Challenges associated with the continued utilization and registration as authorized users by farmers of north east India with reference to geographical indication crops

Introduction

Geographical indications (GIs) are a form of intellectual property that identify a product as originating from a specific place where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to that geographical origin [1] . Beyond legal protection, GIs are increasingly promoted as instruments of rural development, since they allow producers to capture a price premium, safeguard traditional knowledge and strengthen the collective identity of a region's produce [1,3] . The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognizes GIs as one of the principal tools available to producers of agricultural and craft products for differentiating themselves in domestic and export markets [2] . India operationalized this recognition through its Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, and the number of agricultural, handicraft and food products registered under the Act has grown steadily since the first registrations were granted in the mid-2000s [4] . The Northeast Hill Region (NEHR) has emerged as a particularly active area of GI registration in recent years, with a wide range of horticultural and food crops from the region now carrying the tag [5,6,7] . Despite this expansion in registrations, several assessments of India's GI regime note that registration alone does not guarantee sustained utilization. A considerable share of registered GI products see limited use of the tag relative to the number of producers actually cultivating the crop. Studies on the status of the country's GI system have repeatedly pointed to a persistent gap between the number of products registered and the extent to which registered producers use the tag in practice [8,9,10] . This utilization gap is qualitatively different depending on whether a producer or farmer has already registered as an Authorized User (AU) or remains outside the system as a Non-Authorized User (NAU). A producer who has already registered may find it difficult to sustain the requirements and benefits of the tag over time, whereas a producer who has not registered may face an entirely different set of barriers that keep them from entering the system at all. Yet policy discussions on the underutilization of GIs frequently treat the producer population as a single, undifferentiated group, offering common recommendations for spreading awareness www.extensionjournal.com or simplifying procedures rather than addressing the distinct barriers faced by each group [9,10] . Against this background, the present study examines the challenges associated with the continued utilization and registration of GI tags among authorized and non-authorized producers of GI crops of the Northeast Hill Region (NEHR), with the objective of identifying and ranking the constraints reported separately by each group so that group-specific policy interventions can be recommended.

Materials and Methods

The study was carried out in three states of the NEHR of India. Four GI-registered crops were purposively selected using two criteria: the crop had received GI registration between five and ten years prior to the study, and it had more than 50 registered Authorized Users (AUs). On this basis, Khasi Mandarin and Memong Nareng (Meghalaya), Naga Tree Tomato (Nagaland) and Tripura Queen Pineapple (Tripura) were selected for the study. Two categories of respondents were surveyed for each crop: AUs, i.e., farmers formally registered as GI users and Non-Authorized Users (NAUs), farmers cultivating the same crop who had not registered. For Khasi Mandarin, Naga Tree Tomato and Memong Nareng, complete enumeration of AUs was carried out. For Tripura Queen Pineapple, where a considerably larger number of AUs stood registered in West Tripura district [12] , Yamane's (1967) formula for finite populations was applied to determine an appropriate AU sample size [11] . NAUs for each crop were selected through proportionate random sampling. As a GI tag applies only to a defined geographical area, the districts, blocks and villages covered for each crop were purposively selected to correspond to that area. In all, 612 respondents were surveyed, comprising 322 AUs and 290 NAUs, distributed as shown in Table 1. AUs and NAUs encounter qualitatively different problems and were therefore studied separately: AUs were assessed on the challenges they face in maintaining continued utilization of the GI tag after registration, while NAUs were assessed on the challenges that keep them from registering as authorized users and thereby accessing GI-related benefits.

For each group, the relevant set of challenges was compiled in two stages. First, a set of likely challenges was drawn from the review of literature and from the researcher's familiarity with GI crop cultivation and the registration process. This preliminary list was then supplemented with challenges volunteered directly by producers through open-ended field questions, allowing respondents to report difficulties that had not been anticipated. The two lists were pooled, and duplicate or overlapping items were merged to arrive at a comprehensive, non-redundant list of challenges for AUs and a separate list for NAUs.

Respondents were then asked to rate every challenge on their group's list according to its perceived severity, on a threepoint ordinal scale (Very challenging, Challenging, Not challenging), rather than being asked to freely list or rank only the difficulties that came to mind unprompted. This ensured that every respondent evaluated the full set of listed challenges and that even infrequently mentioned constraints were captured with a measured severity rather than being omitted altogether. The severity ratings collected from respondents were converted into a single composite measure for each challenge using the Weighted Mean Score (WMS) technique, and challenges were ranked in descending order of this score:

where W i is the weight assigned to the i-th severity category of the rating scale, F i is the number of respondents who rated the challenge under that severity category, and N is the total number of respondents.

Results and Discussion

The challenges associated with continued utilization and registration of the study's GI crops were evaluated separately for AUs and NAUs because the two groups face qualitatively different problems. AUs, having already registered, encounter difficulties in maintaining and continuing to utilize their GI status, whereas NAUs face barriers that prevent them from registering in the first place and thereby accessing GI benefits at all. For each group, a comprehensive, nonredundant list of challenges was built in two stages, comprising a pre-listed set drawn from the literature and the researcher's familiarity with the GI registration process, supplemented with constraints volunteered by producers through open-ended field questions, with the two sets pooled and duplicates merged. Respondents then rated every challenge on their list individually on an ordinal severity scale (Very challenging, Challenging, Not challenging) rather than freely ranking only the ones that came to mind, so that even infrequently mentioned challenges were captured with a measured severity rather than being omitted.

Challenges associated with the continued utilization and registration by the authorized users of the GI crops

The findings in Challenges that stop the non-authorized users from registering as GI authorized users so that they can use the GI benefits For NAUs (Table 3), the challenges are significantly different from those of AUs and centre overwhelmingly on awareness rather than administrative or financial barriers. The two most severe challenges are lack of awareness about the benefits and functions of GI (WMS 2.70, Rank I) and, closely behind it, farmers not even being aware that their crop carries GI status at all (2.69, Rank II). Neilson et al. [13] and Moudgil [14] reported similar findings. The persistence of this concern even among AUs who have already navigated the certification process indicates that strengthening institutional support is likely to be a prerequisite for both improving downstream utilization and encouraging further registration among the currently unregistered pool of producers. High registration cost and fee 1.00 IX

Conclusion

The challenges encountered by AUs and NAUs reveal a clear and policy-relevant asymmetry in what holds back GI utilization at two different stages of the producer journey. For AUs, who have already cleared the registration hurdle, the dominant challenges are downstream and structural: absence of processing infrastructure, weak incentive and guidance systems and the lack of a dedicated GI market are problems that call for public investment and institutional strengthening rather than farmer-level intervention. For NAUs, who have not yet registered, the dominant challenges are upstream and informational: simply not knowing that GI status exists, what benefits it confers, or that their own crop already carries the tag are challenges that call for targeted awareness and outreach campaigns, rather than simplifying the registration process itself, since procedural and financial barriers were rated as the least severe constraints by this group. Overall, the findings demonstrate that the GI system faces a transition gap between legal registration and effective producer-level utilization, requiring interventions that address awareness and registration at the entry stage, and infrastructure, collective action, market linkage and institutional facilitation www.extensionjournal.com at the post-registration stage.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the Authorized Users and Non-Authorized Users of Khasi Mandarin, Memong Nareng, Naga Tree Tomato and Tripura Queen Pineapple for their participation and cooperation and the College of Post Graduate Studies in Agricultural Sciences, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), for institutional support during the study.

References

1. Belletti G, Marescotti A. Origin products, geographical indications and rural development. In: Barham E, Sylvander B, editors. Labels of Origin for Food. CABI; 2011. p. 75-91.
2. Rangnekar D. The socio-economics of geographical indications: a review of empirical evidence from Europe. Geneva: UNCTAD/ICTSD; 2004.
3. Das K. Prospects and challenges of geographical indications in India. J World Intellect Prop. 2010;13(2):148-201.
4. Confederation of Indian Industry. A booklet on geographical indications of Northeast States of India [Internet]. [cited 2024]. https://www.ciiipr.in/pdf/NorthEast-Booklet-(without%20certificate).pdf
5. Geographical Indications Registry. State-wise registered GI of India [Internet]. Chennai: Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks; 2026 [cited 2026 Jul 29]. https://ipindia.gov.in/frontend/pdf/gi/registered/State_w ise_Registered_GI_of_India.pdf
6. Department of Information & Public Relations, Nagaland. State-level workshop on promoting Geographical Indications for Naga Tree Tomato and Sweet Cucumber [Internet]. Nagaland: DIPR Nagaland; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 26]. https://ipr.nagaland.gov.in/index.php/STATE-LEVELWORKSHOP-ON-PROMOTING-GEOGRAPHICALINDICATIONS-FOR-NAGA-TREE-TOMATO-ANDSWEET-CUCUMBER
7. Niranjan S, Jha GK. Geographical indications in India: status, opportunities and challenges. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2021.
8. Niranjan DA, Jha SK, Dominic DM, Maiti S, Kadian KS. Constraints associated to geographical indication usage: experts and producers perspective. Indian J Ext Educ. 2023;59(2):128-131.
9. Malladagudda S, Manjusha RS. Twenty years of geographical indications in India: progress, problems, and policy recommendations. Arch Curr Res Int. 2025;25(3):365-374.
10. Yamane Y. Mathematical formulae for sample size determination. 1967.
11. Geographical Indications Registry. Details of authorised user applications registered [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 19]. https://ipindia.gov.in/storage/uploads/docsoperator/476ecfff-63fd-4dd5-bf45-e726331fcb5b.pdf
12. Neilson J, Wright J, Aklimawati L. Geographical indications and value capture in the Indonesia coffee sector. J Rural Stud. 2018;59:35-48.
13. Moudgil A. Geographical indications in India. Natl Res J Soc Sci. 2021;6(1).