As climate change alters the taste, texture, and viability of iconic regional crops, the very idea of terroir is under strain. This raises a pressing legal question: when geography changes, can Geographical Indicators afford to remain static? Responding to this question, in his submission for the SpicyIP jhana Blogpost Competition, Rudra Pandey proposes solutions to the Indian GI regime. Rudra is a B.A. LL.B (Hons.) student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala. He describes himself as “a part-time law student and a part-time author writing about developing issues in the law when not occupied in fictional worlds.”
A Terrorization of the Terroir
By Rudra Pandey
The scent of a dying harvest takes over at Spring. The Darjeeling tea leaf no longer carries its signature muscatel flourish, and the Alphonso mango has lost its buttery richness to the sear of continuous heat waves. The primary loss here, beyond flavour, is that of terroir – the combination of factors including soil, climate, and sunlight that gives crops their distinctive character. If a crop no longer squarely fits the descriptions that gave it its unique tag, is it still deserving of such a tag?
Geographical Indicators and Indications of Change
The Indian Geographical Indicators Act, 1999 (Act), under Section 2(e) defines a Geographical Indicator as a label or a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess “qualities, reputation, or characteristics” that are “essentially attributable” to that place of origin. In operation, this law has established an inalienable link between a product and a specific patch of the Earth that borrows its irreplicable essence from. This geographic boundary of a product is set at the time of its registration, and the terroir is therefore assumed to be static.
However, in the era of climate change, these boundaries are challenged. In Darjeeling, rising temperatures have stolen the muscatel flavour of the tea leaves, on the Konkan coast, heatwaves above 40 degrees centigrade during flowering are causing the Alphonso mangoes to turn spongy, in Kangra, prolonged dry spells have halved tea production, and Kodagu coffee has become increasingly unviable to produce owing to reduced shade cover and altered microclimates in the Western Ghats.
The Zombie-GI Endemic
In its current form, the GI law inherently punishes adaptation to such climatic challenges. If a farmer were to switch to a climate-resilient seed variety, or a community were to shift cultivation to follow more hospitable temperatures, they risk severing the statutory “link” between product and place. Theoretically, this could lead to the cancellation of their GI registration under Section 27 of the Act. Further, such innovation may fall under the “deceptive trade description” under Section 2(c) and any product of the Act arising out of it would come within the “falsifying and falsely applying geographical indications” leading to the creation of “Zombie GIs” – protected names on labels attached to products that have lost their essence.
Globally, the conversation has moved from rigidity to resilience. The European Union, in Paragraph 23 of its 2024 Regulation, explicitly allows GI specifications to evolve, empowering producer groups to integrate sustainability practices and adapt to environmental changes. Similarly, Paragraph 3 of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement aims to provide a flexible framework accommodating change. It acknowledges that the protection of GIs exists within dynamic social and environmental contexts. The international shift, therefore, treats climate adaptation not as a threat to the validity of a GI but as a necessary dimension of its evolution.
Changing Laws for Changing Geographies
It is evident, therefore, that our own law on Geographical Indicators also needs reform. Such reform is best presented in three prongs –
- Dynamic Geographical Indicator Specifications: The current Indian Geographical Indicators Act 2002, must be amended to introduce “Climate-Adjusted Specifications”. Instead of strictly fixed parameters, key quality indicators should have sliding scales that account for decadal climatic shifts. Further, Section 23 of the Act must also be proportionately amended to affirm that such climate-driven modifications do not invalidate a GI, provided that core traditional methods are preserved.
- The Climatic Buffer Zone: The protection of a GI must evolve from rigid geographical boundaries to ecological ones. Amendments must be introduced to declare “Climatic Buffer Zones”, allowing legally protected areas to shift geographically as ideal growing conditions migrate. If the ecologically viable area for the optimal production of the GI product shifts, then the protection should follow it.
- Redefining the “Link”: The definition of the “link” in Section 2(1)(e) must be reinterpreted. Legal recognition must be granted to the reputation of the GI built on generations of skill, knowledge, and cultural practice. Further, this reputation must be afforded greater value than natural characteristics of the products that can be altered by environmental necessity, such that if farmers continue their use of century-old cultivation techniques, their heritage-based reputation remains worthy of protection despite changed flavour profiles.
This reform is not about lowering standards but rather about a redefinition of protection itself and requires a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Agriculture, the GI Registry, ICAR, and farming communities. To further strengthen these mechanisms, authorities must conduct periodic specification reviews every 5-10 years, reviewing the descriptors of Geographical Indicators against researched climate data. Such reviews would assist in clear labelling that could aptly handle climate-related variations. Such reform must harmonize itself with efforts to combat climate change itself, but it is too late now to continue ignoring the effects that it has already had on these environments.
Conclusion – What Needs to be Protected
As the pieces of land and the products that emerge from them undergo so many changes, it is essential for our legislation to keep pace with these changes. Although GIs are still relatively new in the field of intellectual property, when seen in context with their potential to boost sectors such as agriculture and handicrafts, focus must be afforded to ensure equitable benefits for all involved parties. Legal adjustments are essential to ensure that GI protection incorporates climate adaptation techniques or, as things go, there would no longer be the same geography, and no more GI. This adjustment would strengthen the GI environment in our country and guarantee that it provides significant social and economic advantages to the areas that it is supposed to safeguard. The stories embodied in a cup of Darjeeling, a slice of Alphonso, or a grain of Basmati must endure beyond the hurdles presented by climate change. Our geographical indicators have no choice but to become testaments not only to where we have been, but also to how wisely we adapt.
