assess whether GI recognition builds producer incomes. This gets us closer to measuring the causal economic effect of GI registration on producers.
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 needs to distinguish between the characteristics that give a product its GI identity and those that determine how it is marketed. GI specifications should protect the former without unnecessarily regulating the latter, allowing producers to respond to consumer preferences without weakening geographical identity.
Kashmiri Pashmina illustrates this. Its distinctive fibre, craftsmanship and geographical association require strict quality assurance and authentication. But producers can develop contemporary designs, packaging, branding and digital sales channels. Beyond the traditional shawl, they could develop stoles, scarves or wraps using genuine Pashmina, provided the products continue to meet the GI specifications. Adaptation becomes problematic when it changes essential characteristics, undermining consumer trust and the GI's value for genuine producers.
India should therefore keep GI specifications precise while allowing periodic, evidence-based revision. Producer organisations and authorised-user bodies should review specifications and propose changes, subject to regulatory oversight, so that no single commercial interest reshapes a shared reputation. Quality assurance, testing and traceability should accompany this flexibility to protect authenticity and consumer trust in new channels. Authenticity should be treated as a quality constraint within which commercially relevant innovation can take place.
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 should move from a GI-by-GI protection approach to a market-and-product prioritisation strategy. The focus should be on products combining export demand, price potential, production capacity, consistent quality and the ability to meet target-market standards. A GI with strong cultural recognition but unreliable supply or limited capacity may need domestic value-chain development before international promotion.
For priority GIs, support should be sequenced. India should first build export readiness through quality certification, testing, traceability, packaging, logistics and producer networks. The focus can then shift to market presence, followed by legal protection where commercial opportunities and infringement risks justify the cost. This ensures that legal protection supports an existing commercial opportunity rather than becoming an end in itself.
Trade negotiations can secure recognition and enforcement, but India also needs the capacity to monitor misuse and pursue enforcement afterwards. This requires coordination between the GI Registry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), export-promotion agencies, state governments and producer organisations.
The objective should be a portfolio of export-ready Indian GI brands, concentrating resources where they generate the greatest returns for producers, rather than seeking international protection for every GI.