Geographical indications as a strategy for market enhancement‐lessons from rice GIs in Kerala

• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Author: Aalthady Maloor Radhika,K. Jesy Thomas,Rajesh K. Raju
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12189

J World Intellect Prop. 2021;24:221–236. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jwip © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

|

221

Received: 28 March 2020

|

Revised: 21 January 2021

|

Accepted: 31 March 2021

DOI: 10.1111/jwip.12189

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Geographical indications as a strategy for market

enhancement‐lessons from rice GIs in Kerala

Aalthady Maloor Radhika

1

|K. Jesy Thomas

2

|Rajesh K. Raju

3

1

Amrita School of Agricultural Sciences,

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham,

Coimbatore, India

2

Department of Agricultural Economics,

Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, India

3

Communication Centre, Kerala Agricultural

University, Thrissur, India

Correspondence

Aalthady Maloor Radhika, Amrita School of

Agricultural Sciences, Arasampalayam,

Coimbatore, 641032 Tamil Nadu, India.

Email: radhikakrishna640@gmail.com and

am_radhika@cb.amrita.edu

Funding information

Inter University Center for Intellectual

Property Right Studies, CUSAT

Abstract

Geographical indication (GI) is a collective right and its

success depends largely on collective action of the target

groups and effective governance by the implementing

agency. The present study highlights the shortcomings in

the institutional, technical and participatory aspects of GIs

in the Indian context using the Institutional Analysis and

Development framework. The rice GIs of Kerala viz.,

Navara Rice, Palakkadan Matta Rice, Pokkali Rice, Waya-

nad Jeerakasala Rice, Wayanad Gandhakasala Rice, and

Kaipad Rice are selected for the study. The objective of GI

recognition was achieved from the protection point of

view, but as the registered proprietors has not initiated

participatory process with regard to marketing and pro-

motion no effects in this regard is achieved except Kaipad

rice. The average prices of all the rice GIs in Kerala have

increased post GI registration. But the question is that

whether the price was sufficient to sustain the farming of

these specialty rice. These products reach the end con-

sumers at a very high price, but these benefits are not

reaching the producer. Lack of focussed interventions from

the institutional arrangements post GI recognition has ca-

mouflaged the potential outcomes.

KEYWORDS

GI rice, India, Institutional Analysis and Development, post policy

initiative

1|INTRODUCTION

A closer view of the socioeconomic profile of our country warrants a review of the policies implemented towards

the merit of the poor. There exists an uncertainty regarding what is happening, intended or required. It is not the

lack of policies which is hindering the progress, but the lack of follow ups in the implementation of policies that is

obstructing the path to development. Policy makers and planners often keep themselves away from the policies

once it is enacted. Red tapism (beurocratic delay), the absence of adequate infrastructure facilities, corruption,

political instability, social and cultural beliefs are some of the reason for the impedance of effective execution of

the policies (Sachs & Bajpai, 2001). But sometimes policy may go wrong just because of the wrong conception of

the policy maker about the problem which the policy maker has to solve (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Often, the

perception of the targeted group towards the policy may also have negative impact. Success of policy can be

ensured only with the harmonious activity of the target groups as well as the implementing agency.

Despite having a rich biodiversity and a valuable array of traditional products, limited product diversification,

fluctuating market value of traditional products and competition from spurious products both in the domestic and

export destinations are hindering the progress of many developing countries including India (Das, 2009). To

address these problems, the TRIPS agreement mandated all member countries to provide protection for all geo-

graphical indications (GI) where the obligation is for members to provide the “legal means for interested parties”to

secure protection of their GIs (Kerr, 2006; Murphy, 2004). As a party to the TRIPS Agreement, India is obliged to

protect GI and hence the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 was enacted

which came into force with effect from 15th September 2003 (Ravindran & Mathew, 2008). In this regard, the

Central Government has established the “Geographical Indications Registry”with all India jurisdictions at Chennai.

Subsequently, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research directed all agricultural universities in India to constitute

an IPR Cell to facilitate protection of agriculture‐related IP Past studies had showed that the protection of

products under GIs has resulted in higher economic gains, improved quality production and helped in better

distribution of profits (Barjolle & Sylvander, 2000; Das, 2009; Ittersum et al., 2007; Lusk et al., 2006; Mochini

et al., 2008; World Trade Organisation [WTO], 2004) But the users of registered GIs (Navara Rice, Palakkadan

Matta Rice, Pokkali Rice, Wayanad Jeerakasala Rice, Wayanad Gandhakasala Rice and Kaipad Rice) are unsure

about the success as well as beneficial impacts of the GI registration (Radhika, 2019).

2|REVIEW OF LITERATURE

GI is an indication which recognise the region specific characteristics of a good (Das, 2009). According to the Geographical

Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act (1999), for an agricultural good to be recognised as a GI in India, it

should be originating, or manufactured in the territory of India and the specified quality, reputation or other characteristic

should be essentially attributable to its geographical origin. According to Teuber (2010) geographically differentiated

products can create economic value if the origin is valued by consumer. The concept of link specified in the application

between location of production and a specific quality attribute should be unambiguously proved for consumers to value

the origin of a GI (Josling, 2006). Hence an in‐depth description of the geographical area of production, characteristics of

product and method of production is a prerequisite in the GI application.

Being a traditional agricultural economy, India has a number of GI tagged products from the agriculture sector. Out of

the 12 rice varieties recognised with GI tag in the country, six are from Kerala (Blakeney et al., 2020a). Among the

different rice types of Kerala, Navara (the medicinal rice), Pokkali rice, Wayanadan rice varieties of Jeerakasala and

Gandhakasala, Palakkadan Matta rice and Kaipad rice have found place in the GI registry (Blakeney et al., 2020b;Radhika

et al., 2018). Kerala has a rich history of rice cultivation (Manilal, 1990) which has apparently become unattractive to

farmers due to inadequate marketing avenues (Radhika, 2019). Normally, majority of the farmers in the state is marketing

their produce through Supplyco,

1

a state operated procurement and distribution agency which procures rice at minimum

222

|

RADHIKA ET AL.