Geographical indications as a pathway to SDG achievement: Evidence from GI and Non-GI farms in Tamil Nadu

Introduction

Agricultural development is central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, food security and sustainable livelihoods. Agricultural markets have witnessed growing demand for differentiated, quality-assured and origin-linked products. Geographical Indications (GIs) serve as intellectual property rights that protect the reputation and distinctiveness of products associated with specific regions, thereby offering a market-based mechanism to enhance farmers' income and strengthen rural livelihoods (WIPO, 2017) [19] . In India, GI registration has expanded rapidly and is promoted as a tool for enhancing farmers' income, ensuring fair market access and fostering sustainable rural development. Geographical Indications (GIs) have been widely recognized as instruments for enhancing rural development, improving market access and securing price premiums for traditional and regionspecific products. Tregear et al. (2007) [16] highlighted that GI products often command higher prices due to their perceived authenticity, quality assurance and cultural embeddedness. Bramley et al., (2009) [5] conceptualized GIs as mechanisms that strengthen local value chains, protect traditional knowledge and foster collective action among producers. Several international studies provide empirical evidence on the economic benefits of GI certification. Rangnekar (2004) [15] emphasized that GIs can promote rural development by linking product reputation to geographical origin, thereby enhancing farmers' bargaining power. Belletti and Marescotti (2011) [3] found that GI protection helps stabilize farm incomes and reduce market volatility by enabling product differentiation. Barjolle, et al., (2011) [1] further argued that well-governed GI systems contribute to territorial development by fostering cooperation among stakeholders and strengthening local institutions. Empirical studies from Europe indicate positive income and market outcomes associated with GI products. Moschini et al., (2008) [11] showed that origin labelling and GI protection significantly influence consumer willingness to pay, leading to higher farm-gate prices. Menapace et al., (2013) [10] reported that consumers exhibit stronger trust and higher purchase intentions toward certified origin products, reinforcing the market advantage of GIs. Grunert and Aachmann (2016) [7] also found that geographical origin labels enhance perceived quality and consumer confidence, particularly in food markets. In Asia, Ngokkuen and Grote (2010) [12] demonstrated that GI certification positively affected income levels among Thai Jasmine rice farmers, with institutional support and cooperative membership playing key roles in adoption. Yin et al. (2024) [17] found that GI certification significantly improved household income and reduced income inequality among tea farmers in China. Similarly, Zhao et al. (2014) [18] reported that GI protection enhanced product branding, market access and price realization in Chinese agricultural markets. In the Indian context, Rangnekar (2011) [14] emphasized the potential of GI protection to safeguard traditional knowledge and enhance rural livelihoods, particularly for smallholders and artisanal producers. Basavaraj et al. (2023) [2] provided empirical evidence that GI-tagged Hadagali jasmine significantly improves farmers' income and employment opportunities. Jamal et al., (2024) [8] found that GI certification enhanced market access and price realization for Darjeeling tea producers, while also strengthening institutional governance structures. Jena and Grote (2012) [9] reported that GI registration improved farmers' bargaining power and value chain participation in Basmati rice production. Recent studies have increasingly linked GIs to sustainability and development outcomes. Nirosha and Mansingh (2024) [13] emphasized that GI sustainability is an emerging research domain and highlighted the need for empirical studies connecting GI performance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Bowen (2010) [4] argued that GIs contribute to sustainable rural development by promoting environmentally responsible practices and preserving agrobiodiversity. Giovannucci et al. (2009) [6] also noted that GIs support inclusive growth by enabling smallscale producers to access premium markets and maintain traditional production systems. Despite this growing body of literature, several gaps remain. Most existing studies focus on single commodities or specific regions, the of findings. Moreover, few studies offer comparative assessments of cost structures, yields, and net returns between GI and non-GI farms across multiple crops. There is also limited empirical work explicitly linking GI adoption with SDG achievement, particularly in the Indian agricultural context. This study addresses these gaps by providing a multi-crop comparative economic analysis of GI and non-GI farms in Tamil Nadu and by examining the contribution of GI certification to key SDGs.

Methodology 2.1 Study Area

The study was conducted in Dindigul and Madurai districts, selected GI-producing regions of Tamil Nadu covering three crops: Kodaikanal Hill Garlic, Virupakshi Hill Banana and Madurai Malli Jasmine. The sample size is 270 farmers, comprises of 60 GI farmers and 30 non-GI farmers for each crop were selected using purposive sampling

Data Collection

Primary data were collected through structured interviews during the year 2023-2024 covering: Input use, Cost of cultivation, Yield and output prices and Gross and net returns

Analytical Framework

The economic performance of GI and non-GI farms was assessed using: Cost of cultivation (variable and fixed), Gross returns, Net returns, Input-output ratio and Cost of production per quintal. Differences between GI and non-GI farms were tested for statistical significance at the 5% level.

Results

Cost and Returns of Garlic

GI garlic farms incurred a total cultivation cost of Rs. 2.52 lakhs per ha, marginally higher than non-GI farms (Rs. 2.51 lakhs). Variable costs constituted over 95% of total costs for both groups. GI farms incurred higher expenses on FYM, human labour, bullock labour, and plant protection chemicals, reflecting more intensive and sustainable cultivation practices. However, seed cost was significantly lower for GI garlic due to lower seed prices. Although non-GI garlic recorded a significantly higher yield (31.17 qtl/ha) compared to GI garlic (24.63 qtl/ha), GI garlic commanded a significantly higher price (Rs. 23,333/qtl vs Rs. 17,500/qtl). Consequently, GI garlic achieved higher gross returns (Rs. 5,74,700/ha) and net returns (Rs. 3,22,064/ha) compared to non-GI farms (Rs. 2,93,636/ha). The input-output ratio was also higher for GI garlic (2.27 vs 2.17). GI garlic is more profitable primarily due to price premium rather than yield advantage.

Cost and Returns of Banana

GI banana cultivation incurred a significantly higher total cost (Rs. 2,55,450/ha) than non-GI banana (Rs. 2,28,763/ha), driven by higher expenditure on seed, FYM, fertilizers, labour, and interest on working capital. Despite using fewer seedlings, GI banana farms applied more FYM, fertilizers, and labour, reflecting input-intensive management. GI banana achieved significantly higher yield (131.57 qtl/ha) than non-GI banana (116.90 qtl/ha) and realized a higher price (Rs. 5,300/qtl vs Rs. 4,200/qtl). This resulted in substantially higher gross returns (Rs. 6,97,321/ha) and net returns (Rs. 4,41,871/ha) compared to non-GI farms (Rs. 2,62,200/ha). The input-output ratio for GI banana was 2.72, far exceeding that of non-GI banana (2.14). GI banana benefits from both yield and price advantages, making it the most profitable among the three crops studied.

Cost and Returns of Jasmine

The establishment cost of Madurai Malli (GI) jasmine was Rs. 4,92,387/ha, slightly higher than non-GI jasmine (Rs. 4,75,748/ha). Human labour constituted nearly half of the establishment cost in both systems. Annual maintenance cost was also significantly higher for GI jasmine (Rs. 4,30,688/ha) compared to non-GI jasmine (Rs. 4,14,502/ha), primarily due to higher labour use. Non-GI jasmine recorded a significantly higher yield (27.47 qtl/ha) than GI jasmine (24.98 qtl/ha). However, GI jasmine realized a significantly higher price (Rs. 40,000/qtl vs Rs. 30,000/qtl), resulting in higher gross returns (Rs. 9,99,200/ha) and net returns (Rs. 5,68,512/ha) compared to non-GI farms (Rs. 4,09,598/ha). The inputoutput ratio was higher for GI jasmine (2.32 vs 1.99). Similar to garlic, GI jasmine compensates for lower yield through substantial price premiums.

Conclusion and SDG Implications

The study provides strong empirical evidence that GI certification enhances farm profitability across garlic, banana and jasmine in Tamil Nadu. Although GI farms often incur higher production and maintenance costs, in some cases lower yields; the significantly higher prices realized in the market result in superior gross and net returns. Among the three crops, GI banana exhibited the highest profitability, driven by both yield and price advantages, while GI garlic and jasmine derived benefits primarily from price premiums. These findings underscore the economic value of GI protection as a tool for rural income enhancement, product differentiation, and market competitiveness. GI certification contributes directly to SDG 1 (No Poverty) through increased farm income, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by supporting labour-intensive, value-added agriculture and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by promoting quality assurance and origin-based production systems. Policy efforts should focus on strengthening GI governance, improving market linkages, enhancing consumer awareness and providing institutional support to farmers for sustaining quality standards. Future research may explore the long-term sustainability impacts of GI adoption and its contribution to inclusive and environmentally sustainable development goals.

References

1. Barjolle D, Sylvander B, Thévenod-Mottet E. Public policies and geographical indications. In: Labels of origin for food: local development, global recognition. Wallingford, UK: CAB International; 2011. p. 92-105.
2. Basavaraj G, Rashmitha CC, Pramod Nayak SS, Seetharamu GK. GI-tagged Hadagali jasmine in Karnataka-A production and marketing analysis. Journal www.extensionjournal.com of Applied Horticulture. 2023;25(3):260-262.
3. Belletti G, Marescotti A. Origin products, geographical indications and rural development. In: Labels of origin for food: local development, global recognition. Wallingford, UK: CAB International; 2011. p. 75-91.
4. Bowen S. Development from within? The potential for geographical indications in the global south. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 2010;13(2):231-252.
5. Bramley C, Biénabe E, Kirsten J. The economics of geographical indications: towards a conceptual framework for geographical indication research in developing countries. The Economics of Intellectual Property. 2009;1:109-141.
6. Giovannucci D, Josling TE, Kerr W, O'Connor B, Yeung MT. Guide to geographical indications: linking products and their origins. Geneva: International Trade Centre; 2009.
7. Grunert KG, Aachmann K. Consumer reactions to the use of EU quality labels on food products: a review of the literature. Food Control. 2016;59:178-187.
8. Jamal S, Upadhyay A, Moin K. Impact of geographical indications on revitalisation of local economy: a case study of Darjeeling Tea. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. 2024;29(5):443-456.
9. Jena PR, Grote U. Impact evaluation of traditional Basmati rice cultivation in Uttarakhand State of Northern India: what implications does it hold for Geographical Indications? World Development. 2012;40(9):1895-1907.
10. Menapace L, Colson G, Raffaelli R. Risk aversion, subjective beliefs, and farmer risk management strategies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2013;95(2):384-389.
11. Moschini G, Menapace L, Pick D. Geographical indications and the competitive provision of quality in agricultural markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2008;90(3):794-812.
12. Ngokkuen C, Grote U. Determinants influencing adoption of geographical indication certification: the case of rice cultivation in Thailand. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Hannover 2010, No. 52. Göttingen: Verein für Socialpolitik, Ausschuss für Entwicklungsländer; 2010.
13. Nirosha R, Mansingh JP. Geographical indication tag for agricultural produces: challenges and methods. Multidisciplinary Reviews. 2024;7(9):20242062024206.
14. Rangnekar D. Remaking place: the social construction of a Geographical Indication for Feni. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 2011;43(9):20432059.
15. Rangnekar D. The socio-economics of geographical indications. UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper 8. 2004:13-15.
16. Tregear A, Arfini F, Belletti G, Marescotti A. Regional foods and rural development: the role of product qualification. Journal of Rural Studies. 2007;23(1):1222.
17. Yin X, Li J, Wu J, Cao R, Xin S, Liu J. Impacts of geographical indications on agricultural growth and farmers' income in rural China. Agriculture. 2024;14(1):113.
18. Zhao X, Finlay D, Kneafsey M. The effectiveness of contemporary Geographical Indications (GIs) schemes in enhancing the quality of Chinese agrifoods: experiences from the field. Journal of Rural Studies. 2014;36:77-86. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.06.012.
19. World Intellectual Property Organization. Geographical indications: an introduction. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization; 2017.