The Interrelationship Between Biodiversity and Geographical Indications (GIs): A Legal and Economic Perspective

Abstract

Biodiversity is not just a scientific concept; it is the immense variety of life on Earth, from genes and species to entire ecosystems. It forms the foundation of human existence, supporting life, livelihoods, and culture, especially within close-knit communities. As biodiversity declines and traditional farming systems gradually disappear, there is an increasing need to protect biological resources and the unique value they hold. Geographical Indications (GIs) play a significant role in this context.

Protected under the TRIPS Agreement, GIs safeguard products whose qualities are deeply connected to their geographical origin[1] such as Darjeeling Tea or Roquefort cheese, which would not possess the same characteristics if produced elsewhere. GIs not only help preserve distinct product qualities but also strengthen local economies and promote environmental stewardship. This study examines biodiversity through legal and economic lenses, analysing how GIs contribute to this broader framework. It argues that integrating GI systems with biodiversity policies is essential for protecting cultural heritage and ensuring ecological sustainability.

Introduction

Biodiversity sustains the health of the planet and underpins human survival. It includes everything from microscopic organisms to vast forests, rivers, and coral reefs. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as the variety of living organisms within ecosystems[2], connecting genetics, culture, and daily life. In India, particularly in rural regions, biodiversity is not an abstract concept; it is closely tied to agriculture, food practices, traditions, and livelihoods.

However, rapid globalization and industrial agriculture are eroding biodiversity by replacing mixed cropping systems with uniform monocultures and disrupting ecological balances. This has created an urgent need for legal frameworks that recognize the deep relationship between economic well-being and ecological conservation. Among such mechanisms, Geographical Indications (GIs) stand out. Beyond protecting names, they preserve the relationship between a product, its people, and its natural environment.

This paper explores how law and economics shape the relationship between biodiversity and GIs, how biodiversity provides GI products with unique value, and how GI protection supports sustainable rural development[3]. It also highlights challenges and examines how the TRIPS Agreement, India’s Geographical Indications Act (1999), and the Biological Diversity Act (2002) can work together more effectively.

Legal Framework Governing Geographical Indications and Biodiversity

The TRIPS Agreement, administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), treats Geographical Indications as a distinct form of intellectual property. Article 22(1) defines a GI as a product originating from a specific geographical location where its quality, reputation, or other characteristics are essentially attributable to that place[4]. TRIPS requires member nations to prevent the misuse of GIs and ensure fair competition.

India implemented the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act in 2003[5], granting exclusive rights to registered GI holders. Only authorized users may apply a GI, and unauthorized use is prohibited. The Act also recognizes the role of traditional knowledge and local biodiversity in shaping product qualities.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in 1992, promotes conservation, sustainable use, and equitable benefit-sharing[6]. In response, India enacted the Biological Diversity Act in 2002, regulating access to biological resources and acknowledging community rights over biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge.[7]

Although GI protection focuses on commercial value and the CBD focuses on conservation and fairness, both frameworks intersect. Biodiversity forms the foundation of GI distinctiveness, and GIs provide economic incentives for communities to protect biodiversity.[8]

Biodiversity as the Foundation of GI Distinctiveness

The uniqueness of GI products arises from a combination of natural and cultural factors. Soil composition, climate, altitude, local species, and traditional practices all contribute to the distinctive qualities of agricultural and artisanal products. Biodiversity is not merely a supporting factor; it is the living resource that defines these products.

Examples of GI Products Linked With Biodiversity

• Darjeeling Tea derives its distinctive aroma and flavor from the Himalayan climate, rainfall, and local flora.[9]
• Basmati Rice owes its fragrance to specific soil types and long-preserved rice varieties in the Indo-Gangetic plains.[10]
• Naga Mircha (King Chilli) and Mizo Chilli gain their heat and flavor from the biodiversity of the northeastern hills and traditional organic farming.[11]
• Kandhamal Haldi (Turmeric) and Byadgi Chilli demonstrate how regional biodiversity and local farming methods create unique chemical and physical traits.[12]

If local biodiversity is lost, the unique qualities of these products would disappear as well.[13]

The Economic Role of GIs in Promoting Biodiversity Conservation

Market Incentives and Sustainable Livelihoods

GIs convert biodiversity into economic gain. They allow local communities to maintain traditional, biodiversity-based production systems by giving them premium market value. Consumers are willing to pay more for authentic, high-quality GI products[14]. This encourages producers to avoid environmentally harmful practices such as monocultures. After Darjeeling Tea received GI registration in 2004, small farmers experienced stable incomes, and expansion into ecologically fragile areas slowed, helping protect the landscape.[15]

Rural Development and Community Empowerment

The GI system supports sustainable development by strengthening community ownership, protecting traditional knowledge, and fostering cultural identity. The GI recognition of products like Malabar Pepper and Wayanad Robusta Coffee revived interest in local varieties and organic cultivation practices.[16]

Protection of Traditional Knowledge

GI products are closely tied to collective traditional knowledge developed over generations. Legal recognition safeguards these practices from biopiracy. The “Basmati” patent dispute in the United States revealed how easily traditional products can be exploited without robust GI protection[17]. The Indian GI system now plays a crucial role in protecting such heritage[18].

Legal And Policy Challenges In Integrating GIs And Biodiversity Governance

Although GIs and biodiversity governance share common goals, they operate through separate administrative systems.

Jurisdictional And Institutional Gaps

GIs are managed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, whereas biodiversity is governed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The lack of coordination leads to policy fragmentation[19]. Integrating GI registration with local biodiversity registers would strengthen conservation outcomes.[20]

Over-Commercialization And Ecological Strain

Commercial success can lead to excessive production and environmental pressure. Rising demand for Darjeeling Tea or Basmati Rice has encouraged expansion into unsuitable areas, harming ecosystems[21]. GI governance must incorporate sustainability criteria to prevent such damage.

Equity Concerns In Benefit-Sharing

Economic benefits from GIs are often unevenly distributed. Large traders and exporters frequently capture greater profits, while small farmers receive limited gains. Integrating Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) principles under the CBD into GI management could ensure fairness.[22]

Towards A Harmonized Framework: Linking GI Law With Biodiversity Governance

Meaningful progress requires legal and policy innovations.

Cross-Linking The GI Act With The Biological Diversity Act

• GI registration should require disclosure of biological resources used.
• Verification through local biodiversity management committees.
• Better alignment of GI protection with biodiversity conservation.[23]

Ecological Certification Within GI Systems

Incorporating sustainability standards or eco-labels into GI certification would help minimize environmental harm[24]. The European Union already includes ecological criteria in its GI system, presenting a model for India.

Enhancing International Cooperation

India, with its rich biodiversity and growing GI portfolio, is well placed to advocate for stronger global protection of biodiversity-based GIs through forums such as WIPO’s Lisbon Agreement and the TRIPS Council.[25]

Case Studies Demonstrating GI–Biodiversity Synergy

These case studies demonstrate how GIs encourage communities to actively conserve biodiversity in ways that are economically rewarding.

Conclusion

Biodiversity and Geographical Indications are deeply interconnected. The distinctive qualities of GI products originate from ecological, genetic, and cultural richness, while GIs provide economic incentives for communities to maintain sustainable practices. For this system to function effectively, stronger integration between the GI Act and biodiversity legislation is required.

Going forward, GI protection must prioritize environmentally responsible intellectual property practices, where economic rewards support ecological conservation. India has a significant opportunity to lead in this field by harmonizing TRIPS-compliant GI laws with the objectives of the CBD and the Biological Diversity Act. When aligned, these policies can ensure that biodiversity becomes a source of sustainable growth, cultural preservation, and ecological security.

References:

1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299.
2. Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79, art 2.
3. World Intellectual Property Organization, Geographical Indications: An Introduction (WIPO Publication No 952, 2020).
4. TRIPS Agreement, art 22(1).
5. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (India).
6. Convention on Biological Diversity, arts 1–3.
7. Biological Diversity Act 2002 (India).
8. Daniel Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 347–52.
9. GI Registry of India, ‘Darjeeling Tea’ GI No 1 (2004).
10. GI Registry of India, ‘Basmati Rice’ GI No 646 (2020).
11. GI Registry of India, ‘Naga Mircha’ GI No 107 (2008).
12. GI Registry of India, ‘Kandhamal Haldi’ GI No 659 (2019).
13. World Intellectual Property Organization (n 3) 26.
14. Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (CUP 2012).
15. Tea Board of India, Darjeeling Tea: Certification and Protection Report (2015).
16. GI Registry of India, ‘Malabar Pepper’ GI No 46 (2008).
17. ‘RiceTec’s Basmati Patent’ (2001) 10 Journal of World Intellectual Property 141.
18. Government of India, Report on Basmati Patent Challenge (Ministry of Commerce, 2002).
19. Shubha Ghosh, ‘Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity, and GIs’ (2013) 7 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 1.
20. National Biodiversity Authority, Biodiversity Governance Report (2018).
21. Vandana Shiva, Monocultures of the Mind (Zed Books 1993).
22. Convention on Biological Diversity, art 15.
23. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, ABS Guidelines (2014).
24. European Commission, EU Quality Policy: GI Sustainability Requirements (2020).
25. World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Lisbon System for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications’ (2021).
26. Tea Board of India (n 15).
27. Coffee Board of India, Araku Coffee Report (2019).
28. GI Registry of India, ‘Kullu Shawl’ GI No 23 (2005).