- eprints@NAARM

Socio-economic implications of GI
registration for agricultural and nonagricultural commodities/ products in India
Vol-1: Analysis of country-wide survey results of 75 products
An out put from project funded by United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development, New Delhi
Authors
S.K. Soam
&
R. Kalpana Sastry
National Academy of Agricultural Research
Management, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500 407
Copyright© 2008
:
National Academy of Agricultural Research Management,
Hyderabad and United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, New Delhi.
Authors
:
Dr S.K. Soam, Senior Scientist, NAARM and Dr R. Kalpana
Sastry, Principal Scientist, NAARM.
Cover design
:
Shri P. Namdev, Technical Officer, NAARM.
Correspondence
:
National Academy of Agricultural Research Management
(NAARM), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500 407, India
Citation
:
S.K. Soam and R. Kalpana Sastry (2008). Socio-economic
implications of GI registration for agricultural and nonagricultural commodities/ products in India: Volume-1:
Analysis of country-wide survey results of 75 products.
NAARM, Hyderabad.
First printed
:
2008, 503 p+
Published by
:
Director
National Academy of Agricultural Research Management
(NAARM), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500 407, India.
Printed at
:
NAARM, Hyderabad, India.
Acknowledgements
The development of this study owes much to the encouragement and support provided by the
education division of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). We are indebted to Dr S. Prakash
Tiwari, DDG (Edn), ICAR for his approval, encouragement and wholehearted support to the project. We
express our grateful thanks to Dr S. M. Ilyas, Director, NAARM for his over all supervision and technical
guidance to the project. Dr Ilyas as an expert on technical and IPR matters provided his invaluable
guidance and unstinted support to this research study.
We express our profound thanks to Dr R.K. Samanta, formerly Acting Director, NAARM and
Joint Director (Trg), NAARM, who provided all kinds of technical guidance and administrative support.
The project team is also grateful to Dr N.H. Rao, Joint Director, NAARM and Dr T. Balaguru, HoD
(ARSMP) for their time-to-time interaction and overall supervision of the project progress. The special
thanks are due to Mr Suresh Kumar, CAO, NAARM, Mr V. S. Subramanian, FAO, NAARM, Mr Subodh
Kumar, Executive Counselor, APTDC, Hyderabad and Mr V.K. Unni, Associate Professor, NALSAR, who
in capacity of members of ‘Policy Backstopping Group’ contributed lot to the project.
Mr Abhijit Das, Senior Trade Officer, UNCTAD and Ms Rashmi Banga, consultant, UNCTAD
and Mr Sanjay Kumar, Formerly Director at Ministry of Commerce deserves special mention because of
their technical guidance through out the conceiving of project, data collection, analysis and interpretation.
We are also thankful to Mr Abhay Mishra, Managing Director, Fintec-Genesis, who as another partner of
the UNCTAD study project contributed at several milestone phases to the project.
The large data collection work may not have possible without active support of ‘Data Facilitators’
and ‘Data Enumerators’ affiliated to several Agricultural Universities, ICAR research institutes and other
organizations. The project team is highly thankful to them. Ms Delphine Marrie-VIVIEN, visiting
researcher at National Law School, Bangalore deserves special thanks for writing one of the chapters.
Thanks are due to facilitators of case studies namely Dr P. Nayak, of textile committee, Dr SS Chandel of
HP government, Mr Vijayan of KSIC, Mr Ramakrishna, SISI and Mr Muzaffar Kalle Bhai of Chanderi.
The Project Assistant, Ms H.B. Rashmi was the core of the project, the investigators do not have
words to thank her for her extraordinary contribution to the project. We acknowledge help from Dr
Jaganadham Challa, Principal Scientist, NAARM, who supported the project in most difficult times of data
analysis. The team is thankful to the analysis assistance provided by Ms Sneha and Ms Praveena. The
Administrative, Finance and Technical personals of the Academy contributed immensely for the success of
all small and big activities of the project. We thank Mr P.P. Brahmaji, AAO, Mr Y. Shanker Rao, AAO, Mr
C. Bagaiha, Ms Vijya Lakshmi, Mr P.G. Kohad, Mr M. Sridhar, Mrs Jhansi Laxmi, Mr P. Srinivas, Mr
Shekhar Reddy, Mr P. Namdev and other staff at the Academy.
NAARM, Hyderabad
April, 2008
S.K. Soam
R. Kalpana Sastry
Content
Chapter/ Annex no.
Chapter/ Annex title
Page no.
Volume-1
Executive Summary
i-xii
Instructions for Readers
xiii-xv
Chapter-1
Introduction, Background and Scope of Work
01-07
Chapter-2
Listing, Ranking and Synopsis of GI Suitable Products
08-22
Chapter-3
Approach and Methodology
23-29
Chapter-4
Socio-economic Profile of Producers
30-47
Chapter-5
Analytical Profile of Agricultural Products and Producers:
opinion survey of producers
Analytical Profile of Non-Agricultural Products and
Producers: opinion survey of producers
Analytical Profile of Products Involving Indigenous
Knowledge: opinion of stakeholders
Analytical Profile of Registered GI Products: opinion of
stakeholders
Opinion, Knowledge, Role and Suggestions of
Institutional Stakeholders about Agricultural and NonAgricultural Products
Opinion, Knowledge and Suggestions of Consumers about
Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Products
Opinion, Knowledge and Suggestions of Traders about
Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Products
Case Studies of Few Registered Products
48-80
Chapter-6
Chapter-7
Chapter-8
Chapter-9
Chapter-10
Chapter-11
Chapter-12
Chapter-13
Chapter-14
Geographical Indications in India: The legal framework,
its implementation and Issues for the future
Action Framework: Facts & Recommendations
81-110
111-142
143-170
171-204
205-213
214-234
235-278
279-318
319-337
Bibliography
Annexure
Annexure-IV
Socio-economic profile of producers
338-345
Annexure-V
Analytical profile of agricultural products and producers
346-366
Annexure-VI
Analytical profile of non-agricultural products and
producers
Analytical profile of products involving indigenous
knowledge: opinion of stakeholders
367-393
Annexure-VII
394-404
Annexure-VIII
446-454
Annexure-XIII
Analytical profile of registered GI products: opinion of
stakeholders
Opinion, knowledge, role and suggestions of institutional
stakeholders about agric. and non-agricultural products
Opinion and knowledge of consumers about agricultural
and non-agricultural products
Opinion, knowledge and Suggestions of traders about
agricultural and non-agricultural products
List of applied and registered GIs in India
Annexure-XIV
Action framework: Facts as per agricultural GI types
475-489
Action framework: Facts as per non-agricultural GI types
490-503
Annexure-IX
Annexure-X
Annexure-XI
405-416
417-445
455-471
472-474
Volume-2
Annexure-XV
Product profile of agricultural products: Stakeholders
survey
1-24
Annexure-XVI
Product profile of non-agric. products: Stakeholders
survey
25-52
Annexure-XVII
Product profile of agricultural products: Literature survey
53-109
Annexure-XVIII
Product profile of non-agric. products: Literature survey
110-229
Annexure-XIX
List of identified potential GI products
230-245
Annexure-XX
List of the facilitators of the study
246-255
Annexure-XXI
Survey questionnaires used in the study: Household
survey- schedule-2
256-258
Survey questionnaires used in the study: Socio economic
survey of agricultural products involving producersschedule-3.1
259-269
Survey questionnaires used in the study: Socio economic
survey of non-agricultural products involving producersschedule-3.2
270-281
Survey questionnaires used in the study: Socio economic
survey of agricultural and non-agricultural products
involving institutional stakeholders- schedule-4
282-306
Survey questionnaires used in the study: Socio economic
survey of agricultural and non-agricultural products
involving consumers and traders- schedule-5
307-311
Executive Summary
Objectives and scope of study
Following were the objectives of the study:
¾ To explore, using specific examples, how geographical indications (GIs) as a
form of intellectual property impact the market opportunities
¾ Analyze how the grant of GIs could impact the lives and livelihoods of those
producing (directly or indirectly) the products that have been/ could be protected
¾ To understand whether geographical indications provides an extra competitive
advantage to people associated with the protected product under GI.
The terms of reference of the study included the identification of specific products in
different classes, both agricultural and non-agricultural, from three different regions, of
the country where GI protection play / can play a determining role in enhancing the value
of the product in the domestic/export market. Overall, at least 25 products must be
identified in each of the three regions, which may be suitable for GI registration. The
major items of observations in the study are:
1. Legal & policy structure of GI protection
2. Listing, classification, and ranking of GI products
3. Critical analysis of the producers
4. Critical analysis of marketing scenario and future strategies
a. Product profile
b. Production profile and strategies
c. Market profile and strategies
d. Pricing policies
e. Distribution networks
f. Livelihood systems of producers
ii
Places and Products of study
The study covers 75 products in 12 states of the country falling in three geographical
regions, for the purpose of analysis and interpretation, the products have been categorized into
eight categories as given below.
Southern Zone: AP, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamilnadu
Western Zone: Maharashtra, Gujrat, Punjab and Rajasthan
Central and Northern Zone: HP, MP, UP and Uttarankhand
S.no. Name of product
GI Class Description
Place of production
State
Section 1.01 GI-Type-I: Fruits
1.
Banganpally
(Benishan) mango
Mango variety
2.
Specific kind of orange
3.
Coorg orange*
Alphonso mango
Banganpally village, AP
Kurnool district but
grown in large part of
AP
Coorge region
Karnataka
4.
Nagpur orange
Specific kind of mango
Orange of repute
Valsad
Nagpur
5.
Nasik grapes
Small sweet grapes
Nasik, Pune, Sangali, Maharashtra
Satara, Ahmednagar
6.
Malihabadi Dussheri Mangoes of specific quality
Lucknow region
UP
7.
Himachal apple
Apples of good quality
8.
Harshil apple
Popular apple fruit
Kullu,
Kinnaur
Uttarkashi
Uttarakhand
9.
Ramnagar litchi
Popular litchi fruit
Nainital district
Gujrat
Maharashtra
Shimla, HP
Uttarakhand
Section 1.02 GI-Type-II: Grains and Potato
10.
Kurnool rice
Reputed rice in AP
Kurnool, Kadapa and AP
Nellore
Wynad
Kerala
11.
Navara rice*
A medicinal rice
12.
Pokkali rice#
13.
Bhaliya wheat
14.
Basmati rice#
15.
Sehori genhu
16.
Malwa potato
17.
Pahari aloo
18.
Hill rajma
Rice known for its environment Alappuzha,
thrissur Kerala
friendly and organic method of and Ernakulum
production
Wheat grown in saline soil under Bhal region, Anand Gujrat
rainfed conditions having special
taste and chapatti making quality
Reputed scented rice
Hoshiarpur,
Punjab
Gurdaspur
Good quality rainfed aestivum Sehore
MP
wheat
Potato
with
specific Malwa region, Indore MP
characteristics
attributed
to
geoclimatic situation
Potatoes produced in hilly Middle level altitudes HP
regions during summer
in HP
Good quality pulse
Pithoragarh
Uttarakhand
iii
Section 1.03 GI-Type-III: Plantation and spices
19.
AP
20.
Guntur chilli (karam) Pungent and dark red colored Guntur
chillies
Coorg coffee
Reputed coffee
Coorge region
21.
Wayanadan tea
Kerala
22.
23.
Telichery
black Dried black pepper
pepper#
Alleppy cardamom# Good quality cardamom
Telichery,
district
Alleppy
24.
Nilgiri tea#
Good quality tea
Nilgiri ranges
Tamilnadu
25.
Dungarpur zinger
Zinger of high quality
Dungarpur
Rajasthan
26.
Amleta & Mahadev Good quality local garlic
garlic
Mandsaur, Neemach
MP
27.
Kumbhraj dhania
28.
Fenugreek (Methi)
29.
Mahoba paan
Coriander of good flavour and Guna,
Rajgarh, MP
good oil content
Neemach, Mandsaur
Good quality bold seeded Jaora,
Ratlam, MP
fenugreek or methi
Neemach
Betel leaf
Mahoba
UP
30.
Kangra tea*
Tea of repute
Tea leaves
Karnataka
Wayanad
Kannur Kerala
Kerala
Kangra district and HP
other areas of HP
GI-Type-IV: Unexploited indigenous products
31.
Nannari sharbat
32.
33.
Kokam fruit juice
Buraansh juice
A black color medicinal drink Kadapa
made from roots of a creeper
wild
plant
known
as
'sugandhapalu'.
Juice of Garcinia known to Western ghats
reduce weight
Juice made from red flowers of Hilly
districts
Buraansh tree (pink flower are Uttaranchal
known to be poisonous)
AP
Karnataka
of Uttarakhand
GI-Type-V: Confectionery
34.
Tirunelveli halwa
A sweet food product
Tirunelveli district
35.
Dodha
36.
Bikaneri bhujia
37.
Bikaneri rasgolla
A milk based sweet product Muktsar,
Ludhiana, Punjab
famous in Punjab and Haryana Amritsar,
Moga
districts,
originated
from katkapura
A salted snack material called Bikaner
Rajasthan
'namkeen'
Sweet product
Bikaner
Rajasthan
38.
Agra petha
Sweet made of ash gourd
39.
Bal mithai
Sweet chocolate blocks with Almora
cover of post seeds
Agra
Tamilnadu
UP
Uttarakhand
GI-Type-VI: Handicrafts
40.
Kondapalli
bommalu*
Wooden Toys
Kondapalli,
district
Krishna AP
iv
41.
Chennapatana toys* Colored wooden toys
42.
Thanjavur plate#
Painted plate used as souvinir
Mandya,
Bangalore Karnataka
rural
Thanjavur
Tamilnadu
43.
Kolhapuri chappal
Leather shoes and slippers
Kolhapur
44.
Warli paintings
Traditional cloth painting by the Thane
tribal people
45.
Panjabi jooti
Special kind of footwear with Patiala, Muktsar and Punjab
embroidary on it for men and other places
women, also known as khusa and
kadi jooti
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
GI-Type-VII: Manufactured products with organized trade
46.
Hyderabad pearls
47.
Hyderabad
AP
Mysore sandal soap* Cosmatics
Mysore
Karnataka
48.
Nilgiri oil
Good quality non-edible oil
Nilgiri ranges
Tamilnadu
49.
Sivakasi patakha
Fire crackers
50.
Coimbatore
grinder*
51.
Harambha thresher
Wheat thresher
52.
Makrana marble
Stone as building material
53.
Jaipur blue pottery # Pottery and souvinirs made of Jaipur
porcelain
Ferozabad
chundia Specific design and process for Ferozabad
and glassware
making glass bangles (Chudia)
and cut glass items
Moradabad
brass Utensils and decorative articles Moradabad
material
of brass
54.
55.
Pearls of repute
Sivakasi,
Tamilnadu
Virudhunagar district
wet Machine used for making paste Coimbatore
Tamilnadu
of cereal/pulses for prperation of
south Indian dishes
Rampura
district
Ludhiana,
and Moga
Rajasthan
56.
Saharanpur furniture Specific design of furniture made Saharanpur
of 'Sisso'
57.
Khurja pottery
China clay pottery
phool Punjab
Bhatinda,
Faridkot
Rajasthan
Rajasthan
UP
UP
UP
Khurja, Bulandshahar UP
district
Section 1.04 GI-Type-VIII: Textiles
58.
Gadwal saree
AP
Srikalahasti
kalamkari*
Women wear in cotton, silk with Gadwal,
pure silk border
Mahaboobnagar
district
Free hand printing on cloth with Chittoor
natural dyes
59.
60.
Mysore silk*
Reputed silk clothing including Mysore
Karnataka
AP
v
saree
61.
Kancheepuram silk* Famous silk sarees
62.
Bandhani saree
63.
Patola saree
64.
Kutch embroidery#
65.
Paithani saree
66.
Solapuri chadar*
67.
Phulkari#
68.
Ludhiana hosiery
69.
Jaipuri rajai#
70.
Sanganeri print
71.
Chanderi saree*
Kancheepuram
Tamilnadu
Sarees made from binding
method and block printing with Jamnagar, Ahemdabad Gujrat
herbal dyes
Double ikat known for design Patan, Rajkot
Gujrat
dyeing and weaving
Specific embroidery with fabric Kutch
Gujrat
designs and mirror on cloth,
various decorative articles and on
houses
Specific saree style prepared at Paithan, Nasik district, Maharashtra
Yewala
Aurangabad
Bedsheets/ cover sheets
Solapur
Maharashtra
Specific Kind of embroidery on Patiala and adjacent Punjab
women wear
areas
Cotton based undergarments and Ludhiana
Punjab
woolen material
Light in weight quilt made of Jaipur
Rajasthan
cotton
A particular print for bedsheets Jaipur
Rajasthan
Half silk half cotton saree Chanderi,
Guna MP
famous for brocade and muslin (Ashoknagar)
produced by twisting yarn and
knitting or weaving
72.
Banarasi saree#
Specific design and process of Varansi
UP
saree
73.
Lucknavi chikan#
Embroidery style for men and Lucknow
UP
women wear
74.
Bhadoi carpet
High quality carpet
Bhadoi
town
of UP
district Mirzapur
75.
Kullu shawl*
A woven woolen cloth with Kullu
HP
specific pattern
*-Registered GI; #-Applied for registration as on 1 Jan 2008
Data collection and respondents for the survey
For the study, 1865 respondents were surveyed, therefore the interview schedules
so designed were administered to 28 persons for each product in the following fashion:
1. Ten producers on appropriate schedule. For agricultural product it is schedule 2
and schedule 3.1. For non-agricultural product it is schedule 2 and schedule 3.2.
2. Eight different institutional stakeholders on schedule 4
3. Five different consumers on schedule 5
4. Five different retailing traders on schedule 5
vi
The data collection process included arrangements of ‘Facilitators’ in various states
for each product for data collection administration and data is collected by the
‘Enumerators’. The data was collected from 45 villages and 60 district towns in 12 states.
Background of the producers
The producers of agricultural and non-agricultural products are mainly engaged in
their respective enterprise only, it is their main livelihood. About 7-8% respondents in
agricultural and non-agricultural products engaged in other subsidiary enterprise also.
The producers mainly belong to either other backward classes (OBCs) or communities
other than Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs). The trend is almost same
for agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises.
Only 15.3% of total respondents provided any detail of their income, it has been
observed that respondents were not much willing to share information on income, asset
and expenditure etc., and this tendency was more prevalent in the non-agricultural
producers. About 62% of the total producers were below Rs. 50,000/- annual income,
10% between 50,000 to 100,000 and 28% beyond 100,000. The income-expenditure-asset
analysis was therefore, done for the following three groups.
•
Category A: Respondents of annual income up to Rs 50,000/-
•
Category B: Respondents of annual income > 50,000/- to 200,000/-
•
Category C: respondents of annual income of >200,000/-
Highlight of opinion survey of agricultural producers
•
Mostly the producers are engaged in production only. Some do the trading also
but providing training is mostly not in their agenda.
•
In almost all cases, the head of family is also head of enterprise and in no case the
non-family members was principal operator.
•
Skill acquisition through formal training is less than 3%.
•
The number of engaged skilled women workers is almost double of the engaged
skilled men workers.
•
The producers surveyed are mainly producers of product in question but they do
not allot the whole land for the product only. But producers of more than 50% of
vii
the product put their 60% or more land under the cultivation of product, therefore,
the product is main livelihood for them.
•
About 53 percent of the producers have actually taken the loans, which is less
than Rs. 50,000, the loan is mostly taken for purchase of inputs.
•
Only in 30 per cent respondents inform about pucca packing otherwise mostly it
is either no packing or raw packing.
•
In 28 per cent cases no grading, in rest of the cases the grading is done but mostly
its is based on physical traits.
•
In 14% cases only, it is either sale to government agency or cooperative society.
•
The prices of product for sale are mostly decided either through individual
bargain or purchaser offer a price to which producers had to agree and there is no
other choice.
•
The
most
important
constraints
in
production
are
hindrances
from
agronomic/natural factors, market insecurity leading to low profitability, labour
scarcity and low marketing infrastructure.
•
In case of 75% of enterprises, the inspection and quality control is either by
producers themselves at production level on field and harvesting level or there is
no inspection and quality control.
•
Technical standards are very weak, as observed from following responses from
the producers;
o Whether production is as per technical guidelines of government? About
74% respondents say ‘no’.
o Whether production is as per technical guidelines of any NGO? 92%
respondents say ‘no’
o Whether production is as per technical guidelines of producers
association? About 74% respondents say ‘no’.
•
As post registration expectation, more than 70% wish higher unit price and
market expansion. About 42% producers expect 5-10% premium over prevailing
cost.
•
About 58% producers feel that earning from enterprise is average.
viii
•
On increasing the production, margin of profit and marketing needs, the producers
have given diverse views as per the GI type, but many of them are hopeful for
betterment, if timely availability of resources is assured to them.
Highlight of opinion survey of non-agricultural producers
•
Nearly 54 percent of the producers are engaged in production only while 38
percent are also engaged in trading. More than 45 percent of enterprises are either
part of family enterprise or of sole ownership. An important point also emerging
is that most enterprises in all group types are main activity for the owners with no
other means of business. In almost all cases, the head of family is also head of
enterprise (89 per cent) and only 8 per cent enterprises are owned by other
members of households.
•
Nearly 40 per cent of the respondents informed about no measures for storage.
Among the remaining types of storage mechanisms asked, most respondents (26
per cent) used raw packing in a bulk manner or wrapping in cloth or plastic
sheets. Forty eight per cent of respondents responded that grading of products on
traits for maintaining the quality of the products. Grading in rest of the cases is
done based on other parameters like physical traits (26%).
•
Various modes of sales are there, with nearly 32 per cent respondents report direct
sales, but mostly it is to local shops followed by wholesalers.
•
Only 22% respondents say that they bargain collectively.
•
The most important constraints in production are hindrances from high
competition, finance, difficulty in getting inputs, scarcity of skilled workers, and
insecure markets.
•
While 35 per cent do not adhere to inspection, 48 percent maintain quality
through inspection at production level at workshop and 12.9 per cent at
processing and grading level.
•
About 90% of producers say that the technical guidelines from their forefathers
are ones followed by them.
•
Competition- 38% believe that these are same product but produced elsewhere in
the country. The threat perceived from competition from similar products
imported in the country is fairly high (40% producers believe so).
ix
•
About 56% of producers are not members of any formal or informal group.
Highlights of opinion survey of institutional stakeholders
•
In the opinion of institutional stakeholders, the agricultural products’ sale is
mostly confined to the region where their origin is claimed.
•
Most respondents, 57% in agric and 62% in non-agric products believe that sale is
increasing.
•
Stakeholders give their opinion about price increment in supply chain for
agricultural products and non-agricultural products. They feel that in the supply
chain, the intermediate stakeholders earn more than the producer.
•
Inspection method: In agricultural products around 45% feel that on-site advice
and inspection is the most prevalent method of quality control. In case of nonagricultural products 19% respondents clearly believe that there are no formal
methods.
•
Quality assurance: The main form of government-defined method of quality
assurance in agriculture is regulating post harvest practices and production
practices along with input supply. In non-agricultural products, majority believes
that producers regulated raw material testing is the most prevailing method.
•
Major source of competition is same product produced in other areas of country.
•
Awareness of institutional stakeholders about community patent that is GI was
very low. In agriculture only 19% respondents knew it, while in non-agricultural
products 40% respondents knew it.
•
The respondents have given various suggestions to improve the marketing of
products. The top three suggestions in agricultural products are – organized and
regulated market, government policy support and TQM, while the top three
suggestions in non-agricultural products are – publicity, government policy
support and TQM.
•
The bankers also have suggested the areas of research. In agricultural products,
the top priority is TQM followed by futuristic development and enhancement of
productivity. While in non-agricultural products, the top area suggested is
x
enhancing productivity, followed by innovations and systems development with
equal emphasis.
•
The major observations from institutional stakeholders analysis is;
-
There is no specific department dealing with GI registration.
-
There is no systematically arranged fixed responsibility along with target to
anyone.
-
Mostly the GI registration have been done by the own knowledge gained by the
top brass/any dynamic individual of a department or subsidiary organizations
from training or elsewhere and out of their personal interest and involvement, the
registration could be done.
-
In non-agricultural production, the responsibility has been taken by several
agencies of central or state government (e.g. textile committee, handicraft
development corporations, etc.). But this could not happen in case of agricultural
products except few products, where central government boards have taken
initiative.
-
To avoid any future problems, it is strongly suggested that only government
supported departments and organizations should be allowed to retain the
ownership of a GI, and not any private organization because in very few cases
only a single organization represents the interest of larger group of society. The
small NGOs or any organization created by few persons does not necessarily
represent the interest of a larger group of society.
Highlights of opinion survey of consumers
•
Around 80% consumers in all GI types believe that product quality will become
standard and grading will improve after registration. While comparing agricultural
and non-agricultural product, it seems that impact would be more in case of
agricultural products.
•
At the time of purchase a product, whether consumers are sure that product is
genuine? About 87% consumers in agricultural products and 96% in nonagricultural products are sure about it. It means the confidence in agri-products is
little less. 51% consumers in agricultural product and 77% in non-agricultural
products make some efforts to ensure purchase of guanine products.
xi
•
To ensure genuine product, the most reliable method for consumers is ‘going to
authorized/ reliable / reputed shop’ followed by looking for a label or trademark
in agricultural products and taking authentic receipt in case of no-agric. products.
•
Depending on type of GI, 40-70% consumers favour registration. As post
registration effect, 85% consumers in agricultural products and 61% in nonagricultural products are willing to pay higher. But how much premium over the
prevailing price? In agricultural products, most agree for 5 - 10%, in case of nonagricultural products, most agree for 0 - 5.
•
Most consumers consider that unique quality; reputation, traditionality and other
characteristics are attributed to geographical origin.
•
Suggestions for increasing sale;
o In agricultural products- standardize the quality followed by easy assured
availability, more publicity and reasonable price and the last suggestion is
to make innovative changes keeping the traditional base.
o In non-agricultural products- standardization of quality, reasonable price
and innovative changes are most important.
•
Consumers gave ranked suggestion for the future prospects of the product.
Products where future is either stationery or not bight are - Coorg orange, Pokkali
rice, Bhaliya wheat, Pahari aloo, Coorg coffee, Telicherry, Black pepper,
Mahoba pan, Punjabi jooti, Harambha thresher, Patola saree and Bhadoi carpe.
Highlights of opinion survey of traders
•
The modes of purchase by the traders have direct impact on the price
decision-making system of the producers. In non-agricultural products, the
direct purchase is more prevalent than agricultural products.
•
Depending upon type of GI, 20-30% traders feel that unique characteristics of
the product give better market value.
•
In general about half of traders feel that sale is increasing significantly.
•
In the price decision between trader and consumer bargaining is main process
to arrive on a win-win situation for both. In agricultural products, the main
bargaining is in GI type I, III and II in that order, in GI type IV no bargaining.
xii
In non-agricultural products, the main bargaining is in GI type VIII, followed
by VI, VII and V.
•
In the products high quality production practices and also inputs is the major
concern.
•
For non-agricultural products most traders’ view duplicates are available but
half of them believe that these are of inferior quality.
•
About 67% percent traders feel that products are facing competition in their
items. Among these about 59 percent are for non-agricultural products
•
Methods to face competition: In agricultural products, the most important
suggested method is introduction of quality control and inspection
mechanism. In non-agricultural products, the suggested methods are little
different than agricultural products. The most important method here is
improvement through design and development followed by equally important
‘improvement in marketing methods’ and ‘intensive publicity’.
•
Traders gave their ranked opinion for trade suitability of the product.
•
As post registration activity, the traders want increase over prevailing cost
price for agriculture 10% or less and for non-agric. products between 10-15%.
They wish to have enhanced premium over selling price, in case of both
agricultural and non-agricultural products, most traders expect enhancement
of 15% or below.
•
Not many traders are satisfied with their earnings from sale of agricultural and
non-agric. GI product.
•
Traders gave their opinion about future prospects of the product. For
improving the economic viability and future prospects of the product, the
traders have suggested various constructive measures. In case of agriculture,
the major suggestions are improvement at production level, quality
standardization, maintenance and assurance, good marketing practices and
publicity of the product. For non-agricultural products, the top priority is same
as in agricultural products i.e. production level improvements, it follows the
government support and then equally important quality management and good
marketing practices
xiii
Instructions for Readers
Chapters and Annexes
The complete analysis and information has been presented in two volumes, the vol-2 does
not contain any chapter, and it contains seven annexure only, which is only
supportive/additional material for information. The volume-1 is the major analytical
component, which contains the major body text and associated annexure. In the vol-1,
there are 14 chapters and 10 annexure, chapters 4 to11 are the major analytical chapters.
The additional matter (mainly data tables) of a chapter are presented in the annexure;
therefore the number given to the annexure is same as the number given to a chapter, if
any chapter (e.g. chapters 1,2,3 &12) does not have any annexure, these numbers (in
roman) would be missing from the list of Annexure. All the data tables are in the
annexure and number of the table start with the number of the concerned chapter e.g.
tables in Annex-IV, which is for chapter-4 will start from table-4.1 and this annexure
contains 29 tables, therefore the last table is table-4.29, the same pattern is followed for
all other annexure. The figures (graphs), wherever available are included at the end of the
text of each chapter and figure no. in each chapter is the same as the table no. in the
respective annexure from where the material for figure (graph) has been taken e.g. Figure
no. 4.1 in chapter-4 has been taken from table 4.1 in Annexure-IV. If readers are
interested in more details they can refer the particular table.
Footnote
Each chapter has its own footnotes with their numbers limited to that chapter only
Chapter content
For the major analytical chapters i.e. chapter 4 to 11, a uniform pattern of paragraph has
been adopted. Each chapter has either all or selected few major heads/subheads of the
paragraph as given below in the table:
xiv
Paragraph
number
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
7.
7.1
7.2
Paragraph description
Socio-economic profile of producers
Livelihood and social groups
Household particulars
Housing particulars
Household income, expenditure and assets
Welfare indicators
Product description
Nature and geographical association
Unique characteristics
Specialty of production process
History of production- in region and by individual
Enterprise and operations
Ownership and activities
Activities-seasonality
Resources- persons engaged and equity issues
Resources- persons engaged in organizations
Resources skill & training
Resources- physical particulars of land (agric)/ inventory of fixed assets (non-agric)
Resources- loans
Resources- raw material
Quantity and value of production
Marketing operations
Storage methods and problems
Packing methods and problems
Grading methods
Mode of sale and satisfaction level
Mode of purchase by traders
Spectrum of region-wise sale of product
Contribution of uniqueness to sale
Trend of sale
Price decision and trend of unit price
Price increments in supply chain
Constraints in production and marketing
Inspection, quality control & quality assurance
Inspection, quality control at various stages of production
Govt defined quality assurance methods and advice given for quality improvement
Technical guidelines for production codes
Maintenance and monitoring of codes of production practices
Traders’ view to maintain product quality
Perceived changes after registration
Presumed results of non-registration
Expected changes after registration- on market
Expected changes after registration- enhanced premium as expected by producers
and traders
Expected changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
Expected changes after registration- consumers’ expectations
Visualized benefits at time of GI registration
Other changes
Perceived impact on market
Duplicates and similar products
Consumers’ efforts to purchase genuine product
xv
Paragraph
number
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.
9.1
9.2
9.3
10.
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
11.
11.1
11.2
11.3
Paragraph description
Competition- types and sources
Import of similar product and difference between imported and domestic product
Import of the products
Export and trade option of the products
Observed impacts after registration
Observed changes after registration- on market
Observed changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
Observed changes after registration- enhanced premium felt by producers
Other observed changes
Willingness to pay
Willingness for registration and payment thereof
Money paid by producers for registration
Willingness to pay for expected enhanced premium
Suggestions on policy implications
Production characteristics
Production constraints
Earnings and income
Financial and infrastructure needs- for increasing production
Awareness of producers and stakeholders about GI
Role of agencies in development and strengthening of producers’ associations
Other interventions- market expansion strategies
Future prospects of the product
Constructive measures to make production viable and improve future prospects
Status of marketing and suggestions for improvement
Suggestions for improvement to increase sale
Scientific endeavors in product development
Endeavors by depts. and agencies responsible or concerned with GI registration
Endeavors by financial institutions
Legal and administrative aspects
Current level of protection, drawback, enforcement problems
Problems and bottlenecks related to acquisition and maintenance of GI
Identification of beneficiaries
Chapter 1
Introduction, Background and Scope of Work
Introduction
The geographical locations either due to geo-climatic features or due to specially
attained skills by the local people impart special characteristics and therefore reputation
to some agricultural (Fruits& vegetables, spices, cereals, and non-agricultural products
(such as sweets, textiles, handicraft & artifact, manufactured products & machines etc.),
which has reputation due to its belongingness to that particular place. In compliance with
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The
intellectual worth of the geographical indications was established in India by The
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, which came
into force from 15th September 2003.
The definition of GI in GI Act is in accordance with Art 22.1 of TRIPS; in
addition the goods have been categorized into agricultural, natural, manufactures,
handicraft or industrial goods including foodstuff (Section 2.1.f), these goods as per
international classification are classified into 34 classes as given in the fourth schedule;
definition of producers is available in Section 2.1.k. TRIPS does not provide procedural
requirements for protection of GI, therefore GI Act has its own but TRIPS compliant
provisions for the application of registration for GI (Section 7.2) and authorized users
(Section 7.3). Application for registration of GI must fulfill certain requirements as given
in Section 11.2, the requirement of inspection body as asked in GI application form no.
GI-1 is not given under this section of GI Act but it is covered by Section 11.2.f, which
states ‘such other particulars as may be prescribed’’. The applicants have to provide
address of principal place of business in India, and address for service in India (Rule 16
& 17). In case, applicant does not have principal place of business, then address of
2
residence in India for Indian citizens (Rule 3.iii) and for foreign applicant from
convention countries, the address of residence must be given (Rule 15.3). With respect to
registration of GI and authorized user, the GI Act does not discriminate between Indian
citizens and foreigners, except few provisions such as 1. Pursuant to Art 24.9 of TRIPS,
Section 9.f of GI Act prohibits registration of those GI, which are not protected in their
country, 2. Under Rule 24.1 of GI Act, foreigners from convention countries have to
produce a certificate from registry or competent authority of GI office of that country.
Objectives of the study
Purpose of the study was to development of recommendation domain for the
effective and efficient geographical indications portfolios for sustainable rural livelihood
systems. Following were the objectives of the study:
¾ To explore, using specific examples, how geographical indications (GIs) as a
form of intellectual property impact the market opportunities
¾ Analyze how the grant of GIs could impact the lives and livelihoods of those
producing (directly or indirectly) the products that have been/ could be protected
¾ To understand whether geographical indications provides an extra competitive
advantage to people associated with the protected product under GI.
The purpose, objectives and terms of reference given by the UNCTAD are
transformed into a mission statement of the proposed study as given hereunder,
“Comprehensive understanding of GIs with respect to their availability & suitability,
ranked priority, and existing and suggested scenario of associated stakeholders’ situation
such as- socio economic conditions, knowledge system and livelihood systems of
producers; marketing opportunities and competitive edge with regard to domestic and
foreign trade; and legal, administrative and policy framework of GI protection system in
India”
3
Scope of the study
The terms of reference of the study include the following:
i. To evaluate the legal and policy structure for the protection of GIs in India,
including the customary/common law protection, post GI Act protection and
enforcement problems.
ii. To identify specific products in different classes, both agricultural and nonagricultural, from four different regions of the country where GI protection play /
can play a determining role in enhancing the value of the product in the
domestic/export market. Overall, at least 25 products must be identified in each of
the three regions, which may be suitable for GI registration.
iii. In respect of each of the product identified in a region, to highlight the product
profile, e.g. market, both domestic and export, value of the product, number of
people dependent on the product, nature of the product, special features of the
product etc. and how GI registration could have an impact on market
opportunities and enhance competitiveness of the product concerned.
iv. In respect of each of the product identified in a region, to highlight the socioeconomic condition of the community involved in the production and trade of the
product.
v. In respect of each of the product identified in a region, to analyze how the grant of
GIs could impact the lives and livelihoods of those producing (directly or
indirectly) the product.
vi. On the basis of objective criteria, to rank the products identified in a particular
region for their suitability for GI registration. Some of the objective criteria which
could be used for ranking include association of the product with geographical
name, restriction of production to specific geographical limits, distinct
characteristics of the product, contribution of natural factors like geo-climatic
factors to distinct product characteristics, contribution of local skills to distinct
product characteristics, potential for international trade.
4
vii. To assess the state of awareness about protecting GIs among producers and
suggest ways to enhance the awareness.
viii. To explore how GI protection can be exploited to protect traditional knowledge,
with reference to two or three products.
ix. To evaluate the quality control and inspection mechanisms existing in GI products
and suggest means for improving the same.
x. To identify the major bottlenecks in the acquisition and maintenance of a GI in
India.
xi. To explore the role(s) which state agencies/producer networks can play in the
acquisition and maintenance of a GI.
Items of observation
5. Legal & policy structure of GI protection
a. GI Enforcement procedures and bottlenecks in acquisition and
maintenance of GI
b. Critical study of registered GI
c. Identification of stakeholders for future GI portfolio development
6. Listing, classification, and ranking of GI products on the basis of following
criteria
a. Nature of product
b. Specific characteristics of the product
c. Specific characteristic as potential GI
d. Distribution of production area
e. Association of the product with geographical name
f. Restriction of production to specific geographical limits
g. Distinct characteristics of the product
h. Contribution of natural factors like geo-climatic factors to distinct product
characteristics
i. Contribution of local skills to distinct product characteristics
5
j. Potential for international trade
7. Critical analysis of the producers
a. Socio-economic conditions- Number of producers, do they belong to
certain community, do they have any association, district and
taluka/mandal/block of production, is it produced in another state, socioeconomic background of the producers
b. Knowledge system- Awareness level about GI, existing mechanism,
provisions for knowledge system development
c. Existing Livelihood systems, and likely to be changed after registered GI
d. Existing quality control and inspection mechanisms, provisions for its
development and strengthening
8. Critical analysis of marketing scenario and future strategies
a. Product profile
i. Product differentiation
ii. Uniqueness & Reputation
iii. Measures for building up collective reputation
iv. Protection against the dilution of an indication
b. Production profile and strategies
i. Quality control and inspection mechanisms (existing, proposed &
suggestion to improve)
ii. Codes of good production practices vis-à-vis technical regulations
and production standards
iii. Permissible changes
c. Market profile and strategies
i. Agencies/networks for acquisition and maintenance of GI
ii. Competitive edge as registered GI
iii. Marketing approaches- Advertising and publicity, Consumer
perceptions, Market spying to avoid free riding and loss to
6
reputation, lawful acquirement of GI, Packaging methods and
practices
iv. IP protection forms- Firm label, collective label, Certification
Trademark (CTM)
d. Pricing policies
i. Collective bargaining, individual firm bargaining, minimum agreed
price
e. Distribution networks
i. Wholesalers, retailers, exporters, direct selling, specialized outlets,
local markets, supermarkets
f. Livelihood systems of producers
i. Expected shift in present livelihood
ii. Expected growth in income generation of producer through
registered GI
Strategic policy initiatives
The strategic policy initiatives to be identified in terms of action framework, on
the basis of mainly following sub-components1:
1. Interactions of various legal provisions (Biological diversity Act, patent Act,
Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, Trademark Act; and role
players such as government, non-government or community based organizationssee fig 1.1
2. Contribution of natural factors/ anthropogenic factors in product development and
trade potential- see fig 1.2
3. Stakeholder management- see fig 1.3
1
For detailed analysis see Soam et al. (2007).
7
Fig 1.1: Indian legislation network and GI management
GO
NGO
CBO
BD
Act2002
GI Act-99
Patent
Act
PPV&FR
Act-2001
TM
Act-99
Fig-1.2: Strategic policy initiatives and nature of product
B
Endogenic
Alphonso mango
Njavara rice
Kalimoonch rice Basmati rice
Darjeeling tea
Kadakntah
chicken
C
Exogenic
Natural factors
A
D
Sirka
Desi ghee
Chettinad
chicken
Nirmal toys
Kalmkari
Triphala
Strategic policy issues
A- Protection concernsIPR, variety, genetic
resources
B- International trade
concerns- agric. goods
C- Protection concernsmeasures to check niche
products
becoming
generic
D- International trade
concerns- manufacturing
goods
Technical
Trade
Anthropogenic skills
A
4, 6
14, 16
21
C
2, 5
10, 15
17, 18
19, 20
B
1, 3
7, 9
D
8, 11
12, 13
Low
High
Influence
Low-Importance-High
Fig 1.3: Importance and influence of various stakeholders in GI management
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pub. Res. Institutes
Pvt. Res. Institutes
Govt. Cooperatives
Consumer Groups
Consumers
Producers Groups
State Govt. Agromarketing Boards
8. Pvt. Marketing
Associations
9. APEDA, MPEDA
10. Pvt. Trade Companies
11. GI Consultants
12. GI Attorneys
13. GI Registration
Authority
14. Developmental
NGOs
15. SHG, DWACRA
16. Local Panchayats
17. Industries
18. Rural Women
19. Tribal & folklore
groups
20. Regional Rural
Banks
21. State Governments
8
Chapter 2
Listing, Ranking and Synopsis of GI Suitable Products
For the selection of the product for the study, the following general process was
adopted
¾ Identification of GI suitable agricultural and non-agricultural products in twelve
states of the country
¾ Preliminary screening of the products for the preferential ranking
¾ Preferential ranking for final selection of 75 products
The complete process in detail is described below:
1. Process of selection of the products
STEP-1
Identification of the products, about 629 products identified in 12 states (enclosed
as Annexure-XIX).
STEP-2
Screening of the products on the basis of secondary information available with
respect to their worthiness about eligibility as a GI and also feasible role in creating
socio-economic impact on the society. About 160 products short-listed for making final
selection, rest are rejected for consideration in the present study.
9
STEP-3
The products are selected finally on the basis of the preferential ranking method2.
About 150 persons participated in this exercise; the persons from the state ‘A’ gave rating
for the products from state ‘A’. Each participant was asked to rate the product on scale of
0-2 with respect each of the attribute from A to H. Later through computational analysis
as given in table-2.1, the weighted scores were assigned to each product. The score is
directly proportional to the desirability of the product for the study. Generally products
from top ranks have been selected with few exceptions as given in the justification for
selection of the products.
Table-2.1: A model of preferential ranking matrix used in selecting the products
Product
name
Rating (ri) of attributes with respect to G.I.; no=0, medium = 1, high = 2
Attributes* and their weight# (in parenthesis- wi)
Weighted
score
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
wi.ri
(3)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(4)
Rank
∑
1
n
1
n
* Attributes rated on the scale of 0-2 for each product
# Weight of attributes (wi)
A.
B.
C.
D.
1- Reasonable importance
2- Moderate importance
3- High importance
4- Very high importance
E.
F.
G.
H.
2
Production restricted to geographical limits
Unique product characteristics
Product reputation
Contribution of natural factors (geo-climatic) for specific
characteristics
Contribution human (local skills) factors for specific
characteristics
Domestic trade potential
International trade potential
As registered GI, the role in socio-economic upliftment of the
producers
Methodology suggested by Soam, 2005
10
2. Preferentially ranked GI suitable products- state-wise in various zones
Southern zone
Product
GI class GI class description
code
Andhra Pradesh
Weighted
Score
Ranking
Hyderabad pearls
14
Jewellery
39.75
1
Gadwal saree
24
Saree
38.75
2
Kalamkari art*
24,25
Textile products, clothing
37.50
3
Banganpally (Benishan) mango 31
Fruits / propagating material 35.50
4
Guntur chilli
31
Spices and condiments
33.75
5
Kondapalli Bommalu*
28
Toys
33.25
6
Nirmal paintings
16
Traditional painting
31.50
7
Hyderabad gun metal
6
Metal souvenirs
30.00
8
Tandur bluestone
19
Building material
28.75
9
Kurnool/Nellore /Molagolukulu 30
rice
Arku coffee
30
Ponduru khadi3
24,25
Rice Grains
25.50
10
Coffee
Textile, Clothing
24.00
23.50
11
12
Kakinada kaja
Confectionary
22.25
13
Mango jelly
21.50
14
Vegetables
17.00
15
Fruit drink
14.00
16
30
Attrepuram
tandra/Alamanda 29
mango jelly/ pulp
KP Onion
31
4
Nannari sharbat
32
Chitti mythylu
Pochampalli Ikat*5
30
Rice grains
12.25
17
Ranking was not done as its established GI, which is 1st product
registered GI product in the class of 24 and 25
3
It has unique process of khadi making, the cloths are of very high quality, usually worn by the wealthy
people. Khadi Village Industry Commission (KVIC) is doing efforts for export of this product, while the
weavers are poor. Complete information is available on various websites on net.
4
High amount of traditional knowledge is involved. The fruit drink is known to have several medicinal
properties
5
Its first product registered as GI in the class of 24 and 25, trade value is established.
11
Tamilnadu
Kancheepuram silk*
Nilgiri tea
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Tirunelveli halwa
Thanjaur plate
Dindigul lock
Virupakshi banana
Thanjaur doll
Salem steel
Oothukkuli butter
Chetinad Chicken
Melur plough
Coimbatore Wet grinder*6
24
Saree
38.86
1
30
Tea
37.33
2
3
Essential oil
36.38
3
13
Fireworks
34.86
4
30
Confectionary
29.43
5
16
Traditional souvenirs
29.33
6
6
Metal hardware
29.00
7
31
Fruits
28.95
8
28
Toys
28.14
9
14
Metal alloy
26.57
10
29
Milk &milk products
26.29
11
29
Meat recipe
19.14
12
7
Agricultural implement
17.38
13
st
Ranking was not done as it is 1 product registered in class 7
Karnataka
Mysore silk*
Chennapatana toys*
Mysore sandal soap*
Dharwar peda
Coorge coffee
Mysore agarbatti*
Coorge orange*
Mannakulnur saree
Coorge honey
Nanjanogod rasabale*
Mysore mallige
Mysore rosewood*
Ilkal sarees
Bidri craft*
Mysore pak
Kokam fruit juice7
24
28
3
29
30
3
31
24
30
31
31
20
24
6
30
32
Textile goods
Toys
Soap
Milk & milk products
Coffee/ propagating material
Perfumery
Fruits
Saree
Honey
Fruits
Flowers/ 3 essential oil
Furniture
Saree
Metal souvenirs
Confectionary
Fruit drink
Kerala
41.25
38.5
37
36.5
35.5
35
33
32.75
32.5
32.25
31.5
30
28.75
28.25
26
23.25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Njvara rice
Aranmula hand mirror*8
30
20
Rice grain/31 seeds
Mirror
34.8
34.6
1
2
6
First product registered in its class
High amount of traditional knowledge, the fruit drink is claimed to have lot of medicinal properties, the
juice is famous through out the western coast. On internet lot of information is available about this fruit
drink. The research paper published in current science about its antioxidant properties is also available.
8
Already registered product, made by very limited households, socio-economic impact on larger
population is not very high
7
12
Wayanadan tea
30
Tea
32.2
3
9
Payyannur sacred ring
14
Jewellery
31
4
Telichery black pepper
Alleppey cardamom
Pokkali rice
30
30
30
Spices and condiments
Spices and condiments
Rice grain/31 seeds
30.6
28.6
28.4
5
6
7
Jeerakshala / Gandhakshala rice
30
8
Alleppy ginger
30
Rice
grain/5dietetic 27
substances
Spices and condiments
26
Alleppey turmeric
30
Spices and condiments
10
25.6
9
* Registered GI product at the time of preferential ranking done in March, 2007
Western zone
Product Name
GI
code
class GI class description
Weighted Score
Ranking
42
39
35
33
30
28
28
25
22
19
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
9
Maharashtra
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Kolhapuri chappal
Paithani saree
Satara honey
Worli paintings10
Solapuri chadar*
Basrai banana
Talkhed patakha
Hinru or Himaroo shawl
9
31
31
31
25
24
30
16
24
31
13
24
Fruits
Fruits
Fruits
Footwear
Textile goods
Honey
Traditional painting
Textile goods
Fruits
Fireworks
Textile goods
The application of sacred ring is in opposition phase.
Traditional knowledge is involved and these paintings are made by tribal community ‘warli’.
10
13
Product Name
GI
code
class GI class description
Weighted Score
Ranking
Punjab
Punjabi jooti
Phulkari
25
26
Foot wear
Embroidery
36.00
36.00
1
1
Basmati rice
30
Rice grain
35.25
2
Dodha
29
Milk &milk products
35.00
3
Ruri marka
Patiala shahi salwar
Pranda
Laung
Harambha thresher12
Dhol
Tumbi
Wheat straw combine
Sandook
33
24
25
14
7
15
15
7
21
Ludhiana hosiery13
24,25
Alcoholic beverages
Textile goods
Clothing
Jewellary
Agricultural implement
Musical instrument
Musical instrument
Agricultural implement
Household container
wood
Clothing
11
34.00
33.00
32.50
32.00
31.50
31.00
30.75
29.00
of 27.75
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Rajasthan
Jaipuri rajai
24
Textile goods
28.33
1
Makrana marble
19
28.00
2
Sanganeri print
Bikaneri bhujia
16
30
Building material
Print blocks/ 24
goods, 25 clothing
Confectionary
27.00
26.00
3
4
Kota stone
19
Building material
24.00
5
Milk &milk products
22.67
6
Alcoholic beverages
16.00
Spices and condiments/ 31 14.00
propagating material
7
8
Bikaneri rasgolla
29
Keshar kisturi/Jagmohan/
33
Mehansar special14
Dungarpur zinger
30
textile
Kota doria*15
24
Saree/ 25 clothings
12.67
9
Mavadi
33
Alcoholic beverage
11.00
10
11
Locally brewed liquor, high indigenous knowledge is involved, but it is brewed illegally, it would be
difficult to collect data of illegal producers hence not considered for selection.
12
Punjab is famous for agricultural machinery, and it’s a fit product in its class
13
Geographical link to be established because it’s a large industry and large no. of persons depend on it
14
Locally brewed liquor since the time of raja maharajs, high indigenous knowledge is involved, but now
these liquor are brewed by the state government factory ‘Ganganagar Suger Mills’.
15
This is the first product from Rajasthan, which has been registered.
14
Product Name
GI
code
Ajrak printing
Bandhani
Jaipur patang16
Jaipur blue pottery17
16
24
Bhaliya wheat
Kesar mango
Bandhani saree
Patola saree
Kutch embroidery
31
31
24
24
26
class GI class description
Weighted Score
Ranking
Printing block/ 24 textile
goods, 25 clothing
7.67
Saree
6.00
Kite
Not ranked
Clay pottery
Not ranked
11
12
-
Wheat grains
Fruit
Textile product
Textile product
Embroidery
-
Gujrat18
Not ranked
Not ranked
Not ranked
Not ranked
Not ranked
* Registered GI product at the time of preferential ranking done in March, 2007
Central and northern zone
Product Name
GI
code
class GI
class Weighted Score Ranking
description
Himachal Pradesh
Himachal apple
Kangra tea19*
Kullu shawl*
Pahari Aloo
31
30
24
31
Kangra painting
Chamba juti
Himachali honey
Himachali turmeric
Himachali zinger
Himachali topi
16
38.5
31.5
31
28.5
1
2
3
4
16
25
30
30
Fruits
Tea
Textile goods
Vegetables
Traditional
painting
Footwear
Honey
Spices
24.5
24.5
15
15
5
5
6
6
30
25
Spices
Head gear
13.5
12.5
7
8
It was not ranked, in Jaipur it is large industry involving hundreds of small households. The socioeconomic impact would be tremendous as a GI. If geographical origin to be established
17
It was not ranked, in Jaipur it is large industry providing good employment
18
Formally preferential ranking has not been done for this state, the products are selected on the basis of
feedback received from knowledgeable persons through email and personal telephonic conversations.
19
First agricultural product registered by the scientific institution
15
Product Name
GI
code
class GI
class Weighted Score Ranking
description
Uttarakhand
Dehradooni Basmati
Ramnagar litchi
Buraansh juice
Rajma
Bal Mithai
Ganga water/ natural mineral water20
Harshil apples
Chakrata adrak
Beninag tea
Kalibhat- Kali Soybean
Gahat (horse gram)
30
31
32
31
30
32
31
30
30
31
31
Rice grain
Fruits
Fruit drink
Pulses
Confectionery
Mineral water
Fruits
Spices
Tea
Pulse grain
Pulse grain
34.46
32.50
33.33
32.17
31.17
31.17
28.00
24.83
23.50
21.67
17.67
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
Uttar Pradesh
Banarasi saree
24
Saree
36.91
1
Mahoba paan
31
34.46
2
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
21
Horticultural
product
Glassware
34.43
3
Lucknavi chikan
26
Embroidery
34.17
4
Moradabad brass material
6
Agra petha
30
21
Kanpur leather
18
Aligarh locks
Mathura ka peda
6
29
Agra Shoes
25
22
Bhadoi carpet
20
27
Metal souvinirs,
mirror frames, 33.34
picture frames/
21 utensils, 28
toys, 34Ash trey
Confectionary 33.23
Leather articles 31.97
Metal hardware 31.89
Milk
&milk 31.29
products
Footwear
27.69
Carpet
27.07
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
It may be good GI product only if significant number of producers of natural mineral water exist
It may be selected only after in-depth analysis for establishing uniqueness and geographical link
22
National Human Rights Commission made a special study during 2004 with respect to child labour
involved in this industry and later took some corrective measures to address the problem
21
16
Product Name
GI
code
Saharanpur furniture23
20
Khurja pottery24
Desi ghee
21
29
Gazak
Gud/Shakkar/Khand/Boora
Malihabadi Dusseri mango25
30
30
Sehori wheat
Malwa potato
Garlic (Amleta & Mahadev)
Coriander (Kumbhraj Dhania)
Methi
Chanderi saree*26
class GI
class Weighted Score Ranking
description
Furniture/1912
screens doors, 26.26
27-wall
hangings,
28
toys, 34 ash
tray,
21household
containers
Porcelain
26.03
13
Edible oil
24.37
14
Confectionary 23.74
15
Sugar
Fruit
22.74
16
Ranking not done
Wheat grains
Vegetable
Spices
Spices
Spices
Textile product
Ranking not done
Ranking not done
Ranking not done
Ranking not done
Ranking not done
Ranking not done
Madhya Pradesh25
31
31
30
30
30
24
* Registered GI product at the time of preferential ranking done in March, 2007
4. List of the finally selected products
Finally seventy-five products were selected and studied under the project. The list
as given below includes 41 non-agricultural products and 34 agricultural products from
12 states of the country.
23
Selected because product of this class has not been selected elsewhere in the study, the survey would
give an insight of this product.
24
Selected because product of this class has not been selected elsewhere in the study, the survey would
give an insight of this product.
25
It’s a well established GI product, a Dusseri (Dashehari) mango grown in Malihabad. Being agricultural
product of export worth would have high socio-economic impact.
26
It is first product registered as GI, the owners of the GI are taking up extraordinary efforts in emphasizing
the impact of the protected GI.
17
Southern Zone
Andhra Pradesh
1. Hyderabad pearls
2. Gadwal saree
3. Banganpally (Benishan) mango
4. Guntur chilli
5. Kondapalli toys*
6. Nannari sharbat
7. Kalahasti Kalamkari*
8. Kurnool rice
Tamilnadu
9. Kancheepuram silk*
10. Nilgiri tea
11. Nilgiri oil
12. Sivakasi patakha
13. Tirunelveli halwa
14. Thanjaur plate
15. Coimbatore wet grinder*#
Karnataka
16. Mysore silk*#
17. Chennapatana toys*
18. Mysore sandal soap
19. Coorge coffee
20. Coorge orange*
21. Kokam fruit juice
Kerala
22. Navara rice
23. Wayanadan tea
24. Telichery black pepper
25. Alleppey cardamom
26. Pokkali rice
* Registered as GI; # to be taken as case study
Western Zone
Maharashtra
1. Alphonso mango
2. Nagpur orange
3. Nasik grapes
4. Kolhapuri chappal
5. Paithani saree
6. Warli paintings
7. Solapur chadar*#
Punjab
8. Punjabi jooti
9. Phulkari
10. Basmati rice
11. Dodha
12. Harambha thresher
13. Ludhiana Hosiery
* Registered as GI; # to be taken as case study
Rajasthan
14. Jaipuri rajai
15. Makrana marble
16. Sanganeri print
17. Bikaneri bhujia
18. Bikaneri rasgolla
19. Dungarpur zinger
20. Jaipur blue pottery
Gujrat
21. Bhaliya wheat
22. Bandhani saree
23. Patola saree
24. Kutch embroidery
18
Central & Northern Zone
Madhya Pradesh
10. Sehori wheat
11. Malwa potato
12. Garlic (Amleta & Mahadev)
13. Coriander (Kumbhraj Dhania)
14. Methi
15. Chanderi saree*#
Uttar Pradesh
16. Banarasi saree
17. Mahoba paan
18. Ferozabad chundia and glassware
19. Lucknavi chikan
20. Moradabad brass material
21. Agra petha
22. Bhadoi carpet
23. Saharanpur furniture
24. Khurja pottery
25. Malihabadi dussehri mango
Himachal Pradesh
1. Himachal apple
2. Kangra tea*#
3. Kullu shawl*
4. Pahadi Aloo
Uttaranchal
5. Harshil Apple
6. Buraansh juice
7. Ramnagar litchi
8. Rajma
9. Bal Mithai
* Registered as GI; # to be taken as case study
5. Synopsis of the products selected for study
Among the study of 75 products, 34 are agricultural products and 41 are nonagricultural products. Out of the total 75 products, 13 products are registered (10 nonagricultural and 03 are agricultural) and 12 products (07 non-agricultural and 05
agricultural) have been applied. The synopses of all the products under study have been
given below. These products have been classified into eight GI type groups.
S.no. Name of product
GI Class Description
Place of production
State
GI-Type-I: Fruits
76.
Banganpally
(Benishan) mango
Mango variety
77.
Specific kind of orange
78.
Coorg orange*
Alphonso mango
Banganpally village, AP
Kurnool district but
grown in large part of
AP
Coorge region
Karnataka
79.
Nagpur orange
Specific kind of mango
Orange of repute
Valsad
Nagpur
80.
Nasik grapes
Small sweet grapes
Nasik, Pune, Sangali, Maharashtra
Satara, Ahmednagar
Gujrat
Maharashtra
19
81.
Malihabadi Dussheri Mangoes of specific quality
Lucknow region
UP
82.
Himachal apple
Apples of good quality
83.
Harshil apple
Popular apple fruit
Kullu,
Kinnaur
Uttarkashi
Uttarakhand
84.
Ramnagar litchi
Popular litchi fruit
Nainital district
Kurnool, Kadapa and AP
Nellore
Wynad
Kerala
Shimla, HP
Uttarakhand
GI-Type-II: Grains and Potato
85.
Kurnool rice
Reputed rice in AP
86.
Navara rice*
A medicinal rice
87.
Pokkali rice#
88.
Bhaliya wheat
89.
Basmati rice#
90.
Sehori genhu
91.
Malwa potato
92.
Pahari aloo
93.
Hill rajma
thrissur Kerala
Rice known for its environment Alappuzha,
friendly and organic method of and Ernakulum
production
Wheat grown in saline soil under Bhal region, Anand Gujrat
rainfed conditions having special
taste and chapatti making quality
Hoshiarpur,
Punjab
Reputed scented rice
Gurdaspur
Good quality rainfed aestivum Sehore
MP
wheat
Potato
with
specific Malwa region, Indore MP
characteristics
attributed
to
geoclimatic situation
Potatoes produced in hilly Middle level altitudes HP
regions during summer
in HP
Good quality pulse
Pithoragarh
Uttarakhand
GI-Type-III: Plantation and spices
94.
AP
95.
Guntur chilli (karam) Pungent and dark red colored Guntur
chillies
Coorg coffee
Reputed coffee
Coorge region
96.
Wayanadan tea
Kerala
97.
98.
Telichery black
Dried black pepper
pepper#
Alleppy cardamom# Good quality cardamom
Telichery,
district
Alleppy
99.
Nilgiri tea#
Good quality tea
Nilgiri ranges
Tamilnadu
100.
Dungarpur zinger
Zinger of high quality
Dungarpur
Rajasthan
101.
Amleta & Mahadev
garlic
Good quality local garlic
Mandsaur, Neemach
MP
102.
Kumbhraj dhania
103.
Fenugreek (Methi)
104.
Mahoba paan
Coriander of good flavour and Guna,
Rajgarh, MP
good oil content
Neemach, Mandsaur
Good quality bold seeded Jaora,
Ratlam, MP
fenugreek or methi
Neemach
Betel leaf
Mahoba
UP
105.
Kangra tea*
Tea of repute
Tea leaves
Karnataka
Wayanad
Kannur Kerala
Kerala
Kangra district and HP
other areas of HP
20
GI-Type-IV: Unexploited indigenous products
106.
Nannari sharbat
107.
108.
Kokam fruit juice
Buraansh juice
A black color medicinal drink Kadapa
made from roots of a creeper
wild
plant
known
as
'sugandhapalu'.
Juice of Garcinia known to Western ghats
reduce weight
Juice made from red flowers of Hilly
districts
Buraansh tree (pink flower are Uttaranchal
known to be poisonous)
AP
Karnataka
of Uttarakhand
GI-Type-V: Confectionery
109.
Tirunelveli halwa
A sweet food product
Tirunelveli district
110.
Dodha
111.
Bikaneri bhujia
112.
Bikaneri rasgolla
A milk based sweet product Muktsar,
Ludhiana, Punjab
famous in Punjab and Haryana Amritsar,
Moga
districts,
originated
from katkapura
A salted snack material called Bikaner
Rajasthan
'namkeen'
Sweet product
Bikaner
Rajasthan
113.
Agra petha
Sweet made of ash gourd
114.
Bal mithai
Sweet chocolate blocks with Almora
cover of post seeds
Agra
Tamilnadu
UP
Uttarakhand
GI-Type-VI: Handicrafts
115.
116.
Kondapalli
Wooden Toys
bommalu*
Chennapatana toys* Colored wooden toys
117.
Thanjavur plate#
Painted plate used as souvinir
Kondapalli, Krishna AP
district
Mandya,
Bangalore Karnataka
rural
Thanjavur
Tamilnadu
118.
Kolhapuri chappal
Leather shoes and slippers
Kolhapur
119.
Warli paintings
Traditional cloth painting by the Thane
tribal people
120.
Panjabi jooti
121.
Hyderabad pearls
122.
Special kind of footwear with
Patiala, Muktsar and
embroidary on it for men and
other places
women, also known as khusa and
kadi jooti
GI-Type-VII: Manufactured products with organized trade
Pearls of repute
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
Punjab
Hyderabad
AP
Mysore sandal soap* Cosmatics
Mysore
Karnataka
123.
Nilgiri oil
Good quality non-edible oil
Nilgiri ranges
Tamilnadu
124.
Sivakasi patakha
Fire crackers
Sivakasi,
Tamilnadu
Virudhunagar district
21
125.
Coimbatore wet
grinder*
126.
Harambha thresher
127.
Makrana marble
128.
Jaipur blue pottery # Pottery and souvinirs made of Jaipur
porcelain
Ferozabad chundia Specific design and process for Ferozabad
and glassware
making glass bangles (Chudia)
and cut glass items
Moradabad brass
Utensils and decorative articles Moradabad
material
of brass
129.
130.
Machine used for making paste Coimbatore
of cereal/pulses for prperation of
south Indian dishes
Wheat thresher
Rampura phool
district Bhatinda,
Ludhiana, Faridkot
and Moga
Stone as building material
Rajasthan
131.
Saharanpur furniture Specific design of furniture made Saharanpur
of 'Sisso'
132.
Khurja pottery
China clay pottery
Tamilnadu
Punjab
Rajasthan
Rajasthan
UP
UP
UP
Khurja, Bulandshahar UP
district
GI-Type-VIII: Textiles
133.
Gadwal saree
134.
Srikalahasti
kalamkari*
135.
Mysore silk*
136.
Women wear in cotton, silk with Gadwal,
pure silk border
Mahaboobnagar
district
Free hand printing on cloth with Chittoor
natural dyes
Reputed silk clothing including
saree
Kancheepuram silk* Famous silk sarees
137.
Bandhani saree
138.
Patola saree
139.
Kutch embroidery#
140.
Paithani saree
141.
Solapuri chadar*
142.
Phulkari#
143.
Ludhiana hosiery
144.
Jaipuri rajai#
145.
Sanganeri print
AP
AP
Mysore
Karnataka
Kancheepuram
Tamilnadu
Sarees made from binding
method and block printing with Jamnagar, Ahemdabad Gujrat
herbal dyes
Double ikat known for design Patan, Rajkot
Gujrat
dyeing and weaving
Specific embroidery with fabric Kutch
Gujrat
designs and mirror on cloth,
various decorative articles and on
houses
Specific saree style prepared at Paithan, Nasik district, Maharashtra
Yewala
Aurangabad
Bedsheets/ cover sheets
Solapur
Maharashtra
Specific Kind of embroidery on Patiala and adjacent
women wear
areas
Cotton based undergarments and Ludhiana
woolen material
Light in weight quilt made of Jaipur
cotton
A particular print for bedsheets Jaipur
Punjab
Punjab
Rajasthan
Rajasthan
22
146.
Chanderi saree*
Half silk half cotton saree Chanderi, Guna
famous for brocade and muslin (Ashoknagar)
produced by twisting yarn and
knitting or weaving
147. Banarasi saree#
Specific design and process of Varansi
saree
148. Lucknavi chikan#
Embroidery style for men and Lucknow
women wear
149. Bhadoi carpet
High quality carpet
Bhadoi town of
district Mirzapur
150. Kullu shawl*
A woven woolen cloth with Kullu
specific pattern
*-Registered GI; #-Applied for registration as on 1 Jan 2008
MP
UP
UP
UP
HP
23
Chapter 3
Approach and Methodology
The study of 75 products include 33 agricultural products and 42 non-agricultural
products. The detailed socio-economic survey was done for 70 products that include 32
agricultural and 38 non-agricultural products. Five products were studied through case
study method. Theses five products are- Coimbatore wet grinder, Mysore silk, Solapur
chaddar, Chanderi saree and Kangra tea.
1. Data collection methodology
Objectives and instruments of socio-economic survey
The objectives of the socio-economic survey were to collect information from
producers, institutional stakeholders, consumers and traders. Several data collection
instruments (interview schedules) were designed for the purpose; a brief description is
given below (schedules enclosed as Annex-XXI):
Schedule no.
Schedule 1.1
Schedule 1.2
Schedule 2
Schedule 3.1
Schedule 3.2
Schedule 4
Schedule 5
Purpose of schedule
Listing of Households
Listing of Non-household establishments and institutions
Household socio-economic survey and enterprise particulars
Household enterprise or non – household establishment survey on activities
relating to production of agricultural products under study
Household enterprise or Non-household establishment survey on activities
relating to production of Non-agricultural products under study
Survey on G.I. information/ activities related to products under study of: Govt.
Depts. / Agencies including G.I. specific offices; Apex Bodies/ Marketing
Boards and similar institutions; NGOs/ SHGs/ Primary Cooperative Societies
etc.; Producer’s Association; Scientific & Research Institutions,
Knowledgeable Persons; and Banks and Financial Institutions
Special survey of consumers, local shop-keepers in market complexes, stall
holders in exhibition/fairs etc.
24
Respondents for the socio-economic survey
The interview schedules so designed were to be administered to 28 persons for
each product in the following fashion:
5. Ten producers on appropriate schedule. For agricultural product it is schedule 2
and schedule 3.1. For non-agricultural product it is schedule 2 and schedule 3.2.
6. Eight different institutional stakeholders on schedule 4
7. Five different consumers on schedule 5
8. Five different retailing traders on schedule 5
It can therefore be said that for 70 products, 1960 respondents were planned to be
interviewed in 12 states of the country. But finally 1865 were interviewed as given in the
table below:
Respondents
Producers
Institutional stakeholders
Consumers
Traders
Total
Number
691
429
370
375
1865
Case study of selected products
Five products are studied through case study method, the justification for case
study is also given. The salient features of the cases are also given.
S.No. Product-state
1. Coimbatore wet grinderTamilnadu
2. Mysore silk- Karnataka
3. Kangra tea- HP
4. Chanderi saree- MP
5. Solapur chadar- Maharashtra
Justification for study through case study method
It’s a first product as RGI in its class 7, the study will
give directions for the future applicants in machines
This is the first product, which had opposition, the
opposition was won and product was registered, it will
give dimensions of establishment of uniqueness.
This is the first product registered with initiatives of a
scientific department, the study would throw the
perspectives of involvement of scientific institutions
This is the only product till now registered. The owners
have taken special initiatives such as hiring marketing
spying agency for emphasizing the impact of their RGI.
The study would therefore be highly useful to look into
enforcement measures.
The trade value is quite high and lot of export takes place
25
Salient features of case study method
1. Identifying the expert, mostly those who have been involved in various phases of
GI registration, development and enforcement.
2. Requesting them to write a case about 10-15 pages case study report covering
various dimensions of RGI.
3. Dimensions of RGI would cover following
a. Owner of the RGI: Factors for initiatives, proprietors, authorized users,
whether anyone became authorized user after registration, if yes how the
proceedings held and role of proprietors
b. Product profile: Unique characteristics, amount of production, and area of
production
c. Inspection mechanisms: Formal inspection mechanism for RGI
d. Producers’ profile: Number of producers, general socio-economic
conditions, changes occurred and impact after registration
e. Market profile: Maintenance of quality and standards, grading, packaging,
marketing channels etc, changes occurred and impact after registration
f. Specialty feature of the RGI: it will vary product to product on the basis of
justification given above.
g. Future course of action: Market expansion plan, multiple protection plan,
enforcement of RGI plan etc.
2. Data collection places
The data for 70 products was collected from 45 villages and 60 district towns in
12 states representing four geographical regions.
¾ Southern zone consisting of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamilnadu
¾ Central & Northern zone consisting of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh;
¾ Western zone consisting of Maharashtra, Gujrat, Rajasthan and Punjab.
26
Product-wise summary is given in table below:
Product
GI Type-I: Fruits
Banganpally mango
Village
Banganapalli
Yaganti
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Marshi
Maywadi
Pandhari
Niphad
Dindori
Naggar
Harshil
Mukhaba
Jaspur
Suravi
Ramnagar(Near
barrier)
Perumadara
Chorpani
Belapokhra
District
Kurnool
Kurnool
Coorg
Ratnagiri
Sindhudurg
Amravati
Amravati
Amravati
Nasik
Nasik
Lucknow
Kullu
Uttarkashi
Uttarkashi
Uttarkashi
Uttarkashi
police Nainital
GI Type-II: Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pattambi
Pokkali rice
Kadamakkudi
Pizhala
Bhaliya wheat
Bhal Panthak
Khokar
Lakhawal
Basmati rice
Daburi
Lahri
Bhotoyo
Sehori genhu
Chaini
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Kodaria
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Harshil, Mukhaba, Dharali
GI Type-III: Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Pedhakurapadu
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Mananthavady
Telichery black pepper
Edavaka
Alleppy cardamom
Anakkara
State
AP
AP
Karnataka
Maharahstra
Maharahstra
Maharahstra
Maharahstra
Maharahstra
Maharahstra
Maharahstra
UP
HP
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Nainital
Nainital
Deharadun
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Uttaranchal
Palakkad
Ernakulam
Ernakulam
Anand
Gurdaspur
Gurdaspur
Gurdaspur
Gurdaspur
Gurdaspur
Indore
Sehore
Kurnool
Indore
Kullu
Uttarkashi
Kerala
Kerala
Kerala
Gujarat
Punjab
Punjab
Punjab
Punjab
Punjab
MP
MP
AP
MP
HP
Uttaranchal
Guntur
Coorg
Wayanad
Wayanad
Idukki
AP
Karnataka
Kerala
Kerala
Kerala
27
Product
Village
District
State
Nilgiri tea
Dungarpur zinger
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
Vantanmedu
Modar
Narayangarh
Pipliya
Vishhiya
Kumbhraj
Narayangarh
Pipliya
Vishhiya
Niligiri
Dungarpur
Mandsaur
Mandsaur
Mandsaur
Guna
Mandsaur
Mandsaur
Mandsaur
Mahoba
Tamilnadu
Rajasthan
MP
Kadapa
Dakshina
Karnataka
Pauri
AP
Karnataka
Uttaranchal
Tirunelveli
Ludhiana
Bikaner
Bikaner
Agra
Almora
Tamilnadu
Punjab
Rajasthan
Rajasthan
UP
Uttaranchal
Kumbhraj dhania
Methi (Fenugreek)
Mahoba paan
GI Type-IV: Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
GI Type-V: Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
GI Type-VI: Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Kondapalli
Chennapatna
Krishna
Mysore
Thanjavur
Kolhapur
Thane
Patiala/
Chandigarh
Moradabad brass material
Moradabad
Saharanpur furniture
Saharanpur
GI Type-VII: Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Hyderabad
Mysore sandal soap
Mysore
Nilgiri oil
Nilgiri
Sivakasi patakha
Sivakasi
Harambha thresher
Ludhiana
Makrana marble
Makrana
Jaipur
Jaipur blue pottery
Jaipur
Ferozabad chundia and
Firozabad
glassware
Khurja pottery
Khurja,
Bulandsahar
GI Type-VIII: Textiles
Gadwal saree
Gadwal
Mahabubnagar
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Srikalahasti
Chittoor
MP
MP
UP
AP
Karnataka
Tamilnadu
Maharahstra
Maharahstra
Punjab
UP
UP
AP
Karnataka
Tamilnadu
Tamilnadu
Punjab
Rajasthan
Rajasthan
UP
UP
AP
AP
28
Product
Village
Kancheepuram silk
Bandhani saree
Patola saree
Kutch embroidery
Paithani saree
Phulkari
Dhaneti
Paithan
Ludhiana hosiery
Jaipuri rajai
Sanganeri print
Banarasi saree
Lucknavi chikan
Bhadoi carpet
Kullu shawl
Total
45 villages
District
State
Kanchipuram
Jamnagar
Rajkot
Kutch
Aurangabad
Patiala/
Chandigarh
Ludhiana
Jaipur
Jaipur
Banaras
Lucknow
Bhadoi (Mirzapur)
Kullu
60 districts
Tamilnadu
Gujarat
Gujarat
Gujarat
Maharahstra
Punjab
Punjab
Rajasthan
Rajasthan
UP
UP
UP
HP
12 states
3. Project administration
Institute level for project operation
The Principal Investigator and Co-PI share the plan, process and progress with the
‘Policy Backstopping Group’/ PBG of the project. The PBG constituted of following;
1. Director, NAARM
2. Joint Director, NAARM
3. Head, ARSMP Division, NAARM
4. Project Principal Investigator (PI)
5. Co-PI
6. Chief Administrative Officer, NAARM
7. Finance & Accounts Officer, NAARM
8. Outside experts from National Academy of Legal Studies and Research
(NALSAR),
National
Institute
of
Agricultural
Extension
Management
(MANAGE) and AP Technology Development & Promotion Corporation
(APTDC), Genesis Fintec, Kolkatta.
The PBG meetings were conducted at each milestone phase of the project.
29
Filed level for data collection
For collection of data from various places in 12 states from four geographical
regions, ‘Facilitators’ were identified at several places, these facilitators are officials from
state government departments, public academic organizations or universities. These
facilitators identified ‘Data Enumerators’ for field level data collection, these data
enumerators are mostly PG students of academic organizations/universities (list enclosed
as Annexure-XX). The project consultants conducted personal meetings with ‘Facilitators
and Data Enumerators’ for the better understanding of GI and data collection process.
The instructions were provided to all the facilitators/ enumerators as given in box below.
Data collection process: instructions for data enumerators
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identify the persons to be interviewed and list their details on schedule 1.1 for agricultural
products, and on schedule 1.2 for non-agricultural products. Record other details also on
these schedules.
Start interviewing producers as listed in schedule 1.1 or 1.2 using appropriate schedule and
fill 10 schedules by interviewing 10 producers.
a. In the process of data collection from producers enquire about other stakeholders to
identify different key stakeholders for various blocks of schedule 4 (block 2 to
block 9). List the details of so identified stakeholders on schedule 1.3. Record other
details also on this schedule.
Interviewing key stakeholders as listed in schedule 1.3 and filling up details on schedule- 4.
a. First four pages are about the details of the person to be interviewed. The actual
interview start from page-2 that is Block-2 to Block-9. Record the interview of the
person in appropriate Block as given on top of each Block. Eight persons falling in
Block-2 to Block-9 have to be interviewed
Interview of consumers and retailing traders would be recorded on schedule-5. For
consumers the interview would be recorded in Block-2, interview 5 consumers. For traders
interview would be recorded in Block-3, interview 5 traders. Use separate schedule-5. In
total you have to submit 10 filled-in schedule-5 (5 for consumers and 5 for traders).
Important Notes:
1. For producers select only those respondents, who represent the actual producers group at
large.
2. For key stakeholders try to interview the most appropriate person in the organization
3. Do not leave the questions empty, try to get the answer for each entry.
4. Wherever ‘Data enumerator’ has to record detailed explanation in his own writing. Try to
write in very short and neat and readable handwriting.
30
Chapter 4
Socio-economic Profile of Producers
1.1: Livelihood and social groups
The producers of agricultural and non-agricultural products are mainly engaged in
their respective enterprise only, it is their main livelihood (Fig.4.1). About 7-8%
respondents in agricultural and non-agricultural products engaged in other subsidiary
enterprise also (Table-4.1). The producers mainly belong to either other backward classes
(OBCs) or communities other than Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs).
The trend is almost same for agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises (Fig.4.2, for
more details see table-4.2).
1.2: Household particulars
For both agriculture and non-agriculture, male proportion is 57 - 58%, the average
age of the producers is between 31 - 33 yeas (Table-4.3). It is interesting to note that
large number of producers is in high productive group of 17 - 45 years. The less
productive group of more than 55 years is only 13% in agriculture and 9% in nonagriculture. Among the less productive group 62% are male and 32% are female and
trend is same in both kinds of products (Fig.4.3 and table 4.3).
Education level of producers is fairly well because 57% of agriculture producers
and 62% of non-agricultural producers are at least secondary or beyond to graduate and
above level. In non-agriculture graduates and above are more than the agricultural
producers. In agriculture, illiterate person, though only 13% but higher than the nonagriculture, where they are only 7% (Fig.4.5). The detailed break-up is presented in table
4.5.
31
For producing a product efficiently, skill is highly necessary but it is
disappointing to note that 36% of producers in both categories do not have any skills as
they inform by themselves (Fig.4.6). Training plays a significant role in developing skill
but only 3% in agriculture and 6% in non-agriculture got the skill through formal
training. Family has played a very significant role as large amount of producers (51 –
56%) acquired the skill traditionally in the family through family inheritance more skill is
passed to its male members than it female members (Table-4.6).
The usual activity of family members of agriculture and non-agricultural
products’ producers though seems to be in similar fashion but it puts up several contrasts
also as explained in table-4.7.The highest population in agricultural products is unpaid
family enterprise worker (24%), while in non-agricultural products it is only 19%, though
second highest in that category. These unpaid family enterprise workers are mostly
males, approximately double in number than female, and this trend is found both in
agriculture and non-agriculture.
Highest number of population in non-agriculture is self-employed (34%), while
the self-employed among agricultural producers is only 23%. The self-employed
population of females is very low 21% in agriculture and 17% in non-agriculture, women
gets more self-employment in agriculture. The tendency of education is more in
agriculture because 22% are students, while it is 17% in non-agriculture, but females get
lesser opportunity of education. The persons have work to do, only 2- 3% of producers
are seeking for job due to unemployment, therefore un-employment is not a problem, the
real problem is underpaid, stressed and seasonal employment. The household duty mostly
lies with the women as more than 92% women in agriculture and more than 96% in nonagricultural enterprises perform the household duty. The drudgery for women is more
because in addition to production of product, they take the whole responsibility of
household activities. If we calculate the share of load of work of different activities, it is
found that out of the total proportion of work done by women; the household chores
constitute 36% and 41% in agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises. While on men
32
this load is 1-2 percent only. About 5 – 6% of family members and not productive and
they are wholly dependent on the family.
1.3: Housing particulars
About 7% of producers do not have any dwelling and they are mostly agricultural
producers (69% of those do not have dwelling). About 6% of producers though do not
have own dwelling but they have hired; but they are also mostly non-agricultural
producers (93% of those hired). Approximately 85% of non-agriculture and 87% of
agriculture have their own dwelling unit, while others either hire it or do not have any
(Fig.4.8 and table-4.8).
Significant number (47%) of producers of non-agricultural enterprises lives in
houses of more than 150 m2 space, while the majority of producers of agricultural
enterprise (41%) live in houses of size of 100 – 150 m2 (Fig.4.9). Most of producers have
independent houses; the persons living in flat or chawl/bustee are very less but
comparatively higher in non-agricultural producers. The Katcha dwellings are very less
most of the houses are either pucca or semi-pucca, about 82% producers in nonagriculture and 56% producers in agriculture have pucca houses (Fig.4.10 & 4.11).
Lighting facility, cooking fuel and sources of drinking water are other indicators
of development status of the producers. More than 94% producers use electricity, only 3
– 4% does not have any thing for lighting (Fig.4.12). Significant number of producers
(63% in agriculture and 78% in non-agriculture) uses LPG or piped gas as cooking fuel.
Next to electricity is the use of firewood but tendency of high use of firewood exist in
agricultural producers (26%) only 15% non-agriculture producers uses firewood
(Fig.4.13). For 81% of non-agriculture producers, tap is the source of drinking water;
while this facility is available to only 39% of agricultural producers. Next to tap, the
important source of water is the well for agricultural producers (31% use it) and the
tubewell for non-agriculture producers, where11% use it (Fig.4.14).
33
1.4: Household income, expenditure and assets
1.4.1: Income range
Only 15.3% of total respondents provided any detail of their income, it has been
observed that respondents were not much willing to share information on income, asset
and expenditure etc., and this tendency was more prevalent in the non-agricultural
producers. About 62% of the total producers were below Rs. 50,000/- annual income,
10% between 50,000 to 100,000 and 28% beyond 100,000 (Fig.4.15). The incomeexpenditure-asset analysis was therefore, done for the following three groups.
− Category A: Respondents of annual income up to Rs 50,000/− Category B: Respondents of annual income > 50,000/- to 200,000/− Category C: respondents of annual income of >200,000/-
1.4.2: Contribution of different sources to annual income
Category A
The agricultural producers received 67% of their income from main enterprise,
while producers of non-agricultural products received 57% of their income from main
enterprise (Fig.4.16). These producers are holders of small enterprises therefore, adopted
the strategies of diversification as risk mitigation measure because the share from the
main enterprise is comparatively lesser than the share from the main enterprise received
by the producers of higher income bracket of category ‘B’ and ‘C’. Manufacturing and
agriculture are the second important source of earning for the producers of agriculture
and non-agricultural products respectively.
The income share from other enterprises is higher in case of agricultural producers than
producers of non-agricultural products. This trend has been observed in category ‘B’ also.
The non-agricultural producers earn more in component of wages/salary, it means
34
because of less land available, they work in some enterprise as a wage labourer. For
producer of both agriculture and non-agricultural products, the combined share of wages
and salary and other enterprises is lowest in category ‘A’ and highest in categories ‘B’
and ‘C’ in middle. Therefore, it can be said that category ‘B’ producers have the capacity
to generate other resources, category ‘A’ producers do not have and category ‘C’
producers are not interested.
Category B
The results are incorporated in table-4.17 and figure4.17. The income of
producers of agricultural and non-agricultural products is Rs. 114,795 and Rs. 128,151
respectively. For both major share of income (78-80%) is from the main enterprise, the
rest of 20-22% share is coming from six other subsidiary sources of income. In case of
agric. and non-agric. both the comparative share from main enterprise is higher than in
the category ‘A’. The pattern of distribution of sources is mostly same in both the
producers groups. For agri-producers livestock rearing is another source of good income.
Category C
The results are incorporated in Table-4.18 and figure 4.18. In this category, there
are certain notable features such as the contribution from main enterprise is quite high, it
is 83% in case of agriculture and 93% in case of non-agriculture. The comparative share
from main enterprise is higher than in case of category ‘B’. It is observed that producers
of this category mainly concentrate on main enterprise.
1.4.3: Household monthly expenditure
For category ‘A’, about 51% expenditure is for food, education and others follow
and least expenditure on health. The pattern is same for both agric and non-agric
producers (Fig.4.19). In category ‘B’ also the pattern of expenditure is almost same is in
low income producers with few dissimilarities such as – the share of expenditure on food
35
is little less, it is because the actual amount of low per cent of higher income is more than
the high per cent of low income. The expenditure on education has increased significantly
and also gone up for health (Fig.4.20). In category ‘C’, the expenditure has gone up
significantly for food expenses and education. For non-agric producers the percent
expenditure is higher than agric-producers on every portfolio except health. Another
notable feature of this group is that the expenditure on ‘others’ is very high (Fig.4.21).
1.4.4: Household value of assets
In category ‘A’, land is the biggest asset for agric producers, it follows transport
equipment and buildings, while buildings followed by land are the biggest assets of nonagric producers (Fig.4.22). In category ‘B’, for agric producers, land is the biggest asset
followed by building, while for non-agriculture producers the buildings are biggest asset
followed by agriculture, pattern of other assets is presented in figure 4.23. In category
‘C’, for agric producers, the major asset is the land followed by buildings. But for nonagric producers also the land is the biggest asset but followed by equally important assets
such as building and machinery (Fig.4.24).
Across various categories, the notable features are:
− The land is the biggest asset for agric producers and the percent share of this asset
is 54, 74 and 72 for category A, B and C respectively.
− Buildings are the biggest assets for non-agric producers of category A and B with
39 and 42% share respectively.
− Land is the biggest asset for non-agric producer of category C, which is about
51% of total assets. It means these producers out of their expenditure on ‘others’
account purchase the land and increase their assets, these are not used for income
generation because for categories C the percentage of income share from
agriculture is only 1.77% (Table-4.18).
− Non-agricultural producers have more assets than agric producers in categories
‘C’ only.
36
− Across the category, it is a general trend that in terms of percent value
contribution; non-agric producers have more assets than agric producers in case of
building, machinery durable goods and other assets.
− Agri producers of category ‘A’ only have more percent contribution to asset from
transport equipments. The reason for this is that purchase of transport equipments
such as tractor, trolley etc. which are used for hiring etc. also. In case of category
‘B’ and ‘C’, the transport equipment are more in case of non-agric producers and
their transport equipment mostly means two wheeler and four wheelers for
personal use or use for their own enterprise activities.
1.5: Welfare indicators
Food, cloth, healthcare and welfare schemes for poor were studied as important
welfare indicators of the producers. Some of the results can be stated in table-4.25.
− More than 96% of producers get enough food everyday.
− More than 96% of producers have at least a pair of footwear.
− More than 96% of producers have at least two sets of clothes.
− About 18% of producers fall sick injured within one month prior to survey. But
this is observed more in non-agricultural producers (< 22%) than the agriculture
producers (< 15%).
After falling sick or getting injured 31% of non-agricultural producers and 29% of
agricultural producers do not take any treatment. While 52% of agriculture producers and
42% of non-agriculture producers take treatment in hospital, clinic or dispensary.
Tendency of treatment by unqualified doctors is higher among agriculture producers,
while the tendency of home treatment is higher among non-agriculture producers (Table4.26).
Those, who take treatment mostly spent more than Rs. 1000 in the last one-month
of survey in case of non-agriculture producers (30%). But for most agriculture producers
37
the expenditure was between Rs. 200 and 500. Over all 70% of producers spent Rs. 1000
or less on medical treatment (Table-4.27). What are the reasons for not taking treatment?
Majority (66 – 77%) in agriculture and non-agriculture respectively) felt that it was minor
and medical treatment was not considered necessary. In 16% cases lack of medical
facility nearby led to ‘no treatment’, this is more prevalent in agriculture producers. In
12% cases, the producers were not able to afford the expenses on treatment, and this was
also prevalent more in case of agriculture producers (Table-4.28).
The benefits received from any welfare scheme are another indicator of social
welfare. The respondents are somewhat confused in giving the information related to last
one year because sometimes money received, sometimes, it is not received though
scheme is sanctioned, many times small schemes such as scholarship to children also
taken. The information provided for benefit received from welfare schemes does not
necessarily pertain to product under study only. About 89% respondents in nonagricultural enterprises and 74% in agricultural neither said ‘no’ nor provide any
response, means either they have not received any benefit or they are not willing to share
the information. It can be said that 26% of agriculture producers and 11% of nonagriculture producers surveyed have informed that they received any benefit from one or
another welfare schemes (Table-4.29).
38
Socio-economic Profile of Producers- Figures
Fig 4.1: Main livelihood of the surveyed producers
Percentage
100
Agriculture
Producers
80
Non-Agriculture
Producers
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
Livelihood sources
Livelihood sources: 1. Agri enterprise, 2. Non-agri enterprise, 3. Wage/salary income, 4. Others
Fig 4.2: Social groups of surveyed producers
percentage
60
Agriculture
Producers
40
Non-Agriculture
Producers
20
0
SC
ST
OBC
Others
Social groups
Fig 4.4: Gender and age-wise group pattern of family members of
surveyed producers
Percentage
80
60
Agriculture
Producers
Non-agriculture
Producers
40
20
0
.1-16
17-45
46-55
Age group(years)
>55
39
Fig 4.5: Education level of family members of surveyed producers
Percentage
30
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Education level
Education level: 1- Not literate, 2- Literate but below primary, 3- Primary, 4- Secondary, 5- Higher Secondary, 6Graduate & above
Percentage
Fig 4.6:Skill level of family members of surveyed producers
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
1
2
3
4
Skill level
Skill level: 1.No Skill, 2. Traditionally acquired in the family, 3. Acquired through training, 4. Acquired traditionally and by
training
Percentage
Fig 4.8:Ownership details of the dwelling unit of surveyed
producers
100
80
60
40
20
0
Agriculture Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
No dwelling
Owned
Hired
Ownership of dwelling units
40
Fig 4.9:Covered area particulars of dw elling units of
surveyed producers
Percentage
50
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
40
30
20
10
0
<50
50-100
100-150
>150
Covered area (Sq. m .)
Percentage
Fig 4.10:Type of dwelling used for residing by surveyed producers
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
100
80
60
40
20
0
Independent
house
Flat
Chawl / bustee
Type of dwelling
Fig 4.11: Structure of respondent’s dwelling units surveyed
Percentage
100
80
Agriculture
Producers
60
Non-Agriculture
Producers
40
20
0
Pucca
Semi-pucca
Type of structure
Katcha
41
Percentage
Fig 4.12: Lighting facilities availability to surveyed producers
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
None
Electricity
Kerosene
lamp
Lighting
Fig 4.13:Cooking fuel utilization of surveyed producers
90
80
Percentage
70
60
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Cooking fuel
Cooking fuel: 1. LPG/Piped gas, 2. Local/Gobar gas, 3. Electricity, 4. Kerosene, 5. Coal, 6. Firewood
Fig 4.14:Sources of drinking water availability to surveyed producers
90
80
Agriculture Producers
Percentage
70
Non-Agriculture
Producers
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Source of drinking water
Source of drinking water: 1. Tap, 2. Tube-well, 3.Well, 4. Tank/pond, 5. River/canal/lake/spring, 6. Others
42
Percentage (%)
Fig 4.15:Spectrum of Income range of producers
80
60
Agriculture Producers
40
Non-Agriculture
Producers
20
0
Upto
Rs.10000/-
1000050000
50000 – 1
lakh
More than
1 lakh
Income range (Rs)
Percentage (%)
Fig 4.16:Contribution of different sources in net annual income of
producers earning upto Rs.50,000 annually
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sources of income
1. Agriculture, horticulture, plantation, forestry, 2. Livestock, poultry, fishing, 3. Manufacturing, 4.
Trading, 5. Other enterprises, 6. Wage/Salary income, 7. Other income (pensions, property, remittance
received)
Fig 4.17:Contribution of different sources in net annual income of producers
earning Rs. >50000/- to 2 lakhs annually
Percentage (%)
100
80
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sources of annual Income
1. Agriculture, horticulture, plantation, forestry, 2. Livestock, poultry, fishing, 3. Manufacturing, 4.
Trading, 5. Other enterprises, 6. Wage/Salary income, 7. Other income(pensions, property, remittance
received)
43
Percentage (%)
Fig 4.18:Contribution of different sources in net annual income of producers
earning more than 2 lakhs
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agriculture
Producers
Non-Agriculture
Producers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sources of annual income
1. Agriculture, horticulture, plantation, forestry, 2. Livestock, poultry, fishing, 3. Manufacturing, 4.
Trading, 5. Other enterprises, 6. Wage/Salary income, 7. Other income(pensions, property, remittance
received)
Fig 4.19a:Monthly expenditure pattern of agricultural producers
earning upto Rs.50,000 annually
17%
53%
19%
Food Expenses
Health
Education
Others
11%
Fig 4.19b:Monthly expenditure pattern of Non agricultural producers
earning upto Rs.50,000 annually
18%
Food Expenses
Health
52%
21%
9%
Education
Others
44
Fig 4.20a:Monthly expenditure pattern of Agricultural producers earning
Rs. >50,000 to 2 lakhs annually
20%
Food Expenses
40%
Health
Education
Others
31%
9%
Fig 4.20b:Monthly expenditure pattern of Non-agricultural producers
earning Rs. >50,000 to 2 lakhs annually
17%
Food Expenses
Health
52%
20%
Education
Others
11%
Fig 4.21a:Monthly expenditure pattern of Agricultural producers earning
more than 2 lakhs annually
31%
32%
8%
29%
Food Expenses
Health
Education
Others
45
Fig 4.21b:Monthly expenditure pattern of Non agricultural producers
earning more than 2 lakhs annually
26%
Food Expenses
38%
Health
Education
Others
25%
11%
Fig 4.22a:Pattern of household value of assets of Agricultural
producers earning upto Rs.50,000 annually
2%
2%
1%
22%
56%
1%
16%
Land (including water tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Fig 4.22b: Pattern of household value of assets of Non
agricultural producers earning upto Rs.50,000 annually
4%
3%
9%
2%
33%
10%
39%
Land (including w ater tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow , Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
46
Fig 4.23a:Pattern of household value of assets of Agricultural
producers earning Rs.>50,000 to 2 lakhs annually
3%
7%
1%
1%
1%
13%
74%
Land (including water tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Fig 4.23b: Pattern of household value of assets of Non
agricultural producers earning Rs.>50,000 to 2 lakhs annually
10%
4% 3%1%
31%
9%
42%
Land (including w ater tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow , Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
47
Fig 4.24a:Pattern of household value of assets of Agricultural producers
earning more than Rs.2 lakhs
5%
1%1%
1%
8%
11%
73%
Land (including water tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Fig 4.24b: Pattern of household value of assets of Non-Agricultural producers
earning more than Rs.2 lakhs
1%
2%
1%
5%
20%
50%
21%
Land (including water tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
48
Chapter 5
Analytical Profile of Agricultural Products and Producers:
opinion survey of producers
1.1 to 1.5: Socio-economic conditions of producers in agriculture
Refer chapter 4
2.1: Nature and geographical association
The geographical association of the agricultural products is mainly due to geo
climatic factors, 83 per cent of producers believe so. Special raw material is another
important factor responsible for geographical association and this is especially true for
traditional juices. Fruits have historical association in some cases, where these have been
developed under patronizations of rules (Fig.5.1). Other product-wise remarks as opined
by the producers are enclosed in Annexure-XV (Table-15.1, Table-15.2)
2.2: Unique characteristics
Producers have described the unique characteristics of the products, listing of
characteristics that would be lost, if produced elsewhere out side the traditional
geographical area, and also the uniqueness of producing the product. The comprehensive
descriptive account of individual product about the unique characteristics as opined by
the producers and institutional stakeholders have been given along with the traditional
product profile (Annex-XV, Table-15.3, Table-15.25). The producers attributed to special
‘characteristics’ that would be lost if the products are produced elsewhere (Table-15.4)
because in their understanding the process of creating the product also has uniqueness
and specialty (Table-15.5).
49
2.3: Specialty of production process
Applicable to non-agricultural products
2.4: History of production- in region and by individual
A product-wise summary of history of production of the product in the producers’
region as known to them is given in table-5.6. For most products, it is believed that these
are grown since last 60 – 80 years. Kurnool rice is newer to as grown since last 18 years,
this rice is a variety BPT-5204 developed by Bapatala Agric. College, Andhra Pradesh
Agric. University in 1983 and became popular in the whole region. Some products are
grown since olden days, for example, pokkali rice since about 232 years.
The products are grown in the region since ages but the producers interviewed
expressed that they are growing the product, which ranges mostly between 25 – 40 years.
The average of all the interviewed producers is as high as 68 years for coorg orange, and
as low as 9.9 years for pahari aloo. The product-wise detail is available at (Table-5.34).
3.1: Ownership and activities
Mostly the producers are engaged in production only. Some do the trading also
but providing training is mostly not in their agenda. (Fig.5.2). About 80% of enterprise in
GI Type II, III and IV are sole proprietorship. (Fig.5.3). In GI Type I, about 50% are
family enterprises. Partnership with other households is almost negligible except about 5–
6% enterprises in IV and I. The ownership style would have certain implications with the
entrepreneurial decision-making. For enterprises of grains, plantation crops and
indigenous products or traditional drinks, the individual’s decision or decision of head of
enterprises will be important. But for enterprise of fruits, the collective decision will be
important. Therefore, important agribusiness decisions such as contract farming or
procurement of product for retail marketing will be influenced with the ownership style.
50
In almost all cases, the head of family is also head of enterprise and in no case the
non-family members was principal operator (Fig.5.4). The major issue of concern is that
70% of heads of enterprise acquire the skill traditionally only. Skill acquisition through
formal training is less than 3% (Fig.5.5). For the family members also, it has been
observed that about 37% of them do not have any skill and 56% acquired skill from the
family only (Table-4.6). The implication here is the head of the enterprise should be
trained formally, for boost in formal training of family members snowballing of
producer-to-producer training programme should be initiated. For this, the enterprises are
to be encouraged to impart training to a greater extent.
3.2: Activities-seasonality
On the basis of highest frequency of producers, the codes for ‘no activity’, lean
activity, normal activity and peak activity have assigned for various months and
presented for each product in table-5.7. The producers need to be provided employment
in the month of no activity and additional employment in the months of lean activity.
3.3: Resources- persons engaged and equity issues
Analysis of fig.5.8 and table-5.8 reveals the following factors covering labour
requirement and gender issues in agriculture.
− The workers requirement in enterprise is highest in G.I. type III followed by II
and I.
− In GI type I, II and III, the engagement of skilled workers are far more than non-
skilled workers.
− The number of engaged skilled women workers is almost double of the engaged
skilled men workers. In GI type I and II. In GI type III, the number of engaged
skilled women workers is triple of skilled men workers. It can, therefore, be said
that skilled women workers’ requirement is very high.
− In ‘others category’, the engagement of men workers is more than women
workers.
51
− In GI type III and I, the overall engagement is very less and the engagement of
skilled workers is more than the men workers.
− In GI type IV, the engagement of workers is very less and the engagement of
skilled men worker is more than the women workers. The requirement of less
number may be due to non-professional or less commercial approach in product
development.
− Engagement of paid workers is far more than the family workers.
3.4: Resources- persons engaged in organizations
Applicable to institutional stakeholders
3.5: Resources skill & training
Refer para 3.3
3.6: Resources- physical particulars of land
The producers on an average possess less than 10 hectares of land. Producers are,
therefore, middle level farmers. The per capital available land is highest for the producers
of GI type I (18 acres) followed by producers of GI type III (13.6 acres), II (11.5 acres)
and least with producers of GI type IV (8.9 acres). Out of the available land 83, 72, 58
and 42 per cent is irrigated in case of GI type III, II and I and IV respectively (Table-5.9).
The producers surveyed are mainly producers of product in question but they do
not allot the whole land for the product only. On the basis of their own decisions, a
particular amount of irrigated or un-irrigated level is put under production of the product
in question. Table-5.10 provides the product-wise information of the allotment of kind of
level to the product, a short summary is provided below.
52
Per cent of land put under
cultivation of product
0 - 30
30 – 60
60 – 90
> 90
Product
Malwa potato, Dungarpur zinger, Amleta & Mahadev garlic, Fenugreek,
Mahoba paan, Kokum fruit juice
Banganpally mango, Coorg orange, Malihabadi Dussheri, Navara rice,
Bhaliya wheat, Basmati rice, Pahari aloo, Guntur chilli
Alphonso mango, Nasik grapes, Himachal apple, Harshil apple, Ramnagar
litchi, Sehori genhu, Coorg coffee
Nagpur orange, Pokkali rice, Kurnool rice, Hill rajma, Wayanadan tea,
Telichery black pepper, Alleppy cardamom, Nilgiri tea, Kumbhraj dhania
It can, therefore, said that producers of more than 50% of the product put their
60% or more land under the cultivation of product, therefore, the product is main
livelihood for them. Some products where land below 30% is kept under cultivation have
good market potential. Therefore, there is a need to increase the area of cultivation under
these products.
3.7: Resources- loans
Producers obtained loans from various sources but most (65%) producers took
from blanks, the distribution of sources is given in fig.5.12. Mostly the loan was taken for
purchase of inputs (62%) followed by purchase of other assets and machinery and
equipment (Fig.5.13). On an average, interest paid to the moneylenders is highest,
followed by traders and cooperative society. The cheapest interest rates were from bank
followed by government loans (Fig.5.14). The amount of outstanding loan is highest on
GI type I producers (Rs. 24186) followed by producers of GI type III and II. The owner
of GI type IV do not have any outstanding amount (Fig.5.15). About 53 percent of the
producers have actually taken the loans, which is less than Rs. 50,000 (Fig.5.16).
3.8: Resources- raw material
As presented in table 5.21, 82% of producers are satisfied with the supply of
inputs except in few cases such as malihabadi dusseri mango, himachal apple, nagpur
orange, wayanadan tea and tellichery black pepper etc. The producers’ opinion about
53
places of acquiring inputs and prospects of supply of inputs have been recorded productwise and detailed list is annexed (Annex-XV, table 15.10, 15.11).
3.9: Quantity and value of production
Table 5.11 provides the detailed and product-wise summary of the average area
per producer, average production, produce value and total input cost. The results obtained
for total input cost for several products seems to be unrealistic, but it proves a point that
producers are extremely poor in data recording. A separate study is required on these
aspects or data or information can be collected from several agricultural institutions
spread all over the country, if required for any specific product. For better understanding
of cost of cultivation, illustrations from agricultural university in Maharashtra on
alphonso mango27 and grape28 are presented below:
An illustration of Cost of Cultivation and Input Cost of Alphonso Mango
Per hectare cost of cultivation of Alphanso Mango (No. of trees 100) by following recommended package of
practices for the year 2007-2008. As calculated by Dept. of Agric. Economics, Dr B.S.K.K.V., Dapoli.
Sr. No
1
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
27
28
Particulars
Labour - Male
Female
FYM
Fertilizers
i. Urea
ii. SSP
iii. Sulphate of Potash
Plant protection
Paclobutrozol (Cultar)
Input cost
Depreciation on implements and machinery
Land revenue & other ceases
Interest on working capital @ 13 % for 12
months
Interest on fixed capital @ 10 %
Rental value of land (@ 1/6th of the gross
returns – land revenue)
Supervision charges @ 10% of input cost
Amortization value
Total Cost
Yield and Gross returns
Main product
Net returns
i. Input cost
ii. Total cost
B.C ratio
Cost per quintal
Quantity & unit
169 days
80 days
10 T
Rate (Rs)
67
67
600
326 Kg
313 Kg
200 Kg
3.0 lits
5.02
3.50
18.00
6000
Amount (Rs)
11323
5360
6000
1637
1096
3600
15320.00
18000.00
62336.00
500.00
50.00
8104.00
500.00
23283.00
6234.00
12450.00
113457.00
70 Quintal
2000
Source: Mr Kamble Santosh Haibati, Assistant Professor, College of Agriculture, Dapoli (MS)
Source: Mr Shendage Pandurang Namdeo, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri (MS)
140000.00
77664.00
26543.00
1.23
1621.00
54
SCHEM E FOR COST OF CULTIVATION STUDIES.
(GOVT. OF M AHARASFITRA)
Itemwise per hectare cost of cultivation
Crop : Grapes
Practice : I
Area (Ha.) 25.50
Year: 2003-04
No. of cultivators 30
Zone : All
Village : All
Taluka : All
District :All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rate (Rs.)
Value (Rs.)
Sr.
Cost items
Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Hired human labours (days)
a. M ale
b. Female
Bullock power (pair days)
Machine power (I-Irs.)
Seed (Kgs.)
Manures (Qtls.)
Fertilizers (kgs.)
Nitrogen(N)
Phosphorous(P)
Potash (K)
Irrigation Charges
Bio-fertilizers/ M icronutrient
Plant protection charges
Incidental charges
Repairs on farm implements
Insurance Premium
W orking Capital (1 to 12)
Int. on working capital
Depre. on farm implements
Land reve. & other taxes
Cost A (13+16)
Rental value of Land
Interest on fixed capital
Amortization cost
Cost B (17+18+19+20)
Family labour (days)
a. M ale
b. Female
Cost C (21+22)
Output (Qtls.)
a. M ain Produce
b. By Produce
Cost C Net By-Produce
Per Quintal cost (25/24 a)
270.35
898.75
7.16
187.18
0.00
261.47
67.48
40.47
273.94
21.74
0.00
75.59
18242.75
36369.41
1960.54
4068.86
0.00
19765.22
315.35
431.41
71.07
15.01
17.50
7.64
4732.74
7547.68
543.19
16257.07
2566.82
34156.59
833.08
571.43
0.00
147615.37
20666.15
3,981.94
405.31
172668.78
46058.14
6528.62
12705.96
237961.51
254.62
14.60
69.60
39.01
17721.41
569.69
256252.61
190.71
0.00
1461.83
0.00
27878O.71
0.00
256252.61
1343.70
4.1: Storage methods and problems
Applicable to non-agricultural products
4.2: Packing methods and problems
Only in 30 per cent respondents inform about pucca packing otherwise mostly it
is either no packing (6%) or raw packing, among raw packing the gunny or jute bag is
most popular (Fig.5.17). The problems faced by producers are explained in fig.5.18, most
of them do not have any problems, those who have mostly complained about
deterioration of packing material. Only few have perceived the limited knowledge, as a
55
problem. But the truth is that they have knowledge of the existing packing technology,
they do not know the newer technology that is why using the raw methods of packing.
Another most important thing is that new methods of sales would generate the new
requirement of packing technology and packing material. A product wise comprehensive
account of methods of packing (Table-15.6) and problems faced (Table-15.7) are
presented in Annex-XV.
4.3: Grading methods
In 28 per cent cases no grading, in rest of the cases the grading is done but mostly
its is based on physical traits, only 17% respondents reveal of grading on qualitative traits
(Fig.5.20). Therefore, challenge is to initiate some grading, wherever it is not there, and
convert physical traits based grading to qualitative traits based grading. A product wise
comprehensive account of methods of grading is presented in Annex-XV (Table-15.9).
4.4: Mode of sale and satisfaction level
Various modes of sales are there, 61 per cent respondents report direct sales, but
mostly it is so wholesalers or local shops, comparatively less to processing agency, and
very less to mahajans or experts (Fig.5.39). In 14% cases, it is either sale to government
agency or cooperative society, rest of the cases (29%) it is through middlemen.
The detailed study of table 5.39 about mode of sale reveals the following facts:
-
82% of sale to Mahajan is in GI type II
-
Middlemen are most prevalent (44%) in GI type I and moderately in II and III.
-
Government agency sale is most prevalent in GI type III (45%) and moderate in I
-
Sale through cooperative society is most prevalent (37%) in GI type I and III.
-
Sale to exporters is mostly (37%) in GI type I
-
Sale to local shops or consumers is distributed across all GIs but most prevalent
(31%) and GI type II followed by moderate (27%) in I and III
56
-
Sale to processing agency is also distributed across all GIs but most prevalent
(34%) in GI type II followed by moderate (27 – 28%) in I and III and least in IV.
On the basis of information available in Table-5.39, the following are the
implications with respect to each category of products:
GI Type I: Sale is mostly to middlemen or wholesalers, though 73% of total respondents
across GIs for sale to exporters belong to GI type I but fact is that within the category,
this number is very small (only 5%). In this category, there is a need encourage sale
through cooperative society for processing agency and export.
GI Type II: Mostly the sale is direct to wholesaler, middlemen, local market, and
mahajans. Mahajans have highest influence in this category. Sale through government
agency and cooperative is very low, which need to be increased mainly for processing
agency.
GI Type III: Sale through government agency and cooperative in this category is best
among all the GI types but the major mode of sale is still direct to wholesalers,
middlemen and local shops. There is a need to enhance share to exporters through
strengthening sale through cooperative society.
GI Type IV: Across the various categories of GIs, there is least involvement of
middlemen. Now the question is whether low involvement of middlemen without any
regulatory measures is an indicator of low commercial activity in the product? The sale is
mostly direct to local market followed by moderate sale to middle men and processing
agency and least sale is to wholesalers. In these products the supply chain is totally
disintegrated. The sale to government agencies and cooperative society is completely
missing. It is a serious concern. Therefore, there is a need do efforts for development of
supply chain on the basis of principles of common candidates.
57
About 50% of the producers in I, II, III GI types are satisfied with the mode of
sale, while it is amazing to see that in GI type IV about 82% of producers are satisfied
from mode of sale (Table-5.40). The high satisfaction levels of mode of sale along with
disintegrated supply chain is an indicator that commercialization has not taken place in
this category of products. The strongest reason for un-satisfaction over mode of sale is
‘low profit from venture’ followed by insufficient institutional support, involvement of
middlemen and high input cost etc. Over 10% of producers are not satisfied but not able
to assign any reason for that (Fig.5.41) and this type of respondents are highest in GI type
IV (46%), the details are available in table-5.41. For explanatory account of
dissatisfaction for individual products, refer table-15.21 in Annexure-XV.
4.5: Mode of purchase by traders
For view of traders refer Chapter 11 and table 11.30
4.6: Spectrum of region-wise sale of product
For view of institutional stakeholders refer Chapter 9, table 9.13
4.7: Contribution of uniqueness to sale
For view of institutional stakeholders refer Chapter 9 and table 9.60
4.8: Trend of sale
For view of institutional stakeholders refer chapter 9, table 9.15; for traders’ view,
also refer chapter 11, and table-11.4
4.9: Price decision and trend of unit price
The prices of product for sale are mostly decided either through individual
bargain or purchaser offer a price to which producers had to agree and there is no other
58
choice; 17% respondents say that they usually agree to a price offered by purchaser. The
collective bargaining and process of minimum agreed price between an association and
purchaser is extremely weak (Fig.5.43). While more than 30% of traders feel that
consumers always bargain (Table-11.8). The trend is almost same in all GI types except
few notable features. Such as in GI type II, the collective bargaining is almost nil, and in
GI type II and II significant number of producers do not have any other option than to
sale on a price offered by purchaser, details refer table-5.43. The trend of unit price is
almost of increasing side during 2004-06 except few products such as wayanadan tea,
telicherry blackpepper and malihabadi dussheri etc. (Table-5.42).
4.10: Price increments in supply chain
Refer chapter 9 and table 9.11
4.11: Constraints in production and marketing
In production and making of agricultural products on listed by producers, there
are 15 kinds of constraints. In order of their importance these have been listed in fig.5.44.
The most important constraints are hindrances from agronomic/natural factors, market
insecurity leading to low profitability, labour scarcity and low marketing infrastructure.
As detailed in table-5.44, the trend is almost same across all GI types with few notable
features such as:
-
In GI type IV ‘difficulty in getting quality input’ is acute constraint.
-
Improper marketing services is a severe constraint in GI type II and IV.
-
Marketing insecurity leading to low profitability is a severe constraint in GI type
II, and III and IV and moderate constraint in I.
-
Surprisingly ‘no organized producers association’ has not been perceived as a
constraint. This is probably due to unawareness of producers about fruits of
producers’ association in GI matters.
59
-
Again surprisingly high competition has not been perceived as a constraint except
in case of GI type IV.
At individual level, the producers have also expressed other problems, which are
of individualistic nature; these are documented in Annex-XV (Table-15.18, Table-15.22).
5.1: Inspection, quality control at various stages of production
The situation of methods of inspection and quality control in agricultural products
is very pathetic. As described in fig.5.19, in case of 75% of enterprises, the inspection
and quality control is either by producers themselves at production level on field and
harvesting level or there is no inspection and quality control. Only in few cases it is done
at processing at grading level and in very few cases, there is a provision of inspection by
an authority. Even 15.1% of institutional stakeholders also agree that there is no formal
method of inspection and quality control, for more details please chapter 9 and table-9.2.
For each product the producers have given their opinion about method of inspection as
presented in table-15.8 of Annex-XV.
5.2: Govt. defined quality assurance methods and advice given for quality
improvement
For view of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9 and table 9.5 and 9.8
5.3: Technical guidelines for production codes
For a GI it is obvious to have certain specific methods and, therefore, code of
production to them. The queries to this effect were made from the producers, the results
(Table-5.36) are not only surprising but also have serious concerns as given below:
-
Whether production is as per technical guidelines of government? About 74%
respondents say ‘no’.
-
Whether production is as per technical guidelines of any NGO? 92% respondents
say ‘no’
60
-
Whether production is as per technical guidelines of producers association? About
74% respondents say ‘no’.
Then, the questions arise, which technical guidelines they follow? And more than
92% say “production as per self guidelines learnt from forefathers”.
The respondents of traditional juices have also given other information regarding
technical guidelines (Annex-XV, table-15.19).
5.4: Maintenance and monitoring of codes of production practices
As find out, the producers certainly have their own codes to develop production
practices. But how these odes are maintained and monitored and what is the mechanism
available? The summary of results as described in table-5.36 is given below.
-
About 57% of producers say that there are no technical guidelines from
government to follow.
-
85% say there is no quality control mechanism available.
-
About 82% say there is no inspection by government, NGO or association.
-
About 50% believe that production practices are maintained because purchaser
checks the quality.
-
About 50% believe that they by themselves take care so that production practices
are maintained and monitored.
5.5: Traders’ view to maintain product quality
For traders’ view, refer chapter 11 and table-11.48
6.1: Presumed results of non-registration
During the interview, the producers are explained the benefits of registration of
product as GI. The producers, therefore, presumed certain disadvantages of not having
product registration (Table-5.45). These are:
61
-
69% producers believe non-registration leads to low volume of sale
-
46% producers believe non-registration leads to low wages to labour
-
82% producers believe that non-registration leads to low profit to producers
-
61% producers believe that non-registration leads to difficulty in getting loans
6.2: Expected changes after registration- on market
As post registration impact, the producers have several expectations related to
good market for products (Table-5.45). The salient features of these expectations are:
-
51% producers expect significant increase in sale and 39% expect marginal
increase in sale.
-
78% expect increase in unit price and 21% could say neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ and it
is only about 7%, who does not expect increase in unit price.62% expect less
market competition
-
74% expect market expansion
Institutional stakeholders also gave their opinion about it (chapter 9, table-9.39,
9.40)
6.3: Expected changes after registration- enhanced premium as expected by
producers and traders
Refer para 9.3
6.4: Expected changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
As a post registration impact, change in livelihood pattern is expected and
improvement of socio-economic conditions is also expected. The producers’ opinion was
collected on these issues, the results are summarized below:
-
67% producers believe that registration would lead to over all improvement of
their socio-economic conditions, 26% are not sure but only 7% believe that it
would not (Table-5.45).
62
-
As a result of GI registration, the producers leave their other livelihood activities
and shift to producing the GI product in question? Only 39% producers agree to
it, 26% do not agree and rest are not able to decide. As explained in table-5.49,
the trend is almost similar across all GI types.
-
Mere registration of a product will not encourage producers to shift their
livelihood strategies. Along with registration, if other protection mechanisms are
also followed to ensure better incentives and more benefits. Under these
circumstances, 74% producers are willing to leave other livelihood activities and
shift to producing the product in question. About 26% still says ‘no’ to the
student (Table-5.47).
-
Those who will not shift even after creating the situations of getting more benefit
ascertain several reasons to it. The most important is market risk integration (33%
respondents) followed by lack of awareness of GI system (23%), present option
more beneficial, production risk mitigation and risk avoidance arising due to
climatic vagaries (Table-5.48).
-
Institutional stakeholders also gave their opinion about it (chapter 9, table-9.39,
9.40). The other changes as described by producers are presented in AnnexureXV (Table-15.23).
6.5: Expected changes after registration- consumers’ expectations
Refer chapter 10, table 10.1
6.6: Visualized benefits at time of GI registration
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table 9.51
7.1: Duplicates and similar products
An enquiry was made from producers about the existence of similar but not
genuine products that are so9ld in the market with the same name. The salient features of
results described in table-5.30 are given below and are also available in fig.5.30:
63
− The producers are almost equally divided among three categories i.e. who say
yes or no or can’t say
− 64% producers of GI type IV
agree that no duplicates are available
− 41 – 42% producers of GI type II and I that duplicates are available
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Consumers
About 61% consumers believe that quality assurance led them to purchase
product, 33% purchased due to traditional character and only about 6% gave importance
to reasonable price (Table-10.3). It is very important to note that consumers are the
terminal point to the supply chain and are the most important stakeholders in supply
chain; they have given importance to quality assurance and traditional character.
Therefore, presence of duplicates is a matter of great concern.
− For view of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.22 and 9.24.
− For view of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.19 & 11.21
7.2: Consumers’ efforts to purchase genuine product
For view of consumers, refer chapter 10, table 10.13, 10.17, 10.19, 10.20
7.3: Competition- types and sources
About 53% producers (Table 5.36) feel that their products face competition. But
what are the sources of competition? The study analyzed in table-5.31 provides the
detained explanation, the main facts are given below:
-
42% believe that these are same product but produced elsewhere in the country
-
40% believe that there are different products but sold with the same name with the
deceptive similarity
64
-
12% believe about competition from similar products imported in the country
-
Only 6% believe that competition is in export market from other countries
producing similar product.
Other stakeholders’ opinion:
Institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.16-9.18.
Traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.10, 11.11, 11.13
7.4: Import of similar product and difference between imported and domestic
product
The threat perceived from competition from similar products imported in the
country is very low (only 12% producers believe so). Most producers’ (59%) believe that
imported products are of inferior quality, the other reasons are of less significance and
presented in table-5.32.
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.26
Traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.14
7.5: Import of the products
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.19
7.6: Export and trade option of the products
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.36-11.47
8.1: Observed changes after registration- on market
With the intention of measuring the observed changes in the registered product, a
question has been asked from the respondents. In fact at the time of survey only one
65
product i.e. coorg orange was a registered product. Therefore, the number of respondents
attempting this question are only 10 producers. Not much can be known on the basis of
small size of sample but it gives a trend, which cannot be generalized for other products.
The results are presented in table-5.51, the salient features are given below:
-
Post registration change has been observed
-
78% of interviewed believe increase in production
-
All interviewed believe increase in price and profit
-
About 29% of interviewed believe that competition has been less and market has
expanded.
8.2: Observed changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
About 67% of producers said that they have not shifted from other livelihood
activities and rests are not able to decide anything. But no one has shifted from other
livelihood to the production of RGI. Mostly they believe that registration had brought
improvement and or would bring change in socio-economic conditions of producers.
(Table-5.51).
8.3: Observed changes after registration- enhanced premium felt by producers
All of the respondents (09) feel that registration a product has provided enhanced
premium to the product. But how much? Mostly believe between 5 – 10% (Table-5.52).
8.4: Other observed changes
The other observed changes suggested in only coorg orange are ‘There should be
increase in production & marketing methods. Increase in Quality of fruit and proper
storage will increase unit price’.
66
9.1: Willingness for registration and payment thereof
About 84% producers intended for registration and 10% are not able to decade.
Only 6% are not willing for registration (Table-5.45). Are they willing to pay for
registration? About 73% are willing and 27% are not. If agreed to pay, then how much
can they pay? Across all the products 56% are ready to pay Rs. 500 and 24% are ready to
pay Rs. 1000. But those who are willing to provide more than Rs. 2000 are only 19% and
mostly in GI type III (Fig.5.46). The detailed information is given in table-5.46.
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.47, 9.48, 9.70, 9.71
Consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.1
9.2: Money paid by producers for registration
About 89% of producers informed that they have contributed money for GI
registration (Table-5.51) and it is between Rs. 250-500 per head (Table-5.53).
9.3: Willingness to pay for expected enhanced premium
About 72% of producers expect enhanced premium to producers, 23% are not
able to decide but rest do not expect any enhancement (Table-5.45). But how
enhancement much they expect?
Mostly (42%) they expect 5-10% premium over prevailing cost, only 22%
producers expect more than 15% and rest 21% expect between 10-15%, it can be said that
around 67% producers expect less than 10% premium (Table-5.50).
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Consumers, refer chapter 10, table 10.13, 10.15
Traders, refer chapter 11, table 11.8, 11.32, 11.34
67
10.1: Production characteristics
In the opinion of producers (Table-5.37) the trend of production in last three years
had been either stationery or increasing for most of products. In some products, the trend
has been either stationery or declining. These are:
-
Coorg orange
-
Basmati rice
-
Kurnool rice
-
Telicherry black pepper
-
Dungarpur zinger
-
Mahoba pan
Regarding the association of producers with the enterprise. The following
statement for agricultural products as approved by the producers can be given in order of
their importance.
-
Largest section (30%) believe that ‘few more have started producing’ the product
-
No one has discontinued the production of product – 26% producers believe it
-
The situation is more or less same (no addition, no deletion) – 24% producers
believe it
-
Few more have started producing – 11% producers believe it
-
Many have discontinued producing the product – 8% producers believe.
The detailed analysis as per product wise is presented in table-5.38. The major
issues emerged from discussion are:
-
Mostly status of number of producers is either same or increasing means there is
not much producers who have discontinued production. On the other hand it is
possible that area under production has been shrinked in some products because
the producers have reduced the area under cultivation but they have not left the
enterprise completely.
-
Only a few producers believe that many have discontinued.
68
In few cases, the producers have given specific reason for increase in production
of the product (Table-15.20).
10.2: Production constraints
A list of production constraints in each product is enclosed (Annexure-XV, table
15.18, 15.22). Also refer para 4.11.
10.3: Earnings and income
Most producers (58%) feel that earning from enterprise is average (Fig.5.28). The
results are presented as per GI type in table-5.28. The salient points are:
-
Those who feel good income, are mostly in GI type I. GI type II and III have
moderate number of such producers.
-
In GI type III on one hand there are producers of good and average income but
highest number of producers with poor income are also from this GI type only. It
means in this GI type there is exist a very large variability between income
groups.
-
GI type II and IV the producers are mostly of average earning only.
The producers’ opinion for individual product point of view please refer table15.15 for the reasons for average of poor income; table-15.16 for the types of assistance
required for increasing income; table-15.17 for the specific reasons of no scope to
increase income in some of products (Annex-XV).
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.8
69
10.4: Financial and infrastructure needs- for increasing production
Whether the producers can increase production if national banks and other
financial institution provide adequate finance? About 80% producers say it can be
increased (Fig.5.22). But only 46% of producers have approached any financial agency,
the maximum of such persons are from GI type I (Fig.5.23). No one from GI type IV
approached any financial agency for financial help. Those who approached the financial
agency for help, 59% believe that response was not so good and there were many
formalities (Table-5.24).
Another dimension for increasing production is marketing infrastructure. Can the
production be increased, if better marketing infrastructure is available? 88% of
respondents say ‘yes’ (Table-5.25) and the maximum number of such respondents are in
each GI type III, I and II respectively.
Now the question arises, what kind of marketing facilities do they require? On top
is regulated market, minimum support price, on-line market information are the major
demands (Fig.5.26). If marketing is improved do they have the capacity to improve
production? 90% of respondents say ‘yes’ (Table-5.25). If the capacity to improve its
production is available, what kind of assistance do they require? Mostly they need
marketing assistance and financial assistance (Table-5.27).
The producers’ opinion for individual product point of view please refer table15.12 for the requirement of marketing facilities for improving production; tabl-15.13
for the types of assistance required for increasing production capacity; table-15.14 for the
specific reasons of no scope to increase production in some of products (Annex-XV).
10.5: Awareness of producers and stakeholders about GI
Several questions were asked from producers to measure the awareness and
system of interest about GI portfolio development. The results are presented in table5.36. The salient points are given below:
70
-
Almost 100% producers know that uniqueness is due to geographical origin.
-
About 69% do not know about effects of GI registration.
-
There is a problem of attitude of producers, though more than 40% say that they
know about the effects of registration of product as GI but only 9% could know
the status of their product.
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.35-9.40
Opinion of consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.1
10.6: Role of agencies in development and strengthening of producers’ associations
The producers’ association is the key element in GI protection, development and
sustainable use of this IP. Only 40% of producers believe that some kind of
formal/informal group of producers, marketing, SHG or NGO is available to them. About
74% of producers are not members of any formal or informal group (Table 5.36).
10.7: Other interventions- market expansion strategies
Applicable to non-agricultural products
10.8: Future prospects of the product
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.34
Opinion of consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.21
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.27
10.9: Constructive measures to make production viable and improve future
prospects
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.28
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table 11.28
71
10.10: Status of marketing and suggestions for improvement
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.30, 9.32
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.23, 11.25
10.11: Suggestions for improvement to increase sale
Opinion of consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.11
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.6
10.12: Scientific endeavors in product development
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.43-9.47
10.13: Endeavors by depts. and agencies responsible or concerned with GI
registration
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9
10.14: Endeavors by financial institutions
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.65-9.71
11.1: Current level of protection, drawback, enforcement problems
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.48, 9.52, 9.63, 9.64
11.2: Problems and bottlenecks related to acquisition and maintenance of GI
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.53, 9.61, 9.62
11.3: Identification of beneficiaries
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.49, 9.50
72
Analytical profile of agricultural products and producers- Figures
F igure - 5 .1: R e s po ns e o f t he pro duc e rs a bo ut
ge o gra phic a l a s s o c ia t io n o f t he a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Geo-climatic (soil-type,
terrain, climate etc.)
% Responses
Historically developed under
the patronization of
Rajas/Naw abs/Landlords
and others
Traditional special skill of
local tribe/population
I
II
III
IV
Total
Special raw material’s
(Seeds / Seedlings/ Plants/
Cuttings) availability in the
region
Table-5.2 : Producers enterprise
activities carried out relating to the
agriculture products under study
Training
4.76%
Production
Trading
Trading
30.16%
Training
Production
65.08%
Fig-5.3: Ownership type of the enterprise of the producers
belonging to different GI types of
agricultural products
90
80
Sole proprietorship
% Responses
70
60
50
Family enterprise with
family members
participating as
partners or otherwise
Partnership with other
households/individuals
40
30
20
10
0
I
II
III
IV
All
% Responses
73
Fig-5.4: Analysis of the head of the agricultural
enterprise
Head of the
100
household
90
80
70
Other member of
60
the household
50
40
Non-member of the
30
household but the
20
principal operator
10
Others
0
I
II
III
IV
Total
GI Types & All
Fig-5.5: Acquisition of skill/
qualification by the head of
agriculture product’s enterprises
5.07%
21.91%
2.53%
Traditionally acquired skill
as well as formal
training/technical
qualification
Traditionally acquired skill
only
Formal training/technical
qualification but not
traditional skill
Informal learning only but
no traditional skill or formal
training
70.49%
% Responses
Fig-5.8: Monthly average number of persons
engaged in the agricultural enterprise
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Skilled
Others
I
II
III
GI Types
IV
All
74
Fig-5.12: Different sources of loan obtained by
agriculture enterprises
0.88%
4.38%
0.88%
Government
2.63%
27.20%
Co-operative
Society
Bank
Traders/Exporters/I
ntermediaries
Moneylenders
Others
64.03%
Figure-5.13: Analysis of purpose of loan taken by agricultural producers
65
Purpose of loan
60
55
Construction/maintenance of
building
50
45
Purchase of
machinery/equipments
40
35
Purchase of other assets
25
Purchase of seeds/raw
materials and other materials
(fertilizers, packing materials)
Legal expenses
20
15
10
5
Others
0
Enterprises – No. (%)
Purpose of Loan
Fig-5.14: Average interest percentage paid to different
sources of loan obtained by agricultural producers
20
Average interest paid in %
Percent
30
Government
16
Co-operative
Society
Bank
12
8
Traders/Exporters
/Intermediaries
Moneylenders
4
0
Source of loan
75
Fig-5.16: Range of loan amount taken by
agricultural enterprises
5.88%
< 50,000
17.65%
23.53%
52.94%
50000- 1
lakh
1-2 lakh
> 2 lakh
Fig-5.17: Types of packaging used by
agricultural enterprises
45
No packing
Basket/bamboo packing
40
Gunny /Jute bags
Percents
35
30
Glass bottles & containers
25
20
Plastic or polythene bags/
plastic cans
15
Corrugated card board
boxes/paper boxes/cartons
10
5
Wooden boxes
0
Nature of Packaging
Fig-5.18: Problems faced in packing by
agricultural enterprises
55
No problems
50
45
Scarcity of skilled
labour
Percent
40
35
High cost of packing
material
30
25
Storage of packing
material
20
15
Deterioration of
packing material
10
5
Limited knowledge of
packing technology
0
Problems faced in packing
76
Fig-5.19: Methods of inspection and
quality control used at various stages
of production in agricultural enterprises
No inspection &
quality control
60
Percent
50
Production level on
field
40
Harvesting level on
field
30
20
Processing &
grading level
10
Inspection by an
authority
0
Inspection and quality control
Fig-5.20:Type of grading of agricultural
finished products
No grading
53.85%
28.30%
100
17.85%
Grading on physical
traits
Grading on
qualitative traits
Fig-5.22: Whether production can be increased if
nationalized banks and other institutions provide
adequate finance? Respondents opinion?
90
% Responses
80
70
60
Yes
50
No
40
30
20
10
0
I
II GI TypesIII
IV
All
77
Fig-5.23: Did agricultural producers approach to any financial
agency for financial support to increase production?
110
100
90
% Responses
80
70
60
Yes
50
No
40
30
20
10
0
I
II
GI Types
III
IV
Regulated market
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
Facilitation from producer’s
union/ association
Cold storage/warehouse
Online information of market
trends
Minimum support price
Transportation of produce
Export of produce
Processing units
Marketing facilities
Fig-5.28: Respondent’s opinion on the earning from the
agricultural enterprise
70
60
% Responses
% Responses
Fig-5.26: Type of marketing facilities required
for increasing the agricultural production
All
50
Good
Average
Poor
40
30
20
10
0
I
II
III
GI Types
IV
All
78
Fig-5.30: Respondent’s view on existence of similar but
not genuine agricultural product sold in the market with
the same name as of their product
% Responses
40
Yes
30
20
No
10
Don’t know
0
Total Products
Fig-5.31: Type of competition faced
by agriculture products
under study
30.93%
Same product produced in
other areas of the country
Similar duplicates in the
country
Similar products imported
into the country
40.67%
2.96% 14.00%
11.44%
Competition in the export
market from other countries
producing similar products
Others
Fig-5.39: Mode of sale of agricultural products by producers
12.94%
3.84%
17.13%
24.65%
24.82%
7.00%
2.62%
7.00%
Mahajan
Middlemen
Govt. agency
Cooperative society
Exporters
Wholesalers
Selling to local shops; local consumers or in the local market
Processing agency
79
Fig-5.41: Reasons for producer’s unsatisfaction
over the mode of sale of agricultural produce
13.69%
6.55%
2.97%
10.12%
Low profit from
venture
Intervention/ control of
middle men
Insufficient
institutional support
High input cost
Limited supply chain
facilities
Producers’ dilemma
7.74%
58.93%
Fig-5.43: Price decision of producers over the sale of
agricultural produce
25.00%
17.45%
14.62%
26.65%
16.28%
Bargain collectively
Bargain individually
Sale on minimum agreed price between our association
and purchasers
The purchaser offers us a price to which we usually agree
Purchaser offers us a price to which we have to sell; there
is no other choice for us
% Responses
80
Fig-5.44: Respondent’s constraints in
production and marketing of
agricultural produce
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Constraints
Financial difficulties
Limited availability of technical knowledge
No organized producers’ association
Hindrances from agronomic/ natural factors
Low marketing infrastructure
Lack of proper government policy & assistance
No constraints
Labour scarcity
High competition
Difficulty in getting quality inputs
Product specific concerns
Improper transportation arrangements
Market insecurity leading to low profitability
Improper marketing services
Electricity shortage
Fig-5.46: Willingness of respondents to pay for GI
registration of agricultural produce
7.69%
46.15%
15.38%
30.77%
500
1000
2000
3000
81
Chapter 6
Analytical Profile of Non-Agricultural Products and Producers:
opinion survey of producers
1.1 to 1.5: Socio-economic conditions of producers
Refer chapter 4
2.1: Nature and geographical association
The geographical association of the non-agricultural products is mainly due to
strong patronage of development of the art by the royal houses in the local niches areas.
Nearly 76 percent respondents believe that such patronage of yesteryear rulers has helped
evolve the art into a trade, while 15 per cent attribute to geo climatic factors prevailing
there (Table 6.1). Special skills of the artisans rather than raw material are other
important factor responsible for geographical association and this is especially true for
products of GI –V and VII. (Fig.6.1). Other product-wise remarks as opined by the
producers are enclosed in Annexure-XVI (Table-16.1, Table-16.2)
2.2: Unique characteristics
Producers have described the unique characteristics of the products, listing of
characteristics that would be lost, if produced elsewhere out side the traditional
geographical area, and also the uniqueness of producing the product. The comprehensive
descriptive account of individual product about the unique characteristics as opined by
the producers and institutional stakeholders have been given along with the traditional
product profile (Table-16.3, Table-16.29). The producers attributed to special
‘characteristics’ that would be lost if the products are produced elsewhere (Table-16.4)
because in their understanding the process of creating the product also has uniqueness
and specialty (Table-16.5, Table-16.6).
82
Further most producers felt that quality of their products like taste, colour in GI
type -V products, durability, loss of creativity, GI type-VI; and increase in cost of
products in GI type -VII. In the case of GI type-VIII class, most producers opined quality
designs; fabric and product authenticity would suffer. Producers also pointed distinct
features like local resources like water, raw material like wood, and trained manpower as
additional features essential for each of their product specificity.
2.3: Specialty of production process
A tabulation of special requirements in the production process and suggestions for
improving as opined by the producers themselves is given in Annexure-XVI (Table16.7). For most products, the producers could clearly identify the special requirements in
the production process. Most of them were forthcoming in their needs to tune the
production process channels especially in terms of marketing especially for export,
financial assistance from reputed banking institutions, better living conditions for
families to attract younger generation to keep them in the same trade. The suggestions
from producers to improve the production process are given as product wise description
in Annexure-XVI (Table-16.8). The producers have listed several kinds of special skill
requirements (Table-16.9) in GI classes VI, VII and VIII emphasized on training
opportunities for craftsmen in methods in the art, use of technology and also in marketing
strategies.
2.4: History of production- in region and by individual
A product-wise summary of history of production of the product in the producers’
region as known to them is given in table 6.6. For most products, it is believed that the
production of these products has been since last century to as recent as last 10 years.
Products like kutch embroidery have been known to be produced since last 100 years
while producers of kullu shawls could identify themselves with its production during last
10 years. Most products, it was opined by the producers, were being produced between
20 to 50 years. The average of all the interviewed producers is as high as 99 years for
many products, and as low as 20 years for kolhapuri chappal. The product-wise detail is
available at (Table 6.6).
83
3.1: Ownership and activities
Nearly 54 percent of the producers are engaged in production only while 38
percent are also engaged in trading (Fig.6.2 & Table-6.2). A small number do provide
training too. (Fig.6.2). More than 45 percent of enterprises are either part of family
enterprise or of sole ownership. Only 15 per cent are preferring partnership with other
households or individuals (Fig.6.3). In GI Type V, about 83 percent are sole enterprise
while about 60 to 66 per cent are engaged as part of family enterprises in GI Type VI and
VIII. Half of producers in GI type VII are into sole ownership and nearly 25 percent are
in partnership with their family. Partnership with other households is either almost
negligible as in type V or less as in other GI types with a maximum of 9.30 in type
VII.(Table6.3). The ownership style would have certain implications with the
entrepreneurial decision-making. For enterprises of confectionary or manufactured goods,
or even handicrafts or textiles the individual’s decision or decision of head of enterprises
will be important. Therefore, important decisions such as marketing or advertising or
exporting will be influenced with the ownership style.
An important point also emerging is that most enterprises in all group types are
main activity for the owners with no other means of business. While in 15 to 20 per cent
producers in type V, VI, VII own more than one unit, nearly 43 per cent producers in type
VIII own more than one unit (Table-6.4). This probably means that most enterprises are
small scale nature and main source of livelihood for the stakeholders.
In almost all cases, the head of family is also head of enterprise (89 per cent) and
only 8 per cent enterprises are owned by other members of households. Very negligible
enterprises are owned or operated by the non-family members (Fig.6.4). A major issue
emerging was that 50% of heads of enterprise acquire the skill traditionally only. But
interestingly, 41 percent also acquired through formal training apart from being exposed
to it as part of family tradition. Skill acquisition through formal training only is less than
3% (Fig.6.5) with 5.3 per cent having merely informal training. (Table-6.5). The
implication here is the head of the enterprise should be trained formally, for boost in
formal training of family members and helping the enterprise to become more
84
professional. For this, the enterprises are to be encouraged to impart training to a greater
extent.
3.2: Activities-seasonality
On the basis of highest frequency of producers, the codes for ‘no activity’, lean
activity, normal activity and peak activity have assigned for various months and
presented for each product in Table-6.8. In all the cases it is seen that activity is spread
through the entire calendar of months differing in intensity probably based on demand.
But the producers may need to be provided with additional work in the months of lean
activity.
3.3: Resources- persons engaged and equity issues
Analysis of table-6.9 reveals the following factors covering labour requirement
and gender issues in agriculture.
The workers requirement in enterprise is highest in G.I. Type VII followed by VIII VI
and V.
-
In GI Type VIII, VII and VI engagement of non-skilled workers is little more
than skilled workers. Obviously, the former are responsible for physical tasks in
the enterprise.
-
The number of engaged skilled men workers is more than engaged skilled women
workers.
-
In others category too, the engagement of men workers is more than women
workers.
-
Engagement of paid workers is far more than the family workers.
3.4: Resources- persons engaged in organizations
Applicable to institutional stakeholders
3.5: Resources skill & training
Already described in para 3.3
85
3.6: Resources- physical
A tabulation of inventory of assets owned or hired by the producers in various GI
types is placed at table-6.10. The tabulation is for individual products indicating unit,
building and other capital assets. In most cases, the enterprises were in the owners’ places
and not hire, except in case of few products hyderabad pearls, ludhiana hosiery, sivaksi
pataka, and harambha thresher. This indicates that most units of production are part of
family owned enterprises and are on a small scale .The producers surveyed are mainly
producers of product in question and often operate from their homes. Table-6.10 provides
the product-wise information of the allotment of kind of level to the product.
3.7: Resources- loans
Producers obtained loans from various sources but most (77%) producers took
from banks (Fig.6.12 & table-6.12). Mostly the loan was taken for purchase of inputs
(68%) followed by purchase of other assets and machinery and equipment (Fig.6.13 &
table-6.13). On an average, interest paid to moneylenders is highest followed by bank and
cooperative society. The lowest interest rates were from bank followed by government
loans (Fig.6.14 & table 6.14). The amount of outstanding loan is highest on GI Type VII
producers (Rs. 141588) followed by producers of GI Type VIII and VI. The respondents
of GI Type-V do not have any outstanding amount (Table-6.15). The producers actively
take loans (51%), which are less than 50,000 (Fig.6.16).
3.8: Resources- raw material
As tabulated in table-6.29, most of the of producers are satisfied with the supply
of inputs except in few cases such as kolhapuri chappals, and moradabad brass. The
producers’ opinions about places of acquiring inputs and prospects of supply of inputs
have been seconded product-wise and details are in Annexure-XVI (Table-16.15, Table16.16). Most producers opined optimistic view of their products in present and in future,
except kolhapuri chappals producers voiced uncertainty..
86
3.9: Quantity and value of production
Table 6.11 provides the detailed and product-wise summary of the average area
per producer, average production, produce value and total input cost. The results obtained
for total input cost for several products seems to be unrealistic, but it proves a point that
producers are extremely poor in data recording. A separate study is required on these
aspects or date can be collected from several agricultural institutions spread all over the
country.
4.1: Storage methods and problems
Nearly 40 per cent of the respondents informed about no measures for storage.
Among the remaining types of storage mechanisms asked, most respondents (26 per cent)
used raw packing in a bulk manner or wrapping in cloth or plastic sheets. A very low
percent producers (1 per cent) used glass containers.(Fig.6.23 & table 6.23.). The
problems faced by producers are explained in fig 6.24. Most of them do not have any
problems, those who have mostly complained about lack of accessible space or facilities
leading to deterioration of packing material. The producers have also described in detail
about the storage methods and also problems, which is available for each product in
Annexure-XVI (Table-16.13, Table-16.14).
4.2: Packing methods and problems
As presented in figure 6.25, the producers use many types of packing methods.
The limited knowledge, as a problem has been perceived by only few (Fig.6.26). But the
truth is that they have only knowledge of the existing practices for packing but are not
equipped with new developments in packaging technology.
4.3: Grading methods
Knowledge and awareness on importance of qualitative traits was high despite the
fact that most of products are traditional and of small-scale nature. 48 per cent of
respondents responded that grading of products on traits for maintaining the quality of the
87
products. Grading in rest of the cases is done based on other parameters like physical
traits (26%). The sector of 21 per cent who used no grading is of concern as much as the
low percent of which is based on market demand (Fig.6.28). Therefore, challenge is to
initiate some grading mode, which would help bring more professional level to the
products and also maintain the traditional attributes for which the products are closely
linked with by reputation or by consumers themselves.
4.4: Mode of sale and satisfaction level
Various modes of sales are there, with nearly 32 per cent respondents report direct
sales, but mostly it is to local shops followed by wholesalers. (Fig.6.44). About 13%
respondents responded that their sales are through cooperative society or middlemen,
while rest used govt. agencies (6%), cooperative societies (5%), processing agencies
(2.7%) or the local mahajan (2.5%). The detailed study of table 6.44 about mode of sale
reveals the following facts:
-
64% of sale to local market is in GI Type V, 34 % in GI Type VI
-
In GI Type VII, wholesalers were more preferred as outlet for sale while
respondents in GI Type VII used local market and wholesalers equally.
-
Exporters also formed a significant channel for selling for respondents in GI
Types VI, VII and VIII.
On the basis of information available in Table 6.44, the following are the
implications with respect to each category of products:
GI Type V: Sale is mostly to local markets or wholesalers with 12 percent also selling to
mahajan. The other avenues like exporters, govt., processing agencies are very negligible.
Encouraging sale through cooperative society or processing agency might help build
more market and induce strict quality parameters.
GI Type VI: Mostly the sale is direct to wholesalers, middlemen, local market, and
exporters in this category. Sale through government agency and cooperative is very low,
which needs attention considering the type of products like handicrafts in this group.
88
GI Type VII: Sale through local market, wholesalers, middlemen, and exporters is most
prevalent in this category. There is a need to enhance share to exporters through
strengthening sale through cooperative society.
GI Type VIII: The respondents in this type were the most aware of need of strategy for
sale. Across the various groups of agencies or people, respondents preferred wholesalers
(29%),, local markets( 28%), exporters (14%), middlemen (13%) . Low percent also used
cooperative societies (6.67%), and to lesser extent, govt. agencies (3.5%). Keeping the
high demand for textiles, the products in this type, its imperative to look at creating more
awareness on profitable routes of sale.
About 75 per cent producers were satisfied with modes of sale adopted by them.
The high satisfaction levels of mode of sale along with disintegrated supply chain is an
indicator that commercialization has not taken place in this category of products Between
the GI types, GI Type VIII producers (62%) were dissatisfied as compared to 19% in
Type VI; 15% in type V. Only 4% in Type VII were dissatisfied. The strongest reason for
low satisfaction or no satisfaction over mode of sale is ‘low profits’ followed by
insufficient institutional support (Fig.6.46). The involvement of middlemen and high
competition cost etc. this type of respondents are highest in GI Type VIII (52%), the
details are available in table-6.46. For explanatory account of dissatisfaction for
individual products, refer table-16.24 in Annexure-XVI.
4.5: Mode of purchase by traders
For view of traders refer Chapter 11 and table 11.31
4.6: Spectrum of region-wise sale of product
For view of institutional stakeholders refer Chapter 9, table 9.14
4.7: Contribution of uniqueness to sale
For view of institutional stakeholders refer Chapter 9 and table 9.60
89
4.8: Trend of sale
For view of institutional stakeholders refer chapter 9, table 9.15; for traders’ view, also
refer chapter 11, and table-11.5
4.9: Price decision and trend of unit price
The prices of product for sale are mostly decided either through individual
bargain or purchasers offer a price to which producers had to agree and there is no other
choice; 22% respondents say that they bargain collectively; 12% go through minimum
agreed price between association and purchasers, while 6.7% usually agree to a price
offered by purchaser. The collective bargaining and process of minimum agreed price
between an association and purchaser is there but needs more attention (Fig.6.48.). The
trend is almost same in all GI types except few notable features. Such as in GI Type V,
the collective bargaining is almost nil, and in GI type VI and VIII significant number of
producers bargain individually or do not have any other option than to sale on a price
offered by purchaser.(table 6.48). The trend of unit price is almost of increasing side
during 2004-06 except few products like paithani saree, kutch embroidery, srikalahasti
kalamkari, etc. (Table 6.47). For explanatory account of some of specific decision
elements for individual products, refer table-16.25 in Annexure-XVI.
4.10: Price increments in supply chain
Refer chapter 9 and table 9.12
4.11: Constraints in production and marketing
In production and making of agricultural products on listed by producers, there
are 11 kinds of constraints including no problems. These have been listed and analysed
for order of their importance (Fig.6.49). The most important constraints are hindrances
from high competition, finance, difficulty in getting inputs, scarcity of skilled workers,
insecure markets, lack of govt. policy, agronomic/natural factors, market insecurity
90
leading to low profitability, labour scarcity and low marketing infrastructure. As detailed
in table-6.49, the trend is almost same across all GI types with few notable features such
as:
-
In GI type VIII ‘improper transportation’ is acute constraint.
-
High competition is a constraint in types V, VII and VII while respondents from
VI aired difficulty in quality inputs
-
Respondents in all types voiced scarcity of skilled workers , though less per cent
(14%) in type VI., indicating a need to develop training centers in all fields
through sound policy of government
-
Marketing insecurity leading to low profitability is a constraint in GI type VII, V
and VII.
At individual level, the producers have also expressed other problems, which are
of individualistic nature; these are documented (Table-16.26).
5.1: Inspection, quality control at various stages of production
There are methods of inspection and quality control in non-agricultural products
but needs to be more professional to help better quality production. While 35 per cent do
not adhere to inspection, 48 percent maintain quality through inspection at production
level at workshop and 12.9 per cent at processing and grading level. Inspection by
qualified authorities is very meager (fig.6.27 & table-6.27) Even 15.1% of institutional
stakeholders also agree that there is no formal method of inspection and quality control,
for more details please chapter 9 and table-9.3.
5.2: Govt. defined quality assurance methods and advice given for quality
improvement
For view of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9 and table 9.6 and 9.9
5.3: Technical guidelines for production codes
The summary of results as described in Table 6.41is given below.
91
-
About 90% of producers say that the technical guidelines from their forefathers
are ones followed by them.
-
21% agree that production is as per technical guidelines from Govt.
-
About 9% agree that production is as per technical guidelines from NGO
-
About 19% agree that production is as per technical guidelines from association
5.4: Maintenance and monitoring of codes of production practices
While it is acknowledged in any production system, the producers certainly have
their own codes to develop production practices; perhaps the challenge is to develop
maintenance and monitoring system. The summary of results as described in Table 6.41
is given below;
-
Phulkari products have specific code developed by efforts of producers
themselves.
-
Guidelines set by govt. dept is limited to only 21 percent of respondents who
follow
-
95 % maintain that monitoring of production is self driven and not through formal
systems
5.5: Traders’ view to maintain product quality
For traders’ view, refer chapter 11 and table-11.49.
6.1: Presumed results of non-registration
During the interview, the producers are explained the benefits of registration of
product as GI. The producers, therefore, presumed certain disadvantages of not having
product registration (Table-6.50):
-
48% producers believe non-registration leads to low volume of sale
-
46% producers believe non-registration leads to low wages to labour
-
58% producers believe that non-registration leads to low profit to producers
92
-
46% producers believe that non-registration leads to difficulty in getting loans
-
80% feel that non registration leads to sale of spurious products under same name
6.2: Expected changes after registration- on market
As post registration impact, the producers have several expectations related to
good market for products (Table-6.50. The salient features of these expectations are:
-
43% producers expect significant increase in sale
-
63% expect increase in unit price and 28.5% could say neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ and
it is only about 8%, who does not expect increase in unit price.
-
40% expect less market competition
-
57% expect market expansion
Institutional stakeholders also gave their opinion about it (chapter 9, table-9.41, 9.42)
6.3: Expected changes after registration- enhanced premium as expected by
producers and traders
Refer para 9.3
6.4: Expected changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
As a post registration impact, change in livelihood pattern is expected and
improvement of socio-economic conditions is also expected. The producers’ opinion was
collected on these issues and the results are summarized below:
-
69% producers believe that registration would lead to changing to this from other
activities. (Table 6.52).
-
Within each product type the response was varied with maximum in type VIII
(47%), followed by type VII (25%), type VI (15%) and type V (13%).
93
-
The respondents who did not believe that GI registration would lead to shifting
from other means of work were asked to state the reasons. Out of 96 respondents,
78% cited ignorance of GI and implications as main reason.11 % believe present
option as safe and profitable while other reasons of risk and avoidance of risks
merited attention of very low per cent respondents.(Table 6.53).
-
On post registration benefits, only 55 % per cent could give in affirmative (Table6.50).
-
Institutional stakeholders also gave their opinion about it (chapter 9, table-9.41,
9.42). The other changes as described by producers are presented in Annexure
(12.6.9, PL).
The producers of few products have listed other expected changes (Table-16.27) also.
6.5: Expected changes after registration- consumers’ expectations
Refer chapter 10, table 10.1
6.6: Visualized benefits at time of GI registration
For opinion of institutional stakeholders about visualized benefits at time of GI
registration, refer chapter 9, table 9.51.
7.1: Duplicates and similar products
An enquiry was made from producers about the existence of similar but not
genuine products that are sold in the market with the same name. The salient features
of results described in Table 6.35 are given below:
-
The producers are almost equally divided among three categories i.e. who say yes
or no or can’t say; 51 per cent agreed, 19% did not agree while remaining
undecided whether any other product similar to theirs was there.
-
68% producers of GI type V agree that no duplicates are available
94
-
63% producers of GI type VI and 48 per cent in type VIII agree that duplicates are
available
7.2: Consumers’ efforts to purchase genuine product
For view of consumers, refer chapter 10, table 10.14, 10.18, 10.19, 10.20
7.3: Competition- types and sources
About 32% producers (Table 6.36) feel that their products face competition. The
sources of competition are analyzed in Table-6.37 and presented in fig.6.37. Few
producers have listed specific reasons also for competition (Table-16.20). The main facts
are given below:
-
38% believe that these are same product but produced elsewhere in the country
-
35% believe that there are different products but sold with the same name with the
deceptive similarity
-
40% believe about competition from similar products imported in the country
-
22% believe that competition is in export market from other countries producing
similar product.
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.16-9.18.
Traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.10, 11.12, 11.13
7.4: Import of similar product and difference between imported and domestic
product
The threat perceived from competition from similar products imported in the
country is fairly high (40% producers believe so). Most producers’ (33%) believe that
imported products are of inferior quality, the other reasons including less price of imports
or their quality are of less significance and presented in table- 6.38.
95
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.27
Traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.15
7.5: Import of the products
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.19
7.6: Export and trade option of the products
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.36-11.47
8.1: Observed changes after registration- on market
With the intention of measuring the observed changes in the registered product, a
question has asked from the respondents. In fact at the time of survey some of the studied
products as chennapatnam toys and srikalahasti kalamkari were registered products
several products like kondapalli toys, kancheepuram saree and kullu shawl etc. got
registration during the project period. The results are presented in table-6.56; the salient
features are given below:
-
Post registration change has been observed by 86%
-
76% of interviewed believe increase in production in post GI registration
-
Most respondents that there will be increase in price and profit after GI
registration
-
About 65% of interviewed believe that competition has been less and market has
expanded (100%).
8.2: Observed changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
About 50% of producers said that they have shifted from other livelihood
activities to production of RGI. 91% believe that registration had brought important or
would ring change in socio-economic conditions of producers. (Table-6.56).
96
8.3: Observed changes after registration- enhanced premium felt by producers
There was a mixed reaction to enhanced premium to the product. While 50% felt
it enhanced, others felt it did not as of now. (Table-6.57).
8.4: Other observed changes
The other observed changes as observed by the producers is ‘organized into
groups, thrift habit increased, savings encouraged, self help groups getting loans’ as
reported in case of srikalahasti kalamkari.Table-16.28)
9.1: Willingness for registration and payment thereof
About 77% producers intended for registration and 15.6% were not able to decide.
About 7.8% were unwilling for registration (Table-6.50). An equal number also were
found willing to pay for registration while 23 % expressed their unwillingness to pay. In
terms of the amount to pay nearly 61 % opted to pat Rs 500with decreasing trend as
amount went up. Across each GI Type producers in Type VIII (37%) followed by those
in Type VI (29%) opted to pay Rs 500. But those who are willing to provide Rs 1000
were 38% in Type VII. (Fig.6.51). The detailed information is given in table-6.51.
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.47, 9.48, 9.70, 9.71
Consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.2
9.2: Money paid by producers for registration
All producers informed that they have contributed money for GI registration, which was
about Rs. 250 to 500 per head (Table-6.58).
97
9.3: Willingness to pay for expected enhanced premium
All producers expect an enhanced premium over prevailing costs after GI
registration. However the expected range differed in opinion of respondents in each GI
type. However, all favoured increase up to 15% only though differing in each type. 39%
expected increase in range of 5-10% and 30% favoured the other two ranges equally.
52% producers in GI-type VIII followed by 28% in GI-type VII and 26% in GI-type V
expected an increase in the range 10-15% (Table-6.55).
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Consumers, refer chapter 10, table 10.14, 10.16
Traders, refer chapter 11, table 11.9, 11.33, 11.35
10.1: Production characteristics
In the opinion of producers (Table-6.42) the trend of production in last three years
had been either increasing for most of products. Out of 38 products listed in four GI types
increasing trends are in all with three groups VI, VII and VIII all showing above 60%.
Only products in V showed about 50 % increase. Within each group few products
showed stationery trends, these are:
-
Tirunelveli halwa
-
Bal Mithai
-
Thanjvur art plate
-
Moradabad brass plate
-
Makrana marble
-
Kancheepuram silk
-
Gadhwal
-
Bhadoi carpet
Declining trends were expressed for some products. These include:
-
Punjabi jooti
-
Banarasi saree
-
Bhadoi carpet
98
These trends should be viewed with concern and measures to offset these trends
be adopted. Regarding the association of producers with the enterprise. The following
statement for agricultural products as approved by the producers can be given in order of
their importance.
-
Largest section (36%) believe that ‘few more have started producing’ the product
-
No one has discontinued the production of product – 23% producers believe it
-
The situation is more or less same (no addition, no deletion) – 8% producers
believe it
-
Several more have started producing – 17% produce believe it
-
Many have discontinued producing the product – 14% producers believe.
The detailed analysis as per product wise is presented in table-6.34, in few cases,
the producers have given specific reason for increase in production of the product (Table16.23).
10.2: Production constraints
A list of production constraints in each product is enclosed (Annexure-XVI, Table16.21). Also refer para 4.11.
10.3: Earnings and income
Nearly 50% of the producers feel that earning from enterprise is good. The results
are presented as per GI type in table-6.32. The salient points are:
-
Those who feel good income are mostly in GI type V, GI type VI and VII. Only
30 % respondents of type VIII perceive that income is good and 61% felt that
there income is poor.
-
In GI type VIII producers were more of average income.
The producers’ opinion for individual product point of view please refer table-
16.17 for the reasons for average of poor income; table-16.18 for the types of assistance
99
required for increasing income; table-16.19 for the specific reasons of no scope to
increase income in some of products (Annex-XVI).
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.9
10.4: Financial and infrastructure needs- for increasing production
Adequate finance is important for enterprises to be successful. Respondents in all
types advocated (82%) felt that adequate finance from nationalized banks and other
institutions would increase production. But only 44% of producers have approached any
financial agency, the maximum persons are from GI type VIII. (Table.6.30). Only 13%
from GI type V approached any financial agency for financial help. However 64 %
respondents who approached financial agencies felt that the response was not too good
and had many formalities. Those who approached the financial agency for help, 59%
believe that response was not so good and there were many formalities (Table-6.31).
Another dimension for increasing production is marketing infrastructure. 74% of
respondents felt that the production could be increased, if better marketing infrastructure
is made available (Table-6.20). Maximum number of such respondents in all the GI types
V, VI, VII and VIII agreed that they could increase production of their products and also
they have the capacity to increase production if marketing outlets are improved. This they
felt would enhance their incomes too. The kind of marketing facilities required as voiced
by the respondents are listed in Table 8.12. Most respondents wanted better publicity and
regulated marketing. (Fig.6.12).
The producers’ opinion for individual product point of view please refer table16.10 for the requirement of marketing facilities for improving production; tabl-16.11 for
the types of assistance required for increasing production capacity; table-16.12 for the
specific reasons of no scope to increase production in some of products (Annex-XVI).
100
10.5: Awareness of roducers and stakeholders about GI
Several questions were asked from producers to measure the awareness and
system of interest about GI portfolio development. The results are presented in table6.40. Only 26 per cent of respondents were aware of fact that their product could be
protected as a GI. Among the various types, respondents in type-VI (45%) followed by
VIII (26%) were aware of such options. However, 82% were aware of uniqueness of their
product. (Table 6.41) and only 34 % knew that rafter GI registration only registered users
could use product name or produce in geographical area registered. Only 20 %
respondents knew even status of product as GI.
Other stakeholders’ opinion
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.35-9.38, 9.41, 9.42
Opinion of consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.2
10.6: Role of agencies in development and strengthening of producers’ associations
The producers’ association is the key element in GI protection, development and
sustainable use of this IP. Only 54% of producers know that some kind of
formal/informal group of producers, marketing, SHG or NGO is available to them. About
56% of producers are not members of any formal or informal group (Table 6.41).
10.7: Other interventions- market expansion strategies
Regarding market expansion strategies, respondents were asked on their plans to
change technology to satisfy changing needs of consumers, awareness on market
potentiality and on product diversification to enlarge existing markets. In all types, larger
market potentiality and need to increase number of varieties of products were more
favoured by the respondents (Table-6.34). Producers in type V favoured less to change
technology as compared to those in VI, VII and VIII.
101
10.8: Future prospects of the product
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.34
Opinion of consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.21
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.27
10.9: Constructive measures to make production viable and improve future
prospects
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.29
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table 11.29
10.10: Status of marketing and suggestions for improvement
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.31, 9.33
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.24, 11.26
10.11: Suggestions for improvement to increase sale
Opinion of consumers, refer chapter 10, table-10.12
Opinion of traders, refer chapter 11, table-11.7
10.12: Scientific endeavors in product development
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.43-9.47
10.13: Endeavors by departments and agencies responsible or concerned with GI
registration
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9
10.14: Endeavors by financial institutions
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.65-9.71
102
11.1: Current level of protection, drawback, enforcement problems
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.48, 9.52, 9.63, 9.64
11.2: Problems and bottlenecks related to acquisition and maintenance of GI
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.53, 9.61, 9.62
11.3: Identification of beneficiaries
Opinion of institutional stakeholders, refer chapter 9, table-9.49, 9.50
103
Analytical profile of non-agricultural products and producers- Figures
% Responses
Fig-6.1: Response of the producers about
geographical association of the non-agricultural products
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Geo-climatic (soil-type,
terrain, climate etc.)
Historically developed
under the patronization of
Rajas/Nawabs/Landlords
and others
Traditional special skill of
local tribe/population
V
VI
VII
VIII
GI Types
Fig-6.2:Producers’ enterprise activities
carried out relating to the non-agriculture
product under study
7.71%
38.03%
54.26%
Production
Trading
Training
All
Special raw material’s
(Seeds / Seedlings/
Plants/ Cuttings)
availability in the region
104
% Responses
Fig-6.3:Ownership type of the enterprise of the producers
belonging to different GI types of
non-agricultural products
Sole proprietorship
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Family enterprise with
family members
participating as
partners or otherwise
Partnership with other
households/individual
s
V
VI
VII
VIII
GI Types
All
Others
Fig-6.4: Analysis of the head of
the non-agricultural enterprise
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Head of the
household
% Responses
Other member of
the household
Non-member of the
household but the
principal operator
Others
V
VI
VII
GI Type
VIII
Total
Fig-6.5: Sources of skill acquisition
0.53%
41.07%
5.33%
2.94%
50.13%
Traditionally acquired skill as
well as formal
training/technical qualification
Traditionally acquired skill only
Formal training/technical
qualification but not traditional
skill
Informal learning only but no
traditional skill or formal
training
Others
105
Fig-6.12:Source of loan
0.00%
4.17%
11.11%
6.94%
Government
Co-operative
Society
Bank
Traders/Exporters/
Intermediaries
Moneylenders
77.78%
Fig-6.13: Purpose of loan
Purchase of land
Construction/maintenance of building
2.78% 0.00%
4.17%
0.00%
4.17%
Purchase of machinery/equipment
15.27%
5.56%
Purchase of other assets
Purchase of seeds/raw materials and
other materials (fertilizers, packing
materials)
Legal expenses
68.05%
Repayment of debt
Oh
Fig-6.14:Average interest percentage paid
to different sources of loan obtained
by non-agricultural producers
25
Co-operative
Society
Bank
20
Average %
Government
15
10
Traders/Exporters
/Intermediaries
Moneylenders
5
0
Source of loan
106
Fig-6.16:Range of loan amount taken by nonagricultural enterprises
< 50,000
500001lakh
1-2 lakh
> 2 lakh
Fig-6.21:Type of marketing facilities required
for increasing the non-agricultural production
45
25
Facilitation from producer’s
union/ association
Online information of market
trends
Minimum support price
20
Transportation of produce
40
Enterprises %
Regulated market
35
30
15
Export of produce
10
5
Publicity of produce
0
Marketing facilities
Enterprises %
Fig-6.23:Type of storage utilized for
non-agricultural products
50
No storage
Plastic/ polythene
40
Bulk storage
30
Gunny/ jute bags
20
Glass containers
10
Wooden boxes
0
Type of storage
Wrap in
cloth/paper
107
Fig-6.24:Problems faced in storage of
non-agricultural products
No problem
70
Seasonal damage
Enterprises %
60
50
Insufficient storage space,
facilities & capacity
40
30
Infestation of pests &
diseases
20
10
Miscellaneous problems
0
Problems in storage
Fig-6.25: Types of packaging used by
non-agricultural enterprises
40
Basket & bamboo packing
35
Enterprises %
No packing
Gunny/Jute bags
30
Glass bottles & containers
25
Plastic or polythene bags/
plastic cans
Corrugated card board
boxes/paper boxes/cartons
Wooden boxes
20
15
10
5
Metal/Machine packing
0
Nature of Packaging
Fig-6.26: Problems faced in packing by
non-agricultural enterprises
90
No problems
80
Scarcity of skilled
labour
Enterprises %
70
60
High cost of packing
material
50
Storage of packing
material
40
30
Deterioration of
packing material
20
10
Limited knowledge of
packing technology
0
Problems faced in packing
108
Fig-6.27:Methods of inspection and quality control
used at various stages of production
12.85%
47.56%
3.60%
No inspection
& quality control
35.99%
Production level
at
establishment/
workshop
Processing &
grading level
Fig-6.28:Type of grading of non-agricultural
finished products
No grading
5.01%
21.24%
Grading on physical
traits
Grading on qualitative
traits
47.97%
25.78%
Grading based on
consumer/ market
demand
Fig-6.37:Type of competition faced by non-agriculture
products under study
Same product produced in
other areas of the country
6.38%
11.59%
42.32%
Similar duplicates in the
country
Similar products imported
into the country
39.71%
Competition in the export
market from other countries
producing similar products
109
Fig-6.44:Mode of sale of non-agricultural
products by producers
0.00%
2.72%
Mahajan
Middlemen
2.57%
12.84%
32.17%
5.74%
Govt. agency
Cooperative society
Exporters
5.90%
12.68%
25.38%
Wholesalers
Selling to local shops/local
consumers/local market
Processing agency
Others
Fig-6.46:Reasons for producer’s
unsatisfaction over the mode of sale of
non-agricultural produce
0.00%
28.74%
10.34%
10.34%
50.58%
Intervention/
control of middle
men
Insufficient
institutional
support
High input cost
High competition
Fig-6.48: Price decision of producers
6.67%
Low profit from
venture
Bargain collectively
0.00%
22.32%
Bargain individually
25.22%
Sale on minimum agreed price
between our association and
purchasers
The purchaser offers us a price
to which we usually agree
12.17%
33.62%
Purchaser offers us a price to
which we have to sell; there is no
other choice for us
Any other
110
Fig-6.49: Respondent’s constraints in
production and marketing of
non-agricultural produce
10.98%
Scarcity of skilled workers
High competition
9.07%
13.60%
2.14%
No problem
Insufficient publicity
Financial difficulties
9.31%
Lack of proper government policy
& assistance
Improper transportation
arrangements
Market insecurity leading to low
profitability
Difficulty in getting quality inputs
7.64%
19.57%
3.82%
8.83%
0.00%
15.04%
Packing of produce
Manufacturing process is tedious,
time & labor intensive
Fig-6.51: Wllingness of respondents to pay range
of amount for GI registration of non-agricultural
produce
7.69%
500
46.15%
15.38%
1000
2000
3000
30.77%
111
Chapter 7
Indigenous
Technical
Knowledge:
cases
of
unexploited
products with high trade potential
Introduction
This chapter describes comparative account of ‘Nannari Sharbat’, ‘Kokum Juice’
and ‘Buraansh Juice’. Manufacturing, these products involve application of traditional
knowledge held by the community. The detailed account is available in the chapter on
product profile but a brief account of product is given below
Nannari also known as sugandhapalu in Telugu language and ‘Indian Sarsaparilla’
in English language. Botanically called Hemidesmus indicus R. Br. belongs to family
Asclepiadaceae and has several medicinal uses such as demulcent, diaphoretic, diuretic,
and also prescribed for rheumatism, urinary and skin diseases. `Nannari' is mostly found
in the foothills of Alagarmalai and Ezhumalai, but nowadays the producers procure it
from Coorg, Karnataka also. In AP ‘Nannari sharbat’ is traditionally produced since long
time, some producers sale under brand name also. Nannari is claimed to have several
properties and main uses include the flavouring of beverages, and homeopathic medicine.
Kokam or kukum, botanically known as Garcinia indica belongs to family
‘Clusiaceae’, it is a common tree found in tropical rain forests of Western Ghats from
Konkan to southwards in Mysore and Coorg in Karnataka and Wyanad in Kerala. Dried
rind of fruits is known as ‘Kokam’ is used in for making several vegetarian and nonvegetarian ‘curry’ reparations, including the popular ‘solkadhi’. The fruits are steeped in
sugar syrup to make ‘amrutkokam’, a healthy soft drink ‘kokam sherbet’ to relieve
sunstroke, which is popular during summer. Kokam fruit is reported to have several
medicinal properties such as it is antihelmintic, cardiotonic, anti-obesity, anti-ulcer and
anti-cancer and so many more scientifically proved medicinal properties.
112
Buransh juice is obtained from red color flowers of Rhododendron arboreum, a
tree of family Ericacea available in the state of Uttarakhand. The juice from the buransh
flowers is one of the important ethno-medicine used by ‘Raji tribal’ community in
Utarakhand. These indigenous people use this plant for several other ailments also such
as paste from leaves is claimed to be useful in wounds and cuts and also used for cold and
cough. Several other preparations like Buransh jam are also prepared as value added
products by the modern small traders and it is advertised and marketed through Ebusiness also. The flowers are eaten but cause intoxication if eaten in excess, sub-acidic
jelly or preserve made from petals is used in diarrhoea and dysentery.
A. Socio-economic profile of producers of nannari sharbat
1.1: Livelihood and social groups
All the respondents belong to non-agricultural enterprise and no one belongs to
SC/ST/OBC. Their main livelihood is small nature trade.
1.2: Household particulars
Out of total 59 family members, 57% are males, the average age of males is 21.2
years, of females is 32.7 years and of all members is 26.5 years. Most (25%) are educated
up to secondary; 25% are either graduate or above but 33% are below primary level
(Table-7.1). About 46% does not have any skill and out of those who have skill 34%
acquired the skill traditionally in the family (Table-7.2). Significant number (38%) work
as wage/salary worker (Table-7.3).
1.3: Housing particulars
− Ownership of dwelling unit: Most (80%) live in own house and 20 percent in
hired house
− Covered area of dwelling unit: Most (50%) live in 50-100 m2, 30% in less than
50m2 and 20% in 100-150m2.
113
− Type of dwelling unit: Most (50%) live in independent house, 40 in chawl/bustee
and 10% in flat.
− Structure of dwelling unit: Most (60%) have pucca house, 40% semi-pucca.
− Source of lighting: Most (60%) use electricity others use nothing
− Source of cooking fuel: Most (70%) use LPG/ piped gas, 10% each use
electricity/kerosene/firewood as cooking fuel
− Source of drinking water: Most (60%) have tap and 40% have tube-well
1.4: Household income – expenditure
The annual average income is around Rs. 2 lakh (Table-7.5), which mostly come
from trading or other enterprises (Fig.7.5). The major expenditure (53%) is on food;
health expenses are least (Fig.7.4 & Table-7.4). The average value of household assets is
around Rs 8 lakhs, of which the maximum contribution (65%) is of buildings (Fig. 7.6 &
Table-7.6).
1.5: Welfare indicators
One month prior of survey, about 37% family members did not get food
everyday, did not have pair of footwear, did not have at least two set of clothes and 20%
of them often fall sick or injured (Table-7.7).
During last month of survey only 7 persons (58% of fall sick) reported to have
taken treatment by at hospial/clinic/dispensary, rest did not take any treatment (Table7.8). 28% of them spent more than Rs. 1000 and rest spent less than this (Table-7.9).
Another good welfare indicator is benefit received from any welfare scheme but 70 of
respondents inform that they did not receive any benefit.
B. Socio-economic profile of producers of kokum juice
1.1: Livelihood and social groups
All the ten producers belong to agriculture for their livelihood. 40% of them are
OBCs, others belong to other groups but no one belongs to SC or ST.
114
1.2: Household particulars
Out of total 65 family members, 57% are females, the average age of males is
28.3 years, of females is 24.3 years and of all members is 26.2 years. Most (27%) are
educated up to secondary; 25% are graduate or above but 44% are below primary level
(Table-7.1). About 42% does not have any skill and out of those who have skill 56%
acquired the skill traditionally in the family (Table-7.2). Significant number (28%) work
as wage/salary worker, 30 percent are unpaid family workers (Table-7.3).
1.3: Housing particulars
− Ownership of dwelling unit: All live in own house
− Covered area of dwelling unit: All live in more than150m2.
− Type of dwelling unit: Most (90%) live in independent house, and 10% in flat.
− Structure of dwelling unit: All have pucca house.
− Source of lighting: All use electricity
− Source of cooking fuel: Most (70%) use LPG/ piped gas, 10% use local/gobar gas
and 20% use firewood as cooking fuel
− Source of drinking water: Most (80%) have tube-well and 20% tap water
1.4: Household income – expenditure
The annual average income is around Rs. 3.4 lakh (Table-7.5), which mostly
come from agriculture (Fig.7.5). The major expenditure (53%) is education; health
expenses are least (Fig.7.4 & Table-7.4). The average value of household assets is around
Rs 26 lakhs, of which the maximum contribution (83%) is of land (Fig. 7.6 & Table-7.6).
1.5: Welfare indicators
One month prior of survey, about 13% family members did not get food
everyday, did not have pair of footwear, did not have at least two set of clothes and 15%
of them often fall sick or injured (Table-7.7).
115
During last month of survey only 4 persons (40% of fall sick) reported to have
taken treatment by at hospital/clinic/dispensary, rest did not take any treatment (Table7.8). 50% of them spent Rs 200-500 and other 50% spent Rs 500-1000 (Table-7.9).
Another good welfare indicator is benefit received from any welfare scheme but none of
respondents inform that they received any benefit.
C. Socio-economic profile of producers of buraansh Juice
1.1: Livelihood and social groups
The producers main livelihood is non-agricultural enterprise, they do neither full
time agriculture nor full time trade. They do partial trade and also have some land to do
agriculture on small piece of land, they are service based also either doing or on pension.
All the surveyed respondents belong to other social group.
1.2: Household particulars
Out of total 51 family members, 53% are females, the average age of males is
26.9 years, of females is 20.21 years and of all members is 23.6 years. Most (33%) are
educated up to secondary; 47% are graduate or above but 20% are below primary level
(Table-7.1). About 40% does not have any skill and out of those who have skill 59%
acquired the skill traditionally in the family (Table-7.2). Significant number (35%) are
students 30% work as wage/salary worker, 23 percent are busy in household duties
(Table-7.3).
1.3: Housing particulars
− Ownership of dwelling unit: 89% live in own house and 11% no house
− Covered area of dwelling unit: 67% 100 or above and 22% in 50-100 and 11%
less than 50m2.
− Type of dwelling unit: Most (90%) live in independent house, and 10% in flat.
− Structure of dwelling unit: 67%- pucca house, 33% semi-pucca.
− Source of lighting: 67% use electricity, 33% kerosene
116
− Source of cooking fuel: Most (56%) use LPG/ piped gas, 44 use firewood
− Source of drinking water: Most (67%) have tap, 33% river/canal/spring/lake
1.4: Household income – expenditure
The annual average income is around Rs. 1.4 lakh (Table-7.5), which mostly
come from wage/salary (Fig.7.5). The major expenditure (39%) is on food and education
each, health expenses are least (Fig.7.4 & Table-7.4). The average value of household
assets is around Rs 5 lakhs, of which the maximum contribution (85%) is of building and
land (Fig. 7.6 & Table-7.6).
1.5: Welfare indicators
One month prior of survey, about 17% family members did not get food
everyday, did not have pair of footwear, did not have at least two set of clothes and 5% of
them often fall sick or injured (Table-7.7).
During last month of survey only 2 persons (40% of fall sick) reported to have
taken treatment by at hospital/clinic/dispensary, rest did not take any treatment (Table7.8). All of them spent Rs 500-1000 (Table-7.9). Another good welfare indicator is
benefit received from any welfare scheme but none of respondents inform that they
received any benefit.
2.1: Nature and geographical association
Nannari sharbat: It is a beverage, natural roots extract brewed by heating in water along
with sugar-cool drink. Locally available & it is an effective cold drink in summer and
other seasons also. The plants available in palakondalu hillocks and the tribals get the
roots to sell in market- producers making it for almost by 150 Hakims. The nannari
sharbat is manufactured in old kadapa for so many long years. The grand parents started
production using roots, which was learnt from Hakims and kept in the families.
Kokam fruit Juice: It has good medicinal characteristics; juice is good for health & gives
good strength, less fat content, cooling effect on the body. Attractive red color, oval in
117
shape and semi hard look like tomato. Juice is also used in sambar preparation. It controls
vomiting also. Hot and humid climate with heavy rains, acid soil provide typical juice
quality and quantity. It is mostly available in forests of south kannada.
Buransh juice: It is a forestry product. Geo-climatic situation, special raw material
availability in the region traditionally special skill of local population are the factors of
geographical association.
2.2: Unique characteristics
Nannari sharbat: It is an original plant product, natural roots extract brewed by heating
in water along with sugar-cool drink. Locally available, good aroma, energetic and
control hunger, available in less price, control ulcers in stomach, blood cleansing, having
anti sunstroke. Earlier Hakim's used to prepare and administer to patients and
commercialized because of its medicinal Value. If produced elsewhere, the roots may
differ in quality, results in loss of aroma, taste and good keeping quality.
Views of institutional stakeholders about nannari: aroma, cooling effects, taste, the
quality of the roots, aroma is great in kadappa region so other state trades also buy roots;
roots are abundantly available in sesuachallam hills. The length of the root is most
important, mainly it cannot be cultivated elsewhere, if could be produced outside kadapa
but the aroma, taste and quality will differ a lot
Kokum juice: Juice, squash, powder & oil made from kokam seed used as ointment for
burns in addition to other medicinal uses. If produced elsewhere, only size & shape may
change & yield may decrease quantity and reddish color may not be obtained but
medicinal & chemical composition may remain same.
Views of institutional stakeholders about kokum: Sour sweet taste, good for health, good
medicinal value, it is also used as a vegetable, medicinal value of the fruits will decreases
as size changes.
118
Buransh juice: The product is unique in Uttarakhand state and flavor, cooling, medical
values are unique. If produced elsewhere, the flowers will loose all its characteristics,
therefore originality of the product.
2.3: Specialty of production process
Nannari sharbat: Specialty is extracting of nannari juice by boiling in water and sugar in
unique mixture for longer time-adding acid limejuice in typical ratio up to 1000kgs. The
roots are unique with its smell and sweetness; only available in and around palakondalu
range. Roots brewed with sugar in water for 7-8 hours traditionally as per their business
needs. Tribal and local people collect these. Process is difficult, raw material precious,
but economic. It’s keeping quality for 3 months.
Kokum juice: Very tall trees & harvesting is a problem, fruits has to be harvested at
correct stage of maturity. Good medicinal value. Extra care is not required, there is a
requirement of good varieties, no need of manure, fertilizers, irrigation by protection
from wild animals & birds should be provided.
Buransh juice: Uniqueness of the product is raw materials i.e. petals and traditional
Knowledge held by the community.
2.4: History of production- in region and by individual
The exploitation of history of production of these products in the region and also
by the respondents reveals that these products are being produced in the region since
quite long as given in the table ahead.
Product
Nannari
Kokum
Buraansh
Long back (years)
Average of all respondents
Production in the region
Production by respondents
113
58
52
23
53
14
119
3.1: Ownership and activities
The enterprise are engaged in production only and mostly are sole proprietorship
(80%) with few as family enterprise where family members participate as partners (20%).
3.2: Activities-seasonality
For ‘Nannari’ producers and sellers March to May are the months of peak
activity; for ‘Kokum’ producers, it is March - April and sellers, it is April to July. For
‘Buraansh Juice’, the peak activity for producers is April to July. The months of August
to December are months of lean activity or no activity for producers and sellers of all the
three products. Therefore, in these months, some employment is to be provided. The
sellers of ‘Buraansh Juice’ have long period of ‘no activity’ i.e. from May to December
(Table-5.7, 9.54, 9.56).
3.3: Resources- persons engaged and equity issues
On average all the three enterprises enjoy about seven skilled and seven other
workers monthly. Men skilled workers are higher than female skilled workers. About half
of the workers are family workers and others are hired. More number of hired skilled men
workers are required to run the enterprise. For collective analysis of GI type IV, see
table-5.8.
3.6: Resources- physical
As presented in table-5.10, nannari producers on an average have 4.5 acres of land
with no land is under cultivation of product. Kokum producers have about 33 acres of
land but only 15% of their lands are put for cultivation of Kokum. About 85% of lands of
producers of nannari and kokum are un-irrigated.
3.7: Resources- loans
The producers of these products did not reveal any amount of loan outstanding on
them.
120
3.8: Resources- raw material
Seventy percent of nannari producers, about 78% of kokum producers and all
burransh producers are satisfied with adequacy and regularity of supply of raw material.
Nannari: raw material sources & prospectus of supply
Tribal from surrounding villages, local market in Dorumamilla and merchants
from Kadapa and Nadhirasool. Material may be available at increased cost, no problem in
supplies. Sometimes it may not be available because roots are being sold to Tamilnadu
and Kerala.
Kokum: raw material sources & prospectus of supply
From Horticulture & forest department, from Balthangadihalum and Dakshina
Kannada. In future peoples get good supply of seed from horticulture dept. requires fast
growing varieties. Good varieties with high yielding & fast growing characteristics and
less time for fruiting are needed.
Buransh: raw material sources & prospectus of supply
Present source is forests. It may increase if new plants are planted in the forest.
3.9: Quantity and value of production
As presented in table-5.11, the producers have not given much information. The
input cost as provided by them is given ahead.
Product
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Input cost (Rs) /Q. in
2004
2621
2283
1455
Input cost (Rs) /Q. in
2005
2892
2497
2242
Input cost (Rs) /Q. in
2006
3096
2462
2920
4.2: Packing methods and problems
All the Nannari producers pack their product in glass bottles and containers, while
about 64% of Kokum producers and 50% of Buraansh producers do so. About 36% of
Kokum producers and half of Buraansh producers use plastic or polythene bags or plastic
121
cans for packing (Table-7.10). Deterioration of packing material is biggest problem felt
by the producers (Nannari 70%; Kokum 42%; Buraansh 50%). There is no other felt
problem of packing (Table-7.11). The challenge is creating awareness about packaging,
provide access to modern packaging technology because the producers are using old
methods of packaging like glass bottles and plastic cans.
4.3: Grading methods
For Nannari, 11% of producers do not do any grading, 67% do grading on the
basis of physical traits and only 22% on the basis of qualitative traits. For Kokum 18% do
no grading, 73% on the basis of physical traits and only 9% on the basis of qualitative
traits. For Burransh also the pattern is almost same (Table-7.13). Therefore, challenge is
to expedite the grading on the basis of qualitative traits.
4.4: Mode of sale and satisfaction level
As given in figure 7.19, the producers mostly sell to local shop or local consumers
followed by middlemen and wholesalers (also see Table-7.19). The producers are
satisfied with the mode of sale except in case of Buraansh Juice, where all the
respondents are not satisfied (Table-7.20). It is important to note that mode of sale is
different in this product, where the sale is mostly direct local sale either to shop or
consumers; sale to middlemen or wholesalers is far less. The reason for un-satisfaction by
buransh producers is given in table-7.21.
4.5: Mode of purchase by traders
It is important to note that traders of these products purchase either directly
(33%), from local middlemen (27%) or any other sources (33%) such as individual,
tribal, farmers etc. The purchases from Mandi etc. are very low to the tune of 7% only
(Table-11.30).
122
4.6: Spectrum of region-wise sale of product
During various years from 2004 to 2006 it has been seen that 64 - 85% of sale is
within the region, where G.I is claimed. About 16–17% is in other parts of the country;
there is no export of these products (Refer table-9.13).
4.7: Contribution of uniqueness to sale
Key Stakeholders’ view
Only 60% of institutional stakeholders feel that unique characteristics of this
product give better sale value but 40% does not feel so. It is a serious concern specific to
this group of product (refer table-9.60). On the other hand, more than 90% traders believe
that due to unique characteristics, the sale of product is better than other product, and
almost all traders believe that unique characteristics provide better market value (Table11.8).
4.8: Trend of sale
About 71% institutional stakeholders believe that trend of volume and value of
marketing is increasing during last three years, others believe that it is stationery, while
no one said that it is declining (Table-9.15). About 80% of traders feel that sales is
increasing significantly, other believe that it is more or less stationery but no9ne believe
that sale is very little or declining (Table-11.4).
4.9: Price decision and trend of unit price
As presented in figure 7.22, producers feel that mostly it is individual bargain in
Nannari (100%) and Buraansh (91%). In Kokum collective bargain is practiced to some
extent (27%), individual bargain is very less (7%) but most prevalent is where purchaser
offers a price to which usually producers agree, it is felt by 60 percent of kokum
producers (Table-7.22). The comparative account is given below in table.
123
Price decision
Nannari
Kokum
Buraansh
Collective bargain
Individual bargain
Minimum agreed price between association and purchaser
Purchaser offer a price and to which producer usually agree
+++++
-
++
+
+
+++
++++
+
-
In the bargaining process between trader and consumer, almost all traders in
Nannari and Kokum believe that consumers do not bargain about the price (Table-17.35).
It seems that either it is almost fixed kinds of rate or distribution network between trader
and consumer is such that it does not offer any opportunity of bargaining process. As
presented in table 5.42, the unit price in last three years have been as given below:
Product
Unit
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Liters
Liters
Liters
Price (Rs) in
2004
44.0
20.2
31.8
Price (Rs) in
2005
51.3
22.7
45.9
Price
2006
55.8
24.7
46
(Rs)
in
4.10: Price increments in supply chain
As felt by institutional stakeholder, for these indigenous juices, the price
increment at producer level is lowest the maximum price increment is at the level of
middlemen or retailers (Table-9.11).
4.11: Constraints in production and marketing
The producers have expressed concerns to various constraints in production and
marketing (Fig.7.23 & table-7.23). The common concerns are related to various issues as
given in the matrix below:
Constraint
Nannari
Kokum
Buraansh
Improper marketing service
Lack of proper government policy and assistance
Lack of marketing infrastructure
High competition
Marketing insecurity leads to low profitability
Labour scarcity
Difficult in getting quality input
++++
++
-
+
++++
+++
++
+
-
++++
124
In Nannari and Kokum, there are several product specific concerns raised by the
producers are given hereunder:
Nannari: Constraints in production and marketing
Prolonged time for preparation 7-8 hours and heat. Heavy weight of glass bottles
and plastic bottling spoils the product. Price difference of raw materials. Consumer base
is low and seasonal, though you can have it year around. Exposure to prolonged heat
spoils health of the producer.
Other bottled or tetra pack juices abundantly available in the market. Consumers
again looking for natural drinks and climate change. As other soft drinks not safe, sharbat
only remain healthy and effective during summer, now cola drinks are unpopular, every
body asking for nannari sharbat but constraints are in marketing and making them
available.
Kokum: Constraints in production and marketing
Kokum tree is very tall & harvesting is a problem as fruit may get damaged. The
tree starts giving fruit only after 5-6 years. Marketing problem & the pricing of the
product. Production is less, Problem of animals & birds. The price realized is less
compared to other products like areca nut & cashew nut. Fruit has to be collected from
forest, which is difficult. If grown in the fields, plants start giving fruit after 5-6 years,
which is not economical. There is a fear of damage from wild animals & birds.
There is no market outside the kokum growing areas. Production is restricted to only
Dakshina Kannada area & mostly used for home consumption. Hence, there is no
marketing. It is wild species grown mainly in forest areas, this fruit is usually not grown
commercially. Price is low & marketing is also not good.
In Buransh, less and no timely availability of raw material have been felt as a big
constraint in production.
125
5.1: Inspection, quality control at various stages of production
About 80% of Kokum producers and 22% of Nannari producers believe that there
is no inspection and quality control mechanism. If available, it is either on field
production level, harvesting level at field or processing or grading level. In Nannari, it is
mostly at processing or grading level followed by at harvesting level. In Kokum, it is
either at production or harvesting level at field. In Buraansh, it is mostly at production
level followed by at harvesting, processing and grading level (Fig.7.12 & Table-7.12).
The institutional stakeholders’ view in this regard is also disturbing. In case of
Nannari, Kokum, and Buraansh 25%, 33% and 50% of stakeholders believe that there is
no formal method of inspection and quality control (Fig.7.27). With regard to on site
advice and inspection 50% of stakeholders in Nannari and Buraansh and 33% in Kokum
believe that it is given and can be treated as method of inspection and control. The other
form of quality control and inspection is providing extension training and group
communication (Table-7.27).
5.2: Govt defined quality assurance methods and advice given for quality
improvement
As presented in figure 7.28 most of the institutional stakeholders believe that
there is no method of quality assurance as defined by the government. Mostly the
methods of quality assurance are adopted by the producers at the level of regulated raw
material testing and the core is approximately same all across the products (Table-7.28).
On the matters of advice, out of 18 institutional stakeholders, only 7 have
responded to the question (about 40%) and all of them agree that advice is given directly
on production aspects (Table-9.8)
5.3: Technical guidelines for production codes
Almost all of the producers of Nannari, Kokum and Buraansh agree to the
following statements.
126
-
There are no technical guidelines of government / NGO / producers association,
which are to be followed for the production.
-
The producers have their own guidelines, which they have learnt from their
forefathers (Table-7.18).
Observation
Production as per technical guidelines- of govt. dept
Production as per technical guidelines- of NGO
Production as per technical guidelines- producers
association
Nannari
sharbat
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents said NO- N (%)
Kokum
Fruit Buraansh
Juice
Juice
10
10
(100.00)
(100.00)
10
10
(100.00)
(100.00)
10
10
(100.00)
(100.00)
5.4: Maintenance and monitoring of codes of production practices
For the quality control and quality assurance, it is necessary to monitor and
maintain the production codes. But the study reveals that almost all the producers agree
to the following (Table-7.18).
-
There are no production codes, and technical guidelines from government thereof
to follow them.
-
No quality control mechanism available that helps to follow production codes.
-
No regular inspection by Government / NGO / producers association.
-
Quality check by the purchaser is the only parameter that helps to follow
production codes.
-
For maintenance and monitoring of production code, all producers of kokum and
buransh and 80% of nannari agree that they are not any technical guidelines of
government to follow. Therefore there is a producers self control without any
formal mechanism.
-
For maintenance and monitoring of production code, all producers of nnnari,
kokum and buransh agree that there is no quality control mechanism available,
which allow them to maintain or monitor those codes.
127
5.5: Traders’ view to maintain product quality
The traders had a clear view that product quality can be maintained if practiced
certain good practices at production, processing and market yard. For comprehensive
description for GI type IV, refer chapter 11 and table 11.48.
6.1: Presumed results of non-registration
The producers are explained the benefit of registration after getting the information
about the benefits of G.I. registration. As presented in table 7.24, the majority producers
agree that non-registration leads to:
-
Low volume of sale
-
Low wages to labour
-
Low profit to producers
-
Difficulty in getting loans but majority (60%) of producers of Kokum do not feel
so.
-
Nannari producers (66%) agree to the sale of fake products, 40% producers of
Kokum also agree to it. But this is not the case with Buraansh as only 12%
producers feel so.
6.2: Expected changes after registration- on market
With regard to expected changes in market the producers agree to that post
registration must lead to:
-
Increase in sale
-
Increase in net price
-
Increase in net profit
-
Expansion of market
-
The producers of Kokum and Buraansh also feel that it would lead to less
competition also. In case of Nannari, only 30% producers believe so.
128
Large majority of the institutional stakeholders also agree to the changes expected by
the producers (Table-9.39) as given below: 1. About 90% or more stakeholders agree that
− Product Quality has standardized/will become standard,
− Product grading has improved /will improve,
− Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers only,
− Income of producers has increased/will increase,
− Income of traders has increased/will increase,
− Number of producers has increased/will increase,
− Producers are producing/will produce more,
− Price of the product has increased/will increase
About 75% of institutional stakeholders agree on ‘Overall improvement in socioeconomic conditions of producers’. And about 44% of institutional stakeholders agree on
‘Producers have shifted/will shift from other livelihood activities’
6.3: Expected changes after registration- enhanced premium as expected by
producers and traders
Refer para 9.3
6.4: Expected changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
About 80% of producers agree to shift from other livelihood activities, if their
products are registered and protection systems are followed to ensure more benefits.
(Table-7.24). The producers’ statements can be generated as given below:
-
About 80% of Nannari and 20% of Kokum producers may shift from other
livelihood activities.
-
About 80% of Buraansh, 40% of Kokum producers will not shift.
129
-
About 40% of Kokum, 10% of Nannari and 20% of Buraansh producers are not in
a position to decide.
-
Except Kokum, all producers feel that it will improve socio-economic conditions.
In case of Kokum only 50% producers believe so.
-
About 44% of stakeholders believe that producers will shift from other livelihood
activities, and 33% say no to it. Further 75% of institutional stakeholders believe
that registration it will improve the socio-economic condition of production, and
to one said ‘no’, about 25% are indecisive (Table-9.39).
6.5: Expected changes after registration- consumers’ expectations
As presented in table-10.1 in chapter 10, the majority of consumers on post
registration changes agree that:
-
Product quality will become standard
-
Product grading will improve
-
Consumer number will increase
6.6: Visualized benefits at time of GI registration
The study for agricultural products is available at the same para number at chapter
9 and table 9.51. Other expectations from producers are listed below:
Nannari: Recognition for producers. Improved family conditions of producers. Product
will be widely accepted as refreshment. Traders or sellers in other cities who take the
nannari from here will pay more & brand awareness will benefit producers.
Kokum: Kokum importance will be published & people will get good health drink. Price
of the kokum will increase. Market will be opened for kokum in areas where kokum can’t
be grown. There is a chance to create a market outside the state & in other countries.
Buransh: It will generate employment and increase living standards.
130
7.1: Duplicates and similar products
For Nannari, 60% producers feel that similar products are sold with same name,
while 40% could not say anything. For Kokum, all producers feel that there are no similar
products sold with same name, while 90% of Buraansh producers also feel so (Table7.18). The response is partly true because Nannari sharbat is produced and sold in
restaurants at Delhi also, but this is not the case yet with other products.
In GI type IV. About 40% institutional stakeholders believe that duplicates are
available, while same number believes that these are not available (Table-9.22). Theses
institutional stakeholders have also suggested ways and means to face presence of
duplicates and copy type in the market (Table-9.24).
About 31% of traders believe that duplicates are available, 31% believe that
inferior quality of duplicates are available and 31% said that there are no duplicates in the
market (Table-11.9).
When we study the attitude of consumers towards purchasing the product, it is found that
-
Mostly traditional character led consumer to purchase, except Nannari, where
quality assurance also played significant role.
-
Only 20% of consumers attracted due to reasonable price.
Consumers want traditional characters and quality assurance, therefore, duplicates
to be avoided. (Table-7.29).
7.2: Consumers’ efforts to purchase genuine product.
Refer chapter 10
131
7.3: Competition- types and sources
Nannari, Kokum and Buraansh, 60, 89 and 90% producers respectively feel that
there is no significant competition to the product (Table-7.18), while most (62%)
institutional stakeholders feel that competition is from similar products produced in other
areas of the country (Table-9.17); same is the view held by the traders as 66% of traders
feel so (Table-11.11).
7.4: Import of similar product and difference between imported and domestic
product
All the interviewed institutional stakeholders express that there is no import of
these products. (Table-9.26). Similarly traders are also not aware, only one respondent
answered the question saying no imports (Table-11.14).
7.5: Import of the products
No imports (Table-9.19)
7.6: Export and trade option of the products
For Nannari and Kokum producers feel that product is suitable for domestic
consumption in other states of the country and export must be last resort. (Table-11.45).
They further feel that strategy should be developed, which preferably boost the domestic
sale, strategies for export can be after this (Table-11.47).
9.1: Willingness for registration and payment thereof
Almost all the producers of these products are willing for registration of product
and willing to pay for its registration, except in case of Buraansh, where only 60% are
willing to pay for it (Table-7.24). Most producers of al these products are willing to pay
132
Rs. 500/- (Fig.7.25). Some kokum and buraansh producers are willing to pay Rs. 1000/-,
and for nannari some are willing to pay even more than Rs 1000/- (Table-7.25). About
72% consumers are also willing for registration, rest of them are not clear about it, but no
one said ‘no’ for registration. (Table-10.1).
9.3: Willingness to pay for expected enhanced premium
After registration, almost all the producers expect enhanced premiums to
producers, except in case of Buraansh, where 20% respondents are not able to say
anything about it. (Table-7.24). But how much enhanced premium they expect. Mostly
they expect some premium up to 5% fairly about 5 – 10%. The nannari producers expects
high premium (Table-7.26).
The enhanced premium will be borne by either consumers or traders. As a post
registration effect (Table-10.13), only 60% of consumers are wiling to pay more. But
how much more can they pay? Mostly they are willing to pay 5 – 10% more over the
prevailing price (Table-7.31).
Traders are the most important component of supply chain. All of Nannari traders
and 40% of Kokum traders feel that as a post registration effect, enhanced premium
should be available to producers and traders (Table-7.32). But, how much increase over
prevailing cost? Kokum traders feel up to 15% increase, while Nannari traders wish to
have little more i.e. 10 – 15% or even more. (Table-7.33). Once the enhanced premium is
agreed, the traders would be willing to increase the prices. But how much? Kokum
traders agree for increase between 5 to 10% but Nannari traders look for higher increase
i.e. 10 – 15% or beyond (Table-7.34).
10.1: Production characteristics
As felt by 80% of producers, the trend of production in last three years is
increasing for Nannari and Kokum. In case of Buraansh 90% producers feel that it is
stationery (Table-5.37). Majority of producers of Nannari and Kokum producers feel that
no one has discontinued the production. In case of Kokum majority of producers feel that
133
few more have also started the production of the product (Table-5.38). Other responses
from producers are reproduced below:
Nannari: Other bottled or tetra pack juices abundantly available in the market.
Consumers again looking for natural drinks and climate change. As other soft drinks not
safe, sharbat only remain healthy and effective during summer, now instead of cola
drinks people love to have nannari sharbat. Thus trend is increasing.
Buransh: Trend of marketing and the production in last 3 years is increasing. Kokum is
getting good publicity & peoples are becoming aware of kokum juice. Unless and until
good publicity is not given the demand for fruit will not increase. People are becoming
aware about the medicinal value of product and they are starting growing in the farms at
small scale.
10.2: Production constraints
Main constraints are different in all the three products as given in figure 7.23. For
details refer to table-7.23. The remarks of the producers are given on para 4.11 also.
10.3: Earnings and income
The earnings from the enterprise are average, except in case of Nannari, where
55% respondents feel that earnings are good (Table-7.16). The reasons of average income
are given below.
Nannari: Reasons for average or poor earning from enterprise
New generation goes for brand drinks; only old and known people prefer it. Less sales
coupled with competition from branded cool drinks. As it is seasonal for three months
only, enough income to be generated to take care of other nine months.
Kokum: Reasons for average or poor earning from enterprise
Market is there only in kokum growing areas, outside that areas market is not there. Only
Dakishna kannada people are using this product. This is not extended to other parts. The
134
season is only 3-4 months. It doesn't have good market value; yield also less because it is
not grown in large scale. Further it is not like other branded and commercial cool drinks,
therefore difficulty in increasing earning from this product.
In buransh juice, the unavailability of raw materials has been quoted as a reason
for average or poor income.
But 93% of producers feel that if better marketing infrastructure and improved
marketing outlets are available, there is a scope of increasing income (Table-7.14). The
requirements for increasing earning differ for all the three products (Table-7.17). Those,
who feel that it cannot increase the income despite providing it because these drinks are
not the commercial drinks as others available in the market. The traders in this category
of product are mostly satisfied with the current earning (Table-11.8).
10.4: Financial and infrastructure needs- for increasing production
Almost all the producers agree that adequate finance and better marketing can
lead to increased production; almost all the producers have capacity to improve the
production (Fig.7.14 & Table-7.14). The type of assistance required for enhancing the
production is different in all the three products (Table-7.15). A few, who could not
increase the production, cite the reason of lack of technology, which help in better and
faster production.
10.5: Awareness of producers and stakeholders about GI
All the producers are aware that uniqueness of the product is due to geographical
origin. In case of Nannari and Kokum 80% and 70% producers were aware of that
product can be protected as a G.I. but in case of Buraansh no producer was aware of that.
Interestingly in nannari only two producer (20%) and in kokum eight producer (80%)
admitted that they did not know the status of registration status of the product, in buransh
all said they can not say anything. The reason of more awareness in the producers of
Nannari and Kokum can be the G.I. registration activities for other products taken in A.P.
and Karnataka. But almost all the producers in case of Buraansh and Nannari were not
135
aware of status of their products (Table-7.18). But in Kokum, the knowledge is not
available. The knowledge about the other issues related to post registration effects was
good among Nannari and Kokum producers but almost nil in case of Buraansh producers
(Table-7.18).
Awareness among the institutional stakeholders was good, as almost all
respondents know about GI registration. (Table-9.35). Awareness among consumers
about uniqueness is very high, but about G.I. registration is very low. (Table-10.1).
10.6: Role of agencies in development and strengthening of producers’ associations
Almost all the producers made it a point that there is no producers’ association
and they are not the members of any such association also. This is a gray area in G.I.
protection, maintenance and use of GI. All the producers of nannari, kokum and buransh
agree there is no producers’ association or marketing group, and they are not member of
any such organization.
10.8: Future prospects of the product
All the institutional stakeholders of Nannari and Buraansh feel that the future of
product is bright and likely to improve in future. The institutional stakeholders of Kokum
are divided on the issue about 50% feel it will remain same and 50% feel it will improve
in future. (Table-9.34). The consumers see the future of those products as very bright or
bright with future improvement (Table-10.21). Significant number of traders (80 – 100%)
also see the future of these products as bright and which is likely to improve in future
(Table-11.27).
10.9: Constructive measures to make production viable and improve future
prospects
Refer chapter 9, and 11
136
10.10: Status of marketing and suggestions for improvement
Refer chapter 9, and 11
10.11: Suggestions for improvement to increase sale
The consumers have given various suggestions for improving sales. The most
important are more publicity to the product and making innovative changes keeping the
base of traditional structure (Fig.7.30). Also see table-7.30 for details.
10.12: Scientific endeavors in product development
Refer chapter 9
10.13: Endeavors by depts. and agencies responsible or concerned with GI
registration
Refer chapter 9
10.14: Endeavors by financial institutions
Refer chapter 9
11.1: Current level of protection, drawback, enforcement problems
Refer chapter 9
11.2: Problems and bottlenecks related to acquisition and maintenance of GI
Refer chapter 9
11.3: Identification of beneficiaries
Refer chapter 9
Indigenous Technical Knowledge: cases of unexploited products with high trade
potential- Figures
137
Average expenditure Rs (%)
60
Figure-7.4: Monthly expenditure pattern of producers of ITK
products
50
Food Expenses
40
Health
30
Education
20
Others
10
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
Fig-7.5: Contribution of different sources in
net annual income of producers of ITK products
Agriculture, horticulture,
plantation, forestry
80
Livestock, poultry, fishing
Average Income Rs (%)
70
60
Trading
50
40
Other enterprises
30
Wage/Salary income
20
10
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit
Juice
Buraansh Juice
Other income (pensions,
property, remittance
received)
Fig-7.6: Pattern of household value of assets of
producers of ITK products
90
Land (including water
tanks, ponds)
80
Building
70
Machinery, implements
60
50
Transport equipments
40
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
30
20
Other assets
10
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit
Juice
Buraansh Juice
Livestock Resources (Cow,
Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Fig – 7.12: Methods of inspection and quality control used at
various stages of production in ITK products enterprises
90
80
Respondent- N (%)
Average Income Rs (%)
138
No inspection &
quality control
70
60
Production level
on field
50
40
Harvesting level on
field
30
20
Processing &
grading level
10
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit
Juice
Buraansh Juice
139
Respondents Agree – N (%)
120
Fig-7.14: Financial and infrastructure needs
of producers of ITK products
100
Adequate finance from
financial institutions can
increase the production
Better marketing can
increase the production
80
60
Producers have the
capacity to improve
production if marketing
outlets are improved
Scope for increasing
production
40
20
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit
Juice
Buraansh Juice
Respondents- N (%)
Fig-7.19: Mode of sale of ITK products by producers
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Mahajan
Middlemen
Govt. agency
Cooperative society
Exporters
Wholesalers
Selling to local shops; local
consumers or in the local market
Processing agency
Others
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
140
Fig-7.22: Price decision of producers over
the sale of ITK products
Bargain collectively
110
100
Respondents- N (%)
90
Bargain individually
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit
Juice
Buraansh Juice
Sale on minimum
agreed price between
our association and
purchasers
The purchaser offers
us a price to which we
usually agree
Fig-7.23: Producers’ constraints in production and
m arketing of ITK products
80
Hindrances from
agronomic/ natural factors
Low marketing
infrastructure
Lack of proper government
policy & assistance
No constraints
70
Labour scarcity
110
100
Respondents- N (%)
90
60
High competition
50
Difficulty in getting quality
inputs
Product specific concerns
40
30
20
10
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
Market insecurity leading
to low profitability
Improper marketing
services
141
100
Fig-7.25: Willingness of producers to pay for
GI registration of ITK products
Respondents N (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nannari sharbat
500
Kokum Fruit Juice
1000
2000
Buraansh Juice*
3000
Fig-7.27: Method of inspection and quality control of ITK products as
advised by institutional stakeholders
60
Respondents N (%)
50
No formal method
of inspection and
quality control
Extension, training
and group
communication
On-site advice and
inspection
40
30
20
10
0
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
142
90
Fig-7.28: Methods of governm ent defined quality
assurance in ITK products
Respondents N (%)
80
No quality
assurance
70
60
50
Producers’
regulated raw
material
testing
40
30
20
10
0
Nannari
sharbat
Kokum Fruit
Juice
Buraansh
Juice
Fig-7.30: Consum ers’ suggestions for the areas
of im provem ent in ITK products under study
60
Innovative changes to
be made keeping
traditional base
Price to be controlled
and kept within
reasonable limits
Easy availability
assured
50
Respondents N (%)
Quality to be
standardized
40
30
20
10
More publicity
required
0
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit
Juice
Buraansh Juice
Others
143
Chapter 8
Analytical Profile of Products Involving Registered GI: opinion of
stakeholders
This chapter provides the detailed study of three products that were registered at the time
of survey under the project. These products are:
1. Chennapatna toys- wooden colourful decorative toys made at Chennapatana
village near Mysore in Karnataka
2. Srikalahasti kalamkari- free hand painting on cotton clothing done at Srikalahasti
village near Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh
3. Coorg orange- a well known mandarin cultivated in Coorg region in Karnataka
A. Socio-economic profile
Producers of Chennapatna toys
1.1: Livelihood and social groups
All the ten producers belong to non-agricultural enterprise. From social grouping
point of view 10% belong to SC and 90% to OBC.
1.2: Household particulars
There are 49 family members in 10 households. Out of this 27 (55%) are male and
22 (45%) are female. The average age of males is 26.0 years and of female is 19.3 years.
While the average of both male and female is 22.6 years. As far as education level is
concerned, highest number (47%) are educated up to primary level; Higher secondary
(6.7%) and 10% are Graduate and above (Table-8.1). The literacy level is high among
144
males. Table-8.2 presents the skill level of the producers. Out of total 49 family members,
46 are reported to have some skill and all have acquired the skill traditionally in the
family. For the usual activity of family members, out of the 46 reported members, all are
self-employed (Table-8.3).
1.3: Housing particulars
-
Out of 9 reported households, 44% have their own and 56% live in hired dwelling
units.
-
Out of 10 reported households 90% live in dwelling units of >150m2 and 10% in
dwelling units of 100-150 m2.
-
Out of 9 reported households, all have independent houses.
-
Out of 10 reported households, 70% live in semi pucca, while 30% live in pucca
houses.
-
Out of 10 reported households all have electricity for lighting.
-
Out of 10 reported households, 80% use firewood, 10% kerosene and 10% LPG
as cooking fuel.
-
Out of 10 reported households, all use tap as source of drinking water.
1.4: Household income-expenditure-asset analysis
As presented in table-8.5, the total annual income is Rs. 65000/- and most of this
comes from salary or wages (Fig.8.5). The details of expenditure of income are given in
fig.8.4, which clearly express that major expenditure is towards food (58%) followed by
education and least expenditure on health (Table-8.4). As presented in table-8.6, the
average value of assets of producers is Rs. 5.59 lakhs per producers but the major share
(98%) is of the buildings (Fig.8.6).
1.5: Welfare indicators
During last month of survey, all the family members got food everyday, all had at
least a pair of footwear and at least two sets of cloth. Ten family members i.e. about 20%
of total family members fallen sick during last moth of survey (Table-8.7). Out of those
145
who fell sick, 20% took no treatment, 40% treated by qualified medical doctor, 20%
treated by unqualified doctor or person and 20% took home treatment (Table-8.8). No
reason is given for not taking treatment. As presented in table-8.9, most of those who
took any treatment (40%) spent Rs. 200-500 or below for treatment.
Producers of Srikalahasti kalamkari
1.1: Livelihood and social groups
All the ten producers belong to non-agricultural enterprise. From social grouping
point of view 50% belong to OBC and rest with others.
1.2: Household particulars
There are 51 family members in 10 households. Out of this 22 (53%) are male and
29 (57%) are female. The average age of males is 29.2 years and of female is 33.8 years.
While the average of both male and female is 31.5 years. As far as education level is
concerned, highest number (38%) are educated up to secondary level; Higher secondary
(19%) and 4.7% are Graduate and above (Table-8.1). The literacy level is high among
males. Table-8.2 presents the skill level of the producers. Out of total 51 family members,
38 reported to have some skill and mostly acquired the skill traditionally in the family or
through formal/informal training. For the usual activity of family members, out of the 42
reported members 26% are self-employed and 29% are unpaid family enterprise workers
(Table-8.3).
1.3: Housing particulars
-
Out of 10 reported households, 80% have their own and 20% live in hired
dwelling units.
-
Out of 10 reported households 30 % live in less than 50 m2, 60% in 50-100 m2
and 10% in ore than 150 m2.
-
Out of 10 reported households, 90% have independent houses and 10% in
chawl/bustee.
146
-
Out of 10 reported households, 10% live in semi pucca, while 90% live in pucca
houses.
-
Out of 10 reported households 90% have electricity for lighting.
-
Out of 10 reported households, 90% use LPG as cooking fuel and 10% use
kerosene.
-
Out of 10 reported households, all use tap as source of drinking water.
1.4: Household income-expenditure-asset analysis
As presented in table-8.5, the total annual income is Rs. 77800/- and most of this
comes from salary or wages (Fig.8.5). The details of expenditure of income are given in
fig.8.4, which clearly express that major expenditure is towards food (71%) followed by
education and least expenditure on health (Table-8.4). As presented in table-8.6, the
average value of assets of producers is Rs. 12.6 lakhs per producers but the major share
(94%) is of the land & buildings (Fig.8.6).
1.5: Welfare indicators
During last month of survey, 85% of the family members got food everyday, had
at least a pair of footwear and at least two sets of cloth. Twelve family members i.e. about
23% of total family members fallen sick during last month of survey (Table-8.7). Out of
those who fell sick, 17% took no treatment, 33% treated by qualified medical doctor,
17% treated by unqualified doctor or person and 33% took home treatment (Table-8.8).
No reason is given for not taking treatment. As presented in table-8.9, most of those who
took any treatment (55%) spent Rs. 500 or below for treatment.
Producers of Coorg orange
1.1: Livelihood and social groups
All the ten producers belong to agricultural enterprise. From social grouping point
of view 10% belong to ST and SC each and 80% to OBC.
147
1.2: Household particulars
There are 45 family members in 10 households. Out of this 22 (49%) are male and
23 (51%) are female. The average age of males is 19.8 years and of female is 25.5 years.
While the average of both male and female is 22.6 years. As far as education level is
concerned, highest number (53%) are educated up to primary level or below; Higher
secondary (11%) and 22% are Graduate and above (Table-8.1). The literacy level is high
among males. Table-8.2 presents the skill level of the producers. Out of total 44 reported
family members, 20 do not have any skill, and other 23 except one have acquired the skill
traditionally in the family. For the usual activity of family members, out of the 45
reported members, 40% are self-employed and 20% each are either students or
pensioners (Table-8.3).
1.3: Housing particulars
-
Out of 10 reported households all live in own dwelling units.
-
Out of 10 reported households 70 % live in more than 150 m2 and 30% live in
dwelling units of 100-150 m2.
-
Out of 10 reported households 80% are independent houses and 20% flats.
-
Out of 10 reported households, 80% live in pucca, while 20% live in semi-pucca
houses.
-
Out of 10 reported households 90% have electricity for lighting 10% use
kerosene.
-
Out of 10 reported households, 50% use LPG, 20% local gobar gas and 10 %
electricity as cooking fuel.
-
Out of 10 reported households, all use tube-well or bore-well as source of
drinking water.
1.4: Household income-expenditure-asset analysis
As presented in table-8.5, the total annual income is Rs. 3.61 lakhs and most of
this comes from either agriculture or trading (Fig.8.5). The details of expenditure of
income are given in fig.8.4, which clearly express that major expenditure is towards food
148
(39%) followed by education and others; the least expenditure is on health (Table-8.4).
As presented in table-8.6, the average value of assets of producers is Rs. 10.0 lakhs per
producers but the major share (80%) is of land and buildings. Unlike other two products,
these have fairly good expenditure on machinery and transport vehicle also (Fig.8.6).
1.5: Welfare indicators
During last month of survey, all the family members got food everyday, all had at
least a pair of footwear and at least two sets of cloth. Nine family members i.e. about
20% of total family members fallen sick during last moth of survey (Table-8.7). Out of
those who fell sick, 22% took no treatment and 78% are treated by qualified medical
doctor (Table-8.8). As presented in table-8.9, most of those who took any treatment
(57%) spent Rs. 200-500, 29% spent Rs 500-1000 and rest 14 spent more than 1000/- for
treatment.
B. Opinion of producers and key stakeholders
2.1 Nature and geographical association
Chennapatana toys
These are variety of products horse, elephant, firki, egg, peacock, train, bus,
rabbit, bangles and necklace etc. The type of wood used for making the product is not
available elsewhere. This wood is specially suited for making the toys products and the
toys are made manually, therefore great role of skill of local persons.
Srikalahasti kalmakari
Artwork and traditional special skill of local population, geographical association
is partly due to use of locally available natural colors and due to specially acquired skills.
149
Coorg orange
Sweet mix sour taste of fruit makes it different in taste from other oranges. Juice
content is high, peel can be easily removed, used in production of squash, juice, biscuits,
chocolate & for cosmetics. Soil characteristic & fertilizer mgmt will influence the taste
(sweet-sour of juice) of the Fruit. Rain for long duration in a year, more humidity low
temp is responsible for more juice content.
2.2: Unique characteristics
Chennapatana toys
Method of product manufacture and type of raw material available locally only.
These are used for decorative purposes and display the traditional cultural identity. If
prepared elsewhere several unique qualities would be lost such as traditional identity.
Uniqueness of producing the product is raw material and manufacturing skill.
Srikalahasti kalmakari
Free hand artistic work on gada (cotton) cloth using natural dyes. The art work
depict mythological events of Hindu epics. The institutional stakeholders also opine the
similar kind of uniqueness e.g free hand style drawings using vegetables dyeing showing
mythological events, climate of Srikalahasthi suitable for many artists therefore they are
located here, drying in sand of Swarnamukhi River imparts color, Swarnamukhi water
gives good color also. If kalamkari prepared elsewhere several unique qualities would be
lost such as use of natural dyes, fine-ness of product and meaning of mythological
pictures etc. Uniqueness of producing the product is free hand drawing of God figures,
use of natural colours and other material such as buffalo milk to color cloth.
Coorg orange
Sweet mix sour, attractive and easily removable peel good keeping quality. If
produced elsewhere several unique qualities would be lost such as size and yield may
decrease, color, juice content, taste and chemical composition may change.
150
2.3: Specialty of production process
Chennapatana toys
Special requirements in the production process are- modern equipment, palm
leaves, sand paper, skilled labour and colorful materials. Producer’s feel to improve the
production process by- adoption of modern technology in the production process with use
of modern machines. The skill plays a greater role and to refine it the requirements arenew machines operating skills, colours filling and final finishing of the product.
Srikalahasti kalmakari
Speciality of the production process are- Buffalo milk is used to soak cloth so as
to turn it into creamy colour, dried on river bed sand of srikalahasti swarnamukhi, use of
myrabolan seeds and flowers to fix colour on cloth. Special requirements in the
production process are- Myrabolan seeds and flowers for making and fixing, toddy pen or
kalam used for making art on cloth, alum gives red colour, myrabolan flowers yellow,
buffalo milk for derning gada cloth, rusted iron and toddy jaggery used to prepare colour
and toddy coal used to outline art, bamboo sticks used to point on cloth. Producer’s feel
to improve the production process by- diversification from traditional mythological
events to new themes based on nature, vegetation and lifestyle etc. The skill plays a
greater role and to refine it the requirements are- free hand artistic paintings on cloths
maintaining symmetry, knowledge of traditional and modern themes.
Coorg orange
Uniqueness of producing the product is standard agronomic practices, fertilizer
management during flowering time.
151
2.4: History of production- in region and by individual
The history of production of the products are given below in the tabular form:
Chennpatana toys
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Coorg orange
Long back (years)
Average number of years as expressed by all respondents
Production in the region
Production by respondents
80
33
58
41
89
68
3.2: Activities-seasonality
Producers’ view
For Chennapatna toys, the months of peak activity are September to December,
while other months of normal activity. For Kalamkari, February to April are the months
of peak activity, while others are months of normal activity (Table-6.8). For Coorg
orange, October to February are peak activity and May to August is lean activity, while
others are normal activity (Table-5.7).
Institutional stakeholders’ view
For sales activity in Chennapatna toys, the months of peak activity are September to
December, while others are months of normal activity. For Kalamkari February to April
are months of peak activity, while others are months of normal activity except October,
which is a lean activity month (Table-9.55). For sales activity in Coorg orange,
November – January are peak activity months, April to June and October are months of
lean activity, while others months are of normal activity (Table-9.54). The comparative
account of production and sales activity of these products along with other products is
presented in table-9.56 and 9.57.
3.6: Resources- physical
The fixed cost of assets of non-agricultural products is given below. The
producers of Chennapatna toys do not have separate production unit. They prepare
mostly at their homes, therefore, the cost of land is more than the Kalamkari. The
producers of Coorg orange have on an average 10.8 acres of level out of which 4.4 acres
152
is un-irrigated. The Coorg average is produced in 41% of irrigated and 32% of unirrigated lands (Table-5.10).
Asset
Land
Building
Machinery, equipments etc.
Cost in Rupees
Chennapatna toy
84000
23500
1250
Sri Kalahasti Kalamkari
27500
23000
4270
3.8: Resources- raw material
As presented in table-6.29, 70% of producers of Chennapatna toys and all
producers of Kalamkari admit that supply of raw material is adequate and regular. About
80% of Coorg orange producers also believe so (Table-5.21)
Chennapatana toys: Raw material mainly wood is purchased locally from timber
merchants based on the size, colour, & consumer demand. Prospects of supply are ok but
it will be good, if supplied through forest department. Product specific concerns are
presented below:
Srikalahasti kalmakari: Cloth is purchased from Chittor or Erode and colours from
Chennai. In local market, the material is definitely a shortage.
Coorg orange: producers collect seedling from Govt. agencies, KVK, co-operative
agencies and private nurseries. A high yielding disease résistance variety is required.
3.9: Quantity and value of production
The quantity, value of production and other parameters are given below in the matrix:
Product
Chennapatna toys
Srikalahasti
kalamkari
Coorg orange
Observation
Quantity produced (No. of pieces)
Total input cost (Rs.)
Per unit cost (Rs.)
Value (Rs.)
Per unit value
Quantity produced (No. of pieces)
Total input cost (Rs.)
Per unit cost (Rs.)
Value (Rs.)
Per unit value
Area/producer (acre)
Production value (Rs.)/Q
Input cost (Rs.) / Q
2004
2070
91800
44.35
68000
32.85
170
50750
298.5
2.70
1956.2
1022
2005
2070
91800
44.35
68000
32.85
257
124800
485.6
2.70
1762.8
1121
2006
2700
91800
34.00
50000
18.52
370
215900
583.5
2.70
2102.9
1163
153
It can be observed from above summary that producers of Chennapatna toys are in
pathetic condition. The cost of production is high, while the value of produce is low.
4.1: Storage methods and problems
In Chennapatna toys most storage is bulk storage and almost all the producers do
not have any storage problem. In case of Kalamkari, most storage source is plastic and
polythene and for 80% the seasonal damage is most important problem, while for 20%
insufficient storage facilities and capacity is a problem (Table-8.11 and 8.12).
How do they store, and what are specific problems? Product specific concerns are
presented below:
Chennapatana toys: In Normal rooms only, stored produces with the help of paperboards
& cart box etc., these are stored in normal conditions, so no problem of storage.
Srikalahasti kalmakari: In plastic covers, easy to store like other cloths. Dry storage away
from sunlight and moisture. If exposed to direct sun, colour will fade, therefore
requirement is to store in dry condition.
4.2: Packing methods and problems
The packaging types are different for the three products (Table-8.13). For
Chennapatna toys, it is metal/machine packing and plastic or polythene bags. For
Kalamkari, it is machine packing only. For Coorg orange, Traditionally fruits are packed
in cardboard, wooden boxes, paper bags, Gunny bags or Polyethylene bags. There are no
packing problem to producers for Chennapatna toys and Kalamkari but deterioration of
packing material is big problem in Coorg orange (Table-8.14). The problems of packing
in Coorg orange are- Packaging material may damage during transportation, exchange of
moisture with the surroundings. Cardboards won't provide sufficient protection. Disease
attack at the storage, rainfall & pest attack.
154
4.3: Grading methods
In case of Coorg orange, the grading is mostly on the basis of physical traits only.
While in Chennapatna toys and Kalamkari the equal weightage is given to physical and
qualitative traits (Table-8.16).
4.4: Mode of sale and satisfaction level
The mode of sale is through various means (Table-8.21), but middlemen either
directly as commission agent or as wholesaler or exporter are the mostly available means
of marketing. The direct middlemen and exporters are most active in Chennapatna toys,
while wholesaler in Kalamkari. For Coorg orange, the mode of sale is distributed to
various channels including processing agency, government agency or cooperative society
(Fig.8.21).
Except Chennapatna toys, where 70% producers are satisfied with the mode of
sale, other producers (70 – 75%) in other two products are not satisfied with the mode of
sale (Table-8.22). What are the reasons of un-satisfaction over the mode of sale. Various
reasons have been listed by the producers (Table-8.23) but the most important are:
-
Intervention and control by middlemen in Chennapatna toys
-
Insufficient institutional support in Coorg orange
-
Low profit from venture in Kalamkari, it may be due to large scale presence of
wholesalers
In Chennapatana toys, the producers are satisfied with present mode of sale but in
other two products the producers are not satisfied because of several reasons, some of
specific reasons are recorded here:
Reasons of un-satisfaction in kalamkari: Workers getting low income where as
middlemen are getting high income. Srikalahasti is located in remote area hence less
direct sales. Government emporium and stalls like Lepakshi are not present in all towns.
155
Reasons of un-satisfaction in Coorg orange: Good market is not there for produce and
storage facilities are also not there. Export market should be improved.
4.9: Price decision and trend of unit price
Method and capacity of bargain is directly proportional to the profit from the venture.
About 40 – 50% producers of Kalamkari and Coorg orange admit of collective
bargaining, but only 25% of producers of Chennapatna toys do so. Other important
features as presented in table-8.24 are:
-
Individual bargain is prominent in Chennapatna toys
-
Sale to minimum agreed price between associates and purchase is found only in
Coorg orange
-
Significant (50%) number of producers in Chennapatna toys and moderate (20 –
25%) number of producers of Kalamkari and Coorg orange believe that they
usually agree to a price offered by purchaser
Forced sale means ‘Purchaser offers a price to which producers are forced to sale
without any other choice’. And it is mostly (admitted by 20% producers) found in
Kalamkari only. But most consumers except in case of Coorg orange bargain for the price
(Table-8.41). As presented in Table-6.47 and 5.42, the unit price of the products are as
given below:
Product
Chennapatna toys
Sri Kalahasti
Kalamkari saree
Coorg orange (Per/kg)
Average unit price (Rs.)
2004
2005
9.0
10.7
4150
4750
2006
12.5
1840
24.6
33.8
29.2
It can be said the Coorg orange producers have been in very comfortable
situation. The rates in case of Chennapatna toys are increasing but they were quite low.
The prices of Sri Kalahasti Kalamkari were decreasing since last three years.
156
4.11: Constraints in production and marketing
There are several constraints in production and marketing of the products. As detailed
in table-8.25, the following issues are the major issues with respect to each product.
-
High competition is most important hindrance in production and marketing
of Chennapatna toys
-
Tedious, time consuming and labour intensive process in Kalamkari is the most
important hindrance, the other hindrances are high temperature and rainy season.
-
In Coorg orange, agronomic limitations and low marketing infrastructure with
equal importance to each are the major constraints in production and marketing
The specific constraints as narrated by the producers are:
Chennapatana toys: Competition of the products from China, poor advertisement,
absence of improved online based marketing, power shortage for the production & less
availability of colour filling materials.
Srikalahasti kalamkari: Costly product therefore less number of purchasers it can be
purchased only by rich people, scarcity of artists, water scarcity in swarnamukhi river,
and pollution of sand bed.
Coorg orange: lack of marketing facilities, varieties are not resistant to diseases, citrus
greening decreases the yield of orange, lack of storage facility, lack of transportation
facility.
high rainfall during flowering & harvesting is a problem. In rainy season harvesting is a
problem. Lack of disease resistant variety and knowledge of fertilizer management and
other modern agronomic management practices.
5.1: Inspection, quality control at various stages of production
Producers’ view
157
All the producers of Chennapatna toys and Kalamkari and 80% producers of
Coorg orange believe that whatever methods of inspection and quality control, these are
at production level only. It means producers only have to take care of them with full
responsibility (Table-8.15).
Institutional stakeholders’ view
As presented in table-8.31, the institutional stakeholders also support, the view of
producers in following way:
-
In Coorg orange formal methods and on-site inspection is available
-
In Kalamkari, the quality management left to producers only
-
In Chennapatna toys, few believe that training is imparted along with on-site
inspection
5.2: Govt defined quality assurance methods and advice given for quality
improvement
As presented in table-8.32, the institutional stakeholders believe that other than
Coorg orange, there is no method of quality assurance from government side. In Coorg
orange, the producers need to have certain mandatory and voluntary standards (Fig.8.32).
5.3: Technical guidelines for production codes
About 70 - 90% producers believe that they produce as per self-guidelines learnt from
forefathers. As detailed in table-8.20, the following statements can be generalized.
-
80% producers of Coorg orange and 20% of Chennapatna toys admit that
production is as per technical guidelines of government departments.
-
20% producers of Coorg orange and 30% of Chennapatna toys admit that
production is as per technical guidelines of an NGO.
-
Almost all in all three products, the producers agree that production is as per
technical guidelines of producers association.
158
5.4: Maintenance and monitoring of codes of production practices
If the production has the technical guidelines, then it must have a mechanism of
production code, which must be maintained and monitored. As explained in table-8-20,
except in Coorg orange, the production codes are either monitored and maintained by
producers through self control mechanism without any formal mechanism, or these are
maintained due to quality check by the producers.
7.1: Duplicates and similar products
In these products, the similar products, which are not genuine, are not sold
mostly. Only 20% producers in Chennapatna toys and 10% in Kalamkari believe that
these are sold. Kalamkari believe that these are sold (Table-8.20). Further, all the
consumers in all these products purchase them due to their traditional character only
(Table-8.35). Therefore, any effort of duplicity or confusion to consumers must be
avoided through several means such as enforcement of registered GI.
7.2: Consumers’ efforts to purchase genuine product
The consumers try to take several steps for purchase of genuine product. These
are given below as available in table-10.20 also, in a preferred manner from 1 to 4, where
1 is the first preferred method and 4 is the last preferred method.
Chennapatna toys
1. See label
2. Go to authorized/ reliable/reputed shop
3. Get authentic receipt
4. Go to government shop
Kalamkari
1. Get authentic receipt
2. See label
3. Go to government shop
4. Go to authorized / reliable / reputed shop
7.3: Competition- types and sources
About 70 – 80% producers of Chennapatna toys and Coorg orange producers feel
that there is a significant competition and this competition is from other domestic
products similar to these products. There is not much competition felt for Kalamkari
(Table-8.20).
159
7.6: Export and trade option of the products
The traders have given their opinion about trade suitability of the product. As
given in table-11.45, the following are prioritized suitability (1-top, 4-last) for each
product.
Trade option
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption
including other states also
It is suited for export to other countries
Chennapatna toys
4
3
1
Kalamkari
4
3
1
Coorg orange
3
2
1
2
2
4
Here it is clear that for these products, the top-most trade suitability is domestic
consumption, therefore efforts to be done to enhance domestic sales. The traders have
also given their views about that what must be a preferred approach for trade of the
product. As tabulated in tabe-11.47, the topmost of four prioritized options are given
below:
¾ Chennapatna toys: Equal preference to be given for both domestic and export
¾ Kalamkari: Preference must be given for export than the domestic sales
¾ Coorg orange: It is neither suited for export nor domestic sale. Therefore, it can be
sold in the state or neighbouring areas.
8.1: Observed changes after registration- on market
Several producers have observed post registration changes i.e. 70, 80 and 20% of
producers of Chennapatna toys, Kalamkari and Coorg orange respectively. But increase
in annual production is observed by 30% of Coorg orange producers and 20% of
Kalamkari producers (Table-8.27). The increase in net profit, less competition have been
observed by only about 10% producers in each product. The market expansion have been
observed by 70 – 80% producers (Table-8.27). But there is no evidentiary proof available
that it has occurred due to GI registration, in these products not any legal or infringement
action has been found, which could support the post registration changes. Of course the
registration has given more publicity to the product.
160
8.2: Observed changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
There was no change observed on either shift from other livelihoods to RGI
product or any improvement in overall socio-economic conditions of producers (Table8.27).
8.3: Observed changes after registration- enhanced premium felt by producers
As presented in table-8.28, there was no change as far as enhanced premium to
the producers is concerned because 80 – 90% of the producers say ‘no’ to it (Fig.8.28).
Those meager number of producers (1 or 2) who said premium is enhanced, they also
admit that it was 0-5% only (Table-8.29).
9.1: Willingness for registration and payment thereof
The producers are willing to pay for registration of GI. It constitutes 80% of
Chennapatna toys producers, 90% of Coorg orange and 10% of Kalamkari producers
(Table-8.26). It is worth note these products are already registered but still the producers
need to be registered as authorized users and fees for that is also Rs. 500/-.
9.2: Money paid by producers for registration
No producer has paid money for registration (Table-8.27).
9.3: Willingness to pay for expected enhanced premium
What was the expectation of the producers as far as post-registration effect is
concerned? All Kalamkari producers had expectation of enhanced premium to them over
prevailing cost by 0 – 5%. About 70% of Chennapatna toys and 80% of Coorg orange
producers expected enhancement between 5 – 10%. No one except one Coorg orange
producer expected more than 10% (Fig.8.30). But would the consumer pay this expected
premium? As detailed in table-8.37, they are ready to pay it but mostly agree to 0 – 5%
premium over prevailing price and a few agree up to 5 – 10% also (Fig.8.37).
161
How the traders react to this expected premium? Mostly, except the traders of
Coorg orange agree to it (Table-8.38). But their expectation is also mostly between 0 –
5% but not more than 10% in any case (Table-8.39). As far as enhancement over their
prevailing price is concerned, they also expect enhancement of 0 – 5% mostly (Table8.40). It can, therefore, be said that as a post registration impact, there shall be an
increase of 10 – 15% on purchase price of the consumers. This neither has happened nor
consumers are willing to pay so much. Consumers are willing to pay mostly up to 5%
increase only.
10.1: Production characteristics
As per information available in table-6.42, the production trend is increasing in
Chennapatna toys and Kalamkari. Regarding the product associate-ship of the producers,
no one has discontinued the production of GI, rather few more have started producing
Chennapatna toys and several more have started producing Kalamkari (Table-6.43). For
Coorg orange as per the information available in table-5.37 and 5.38 following can be
said:
-
Sixty per cent producers believe that it is stationery and 40% believe that it is
declining
-
Few more have started producing Coorg orange
Regarding Coorg orange, it can be said that area under cultivation is either
stationery or declining but number of producers may probably be increasing.
10.3: Earnings and income
The producers of Chennapatna toys feel that earning is good while the producers
of other two producers do not feel so (Table-8.18). There is no yardstick of good or
average, it is the self-feeling of producers. In case earning in poor, what do they need?
The producers of Chennapatna toys though said earning is good, but have responded to
this question also. It means they are confused what is good or average earning for them
(Table-8.19). If earnings are poor or average what do they need? Their requirements as
162
explained by themselves in figure-8.19 are mostly related to financial and marketing
assistance.
10.4: Financial and infrastructure needs- for increasing production
The financial and infrastructure needs of the producers are given in table-8.17.
Almost all the producers need adequate marketing and better marketing (Fig.8.17). If
these are provided almost all the producers of Chennapatna toys and Sri Kalahasti
Kalamkari and 90% of Coorg orange producers have scope and capacity to improve the
production (Fig.8.17).
If, they have the capacity to improve the production, what they need then? As
presented in table-8.10, mostly the producers need financial and marketing assistance.
About 33% of Chennapatna producers and 19% of Coorg orange producers need supply
of machinery and equipments. While the Coorg orange producers (25%) also need
assistance in getting quality inputs also (Fig.8.10). Product specific concerns are
presented below:
Chennapatana toys: If marketing infrastructure is improved, sale of toys will increase and
there by increase the standard of living of the producers. Marketing can be done through
exhibitions, emporium, online based marketing etc.
Kalamkari: Organising more exhibitions, paying TA / DA to artists and marketing at
foreign fairs. More publicity through media, allotment of counters at temple towns viz.
Kanipakam, Tirumala, Tirupati and organising more exhibitions.
Coorg orange: High yielding and disease résistance variety should be developed and
supplied
10.5: Awareness of producers and stakeholders about GI
The knowledge level of producers of various products is presented in the matrix.
In addition to producers, what is the awareness level of institutional stakeholders about
the products, quality, reputation and other characteristics attributed to geographical
163
origin? And for this question no stakeholder said ‘no’ to it. It means all are aware about
the product (Table-9.35).
Parameters agreed by the producers
Uniqueness due to geographical origin
Knowledge that product can be protected as GI
Knowledge of post registration effects- authority to use
product name by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction to
produce within registered geographical area
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction on
trader to sell product produced by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- traders can be
sued in court of law
Knowledge of post registration effects- higher market
value as a community monopoly
Status of registration of product as GI
Percent respondents agree
Chennapatna
Srikalhasti
toys
kalamkari
70.00
70.00
60.00
10.00
60.00
10.00
Coorg
orange
80.00
(30.00
(90.00
40.00
10.00
100.00
0
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
100.00
80.00
0
70.00
10.6: Role of agencies in development and strengthening of producers’ associations
In all the three products, the producers’ association are available and 60%
producers in Chennapatna toys, 70% in Coorg orange and all in Kalamkari are the
members of such associations.
10.8: Future prospects of the product
Knowing about the future prospect of the product is very important. The key
stakeholders would be able to give some clue about it.
Product
Chennapatna
toys
Kalamkari
Opinion of most stakeholders
Institutional
stakeholders Consumers
(Table-9.34)
(Table-10.21)
Bright and likely to improve Bright and likely to
improve
Bright and likely to improve Very bright
Coorg orange
Bright and likely to improve
Stationery
Traders
(Table-11.27)
Bright and likely to
improve
Bright and likely to
improve
Stationery
It can be said that all the stakeholders are in agreement except for Coorg orange, where
consumers and traders feel the situation would remain same.
164
10.11: Suggestions for improvement to increase sale
The consumers are the best judges for improvement of the product. They have
given several suggestions for improvement of product (Table-8.36). These suggestions
are as following.
1. Quality to be standardized
2. Innovative changes to be made keeping traditional base
3. Price to be controlled and kept within reasonable limits
4. Easy availability assured
5. More publicity required
The Chennapatna toys need improvement with equal efforts in all of five
suggested areas. For Kalamkari most improvements required in 2 and 5 and in Coorg
orange most efforts are required in 4 (Fig.8.36).
11.2: Problems and bottlenecks related to acquisition and maintenance of GI
The question of identifying the problems faced by institutional stakeholders in
obtaining the GI was quite embarrassing for them. There were two reasons, the
interviewed stakeholders though belong to agency responsible but are not connected
directly, and secondly it seems there were not much problems in obtaining GI registration
because of following:
-
GI office is very amicable towards granting registration and administration is very
friendly
-
Products have not faced any opposition except some problem in kalamkari due to
claimants from Machilipatnam area (in AP only) also
-
Providing the list of producers is not compulsory and mandatory. In most cases,
no producers’ list has been appended.
165
-
Establishment of the claim of uniqueness has not been a difficult task at the level
of producers or those who claim a GI. There are several facts to support this
statement and one of them is that no rigorous scientific exercise and
experimentation have been done to establish the uniqueness of the products.
Therefore, as presented in table-8.33, in most cases, out of six interviewed
institutional stakeholders, many of them have expressed ‘can’t say’ or none’, only few
stakeholders said there is a dilemma at producers level because their ignorance about the
new law is a biggest hindrance in convincing them about the fruits of registered GI. In
some cases like Kalamkari, the technical and administrative needs of GI registration were
the main problems.
After registration, there is a question about constraints faced by institutional
stakeholders in maintenance of GI product. In this also, there is a great confusion about
the post registration role of institutional stakeholders. In most of the cases, they believe
that as soon as registration is done, their role is complete and target achieved. Therefore,
as presented in table-8.34 either they can’t say anything or they do not have any
constraint. All has said this. In Kalamkari all said maintenance of quality is the
constraints. But in maintenance and monitoring of GI, these are more than that. It can
therefore be said that institutional stakeholders are in mood to relieve them from the post
registration responsibilities. Also they need to be educated about their future role for
maintenance and monitoring of a GI, to which they are almost unaware.
166
Analytical Profile of Products Involving Registered GI: opinion of
stakeholders- Figures
Average expenditure- Rs (%)
Fig-8.4: Monthly expenditure pattern of
producers of RGI products
80
70
Food Expenses
60
50
Health
40
30
Education
20
Others
10
0
Chennapatna
Toys
Average Income- Rs (%)
90
Srikalahasthi Coorg Orange
kalamkari
Fig-8.5: Contribution of different sources in net annual
incom e of producers of RGI products
Agriculture,
horticulture,
plantation, forestry
Livestock, poultry,
fishing
80
70
60
Trading
50
40
30
Other enterprises
20
10
Wage/Salary income
0
Chennapatna
Toys
Srikalahasthi
kalamkari
Coorg Orange
Other income
167
100
F ig- 8 .6 : P a t t e rn o f ho us e ho ld v a lue o f a s s e t s o f pro duc e rs
o f R G I pro duc t s
Average Value Rs (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Chennapatna Toys
Srikalahasthi
kalamkari
Coorg Orange
Land (including water tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Respondents –N (%)
Fig-8.10: If capacity to im prove the production is available - type
of assistance required for increasing the production of
RGI products
Financial assistance
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Assistance in supply
of machinery &
equipments
Assistance in getting
seeds, fertilizers etc
Marketing assistance
Chennapatna
toys
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
Coorg orange
168
Fig-8.17: Financial and infrastructure needs of
producers of RGI products
105
Respondents-N (%)
100
95
90
85
80
Chennapatna
toys
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
Coorg orange
Adequate finance from
financial institutions
can increase the
production
Better marketing can
increase the production
Producers have the
capacity to improve
production if marketing
outlets are improved
Scope for increasing
production
Respondents-N (%)
Fig-8.19: If earning is average or poor - type of assistance
required for increasing incom e from
the RGI products enterprise
Financial assistance
60
50
Assistance in supply
of machinery &
equipments
Assistance in getting
seeds, fertilizers etc
40
30
20
10
0
Chennapatna
toys
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
Coorg orange
Marketing
assistance
Respondents-N (%)
Fig-8.21: Mode of sale of RGI products by producers
40
Mahajan
35
Middlemen
30
Govt. agency
25
Cooperative society
20
Exporters
15
Wholesalers
10
Selling to local shops; local
consumers or in the local market
Processing agency
5
0
Chennapatna toys
Srikalhasti kalamkari
Coorg orange
169
Respondents-N (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fig-8.28: Producer’s response w hether after
registration of RGI products, the prem ium to the
producers has increased
Yes
No
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna
toys
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
Coorg orange
Fig-8.30: Enhanced prem ium to the producers
over the prevailing cost after GI registration of
the RGI products
0-5
5-10
10-15
Chennapatna
toys
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
Coorg
orange
Fig-8.32: Methods of governm ent defined
quality assurance in RGI products
Respondents-N (%)
120
100
No formal quality
assurance
Producers’ regulated
raw material testing
80
60
Quality check for
exports
40
20
0
Chennapatna
toys
Srikalahasti
kalamkari
Coorg
Orange
Regulating compliance
for mandatory and
voluntary standards
170
Respondents-N (%)
Fig-8.36: Consum ers’ suggestions for the areas of
im provem ent in RGI products under study
Quality to be
45
standardized
40
35
Innovative changes to
30
be made keeping
25
traditional base
20
Price to be controlled
15
and kept within
10
reasonable limits
Easy availability
5
assured
0
Chennapatna Srikalahasti Coorg Orange
More publicity required
toys
kalamkari
Enhance premium (%)
Fig-8.37: Preparedness of consum ers to pay
prem ium over the prevailing price for registered
RGI products
70
60
50
0-5
40
30
5-10
20
10-15
10
0
Chennapatna
toys
Srikalahasti
kalamkari
Coorg
Orange
171
Chapter 9
Opinion, knowledge, role and suggestions of institutional
stakeholders about agricultural and non-agricultural products
As GI is the community patent, therefore, institutional stakeholders are supposed
to play a greater role. For understanding their role, knowledge and also to seek their
opinion and suggestions, 429 stakeholders were interviewed throughout the country in 12
states. As detailed in table-9.1 stakeholders are mostly equally distributed representing
the following categories:
− Govt. Dept./Agencies dealing with product
− Govt. Dept./Agencies responsible for GI registration
− Govt. supported apex bodies
− Private institutions (NGO, SHG, intermediaries)
− Govt./ Pvt. Marketing institutions
− Producers association / formal & informal groups
− Scientific Institutions / knowledgeable persons
− Banks and financial institutions
2.2: Unique characteristics
Out of 429 interviewed stakeholders, 414 were asked to describe those unique
characteristics in the product, which cannot be achieved if produced in other geographical
region. A matter of concern is that about 82% stakeholders in agricultural products and
71% in non-agricultural products provided some information; others could not provide
any information (Table-9.36). It can be said that about 18% distributional stakeholders in
agriculture and 29% in non-agriculture are totally not aware that what unique
characteristics will be lost if produced elsewhere. The information provided by them is
annexed (Table-15.25& 16.29).
172
3.2: Activities-seasonality
A month-wise summary of activities of personnel related to sale of products is
given for each agricultural and non-agricultural product (Table-9.54 &9.55). A
comparative statement of activity chart of production and sale for each product is
provided on table-9.56 for agricultural products and on table-9.57 for non-agricultural
products.
3.4: Resources- persons engaged in organizations
All the institutional stakeholders do not belong to an organization that concern
with marketing / sale of product, but few are related to that kind of work. These were
interviewed, therefore, data reflected in table-9.58 and 9.59 does not belong to one shop
or establishment rather it belongs to organization such as government supported apex
body, marketing institution of government of private and producers associations. These
organizations may have several establishments in the state or country for marketing the
product.
The data presented in table-9.58 for agricultural products and in table-9.59 for nonagricultural products reveals the following facts.
-
Requirement of human resources is in increasing order from professionals,
technicians, other skilled persons and unskilled persons
-
About 74% human resource for agricultural products and 70% for nonagricultural product is skilled or unskilled labour.
-
Requirement of agricultural organizations is more (216 per month) than the nonagricultural organizations (153 per month).
-
The payments are highest for professionals, which is Rs 1318 per month/person in
agricultural organizations and Rs. 3051 per moth/person in non-agricultural
organizations (Fig. 9.58, 9.59).
-
Comparatively, skilled labour gets higher wages in non-agricultural products;
even this amount is more than the amount given to professionals in agricultural
products’ organizations.
173
-
The requirement of women workforce is about half of the total workforce but the
women are paid less than the men at almost all levels. For example, at
professional level women get about 44% of what men get, and this is true for both
the kinds of organization either dealing with agriculture or non-agricultural
product.
4.6: Spectrum of region-wise sale of product
In the opinion of institutional stakeholders, the agricultural products’ sale is
mostly confined to the region where their origin is claimed (Fig.9.13). The trend seen in
2006 is almost same in earlier also, the only change that has occurred is that in 2004 the
local sale was around 68%, which is reduced to around 61%. The figures of export seem
to be unrealistic for each product in case of GI type I, II, because in these GI types, the
export is not for every product. In case of GI type II and IV, the sale is mostly restricted
(75 – 80%) to the niche area of claim while it is around 50% in GI type I and III (Table9.13).
The situation in case of non-agricultural products is also similar to agricultural
products except that the local consumption is higher about (70%) and consumption in
other parts of India is also higher i.e. 40% (Fig.9.14).
The trend seems to be same through out last three years. From the data presented
in table 9.14, the inference can be made that for all GI types other than VI, the 70 – 80%
sale is in their niche products area and rest i.e. 20 – 30% is either mostly sold in India or
little exported. In GI type VI, about 53% is sold in niche products area and rest is mostly
sold in other states of India.
4.7: Contribution of uniqueness to sale
About 93 – 95% respondents in agricultural products of all GI types believe that
unique characteristics of product give better sale value than the other product in same
category available in market. For GI type IV, only 60 percent believe so (Table-9.60). In
case of non-agricultural products, about 83% in GI type VIII, 87% in V and VI and 94%
in GI type VII believe so (Table-9.60).
174
4.8: Trend of sale
Most respondents, 57% in agric and 62% in non-agric products believe that sale is
increasing. Those who believe that it is declining are very less 14% in agric and 20% in
non-agric products (Fig.9.15).
In agricultural products, those who believe decline in sale are mostly belong to GI
type II followed by GI type III. In non-agricultural product, the respondents are mostly
concentrated to GI type VIII. Is this because the consumers are liking the modern textile
category? For details, see table-9.15.
4.10: Price increments in supply chain
Stakeholders give their opinion about price increment in supply chain for
agricultural products (Fig.9.11) and non-agricultural products (Fig.9.12). In agricultural
products, maximum increase is seen at intermediaries and retailer level (approx. 23%). In
fact other than GI type II it is at retailer level only. In GI type I, highest increase (32%) at
retailer level, in GI type II highest (32 and 30%) increment is at intermediaries and
wholesaler level. In GI type III highest at retailer level, in IV highest at intermediaries. At
producer level, the increase varies from 10 to 16% depending upon the type of product
(Table 9.11).
In non-agricultural product, the increase at producer level is little higher (17%)
than agricultural product. The maximum increase is at the level of retailer; at wholesaler
level it is lesser than agricultural products. The retailer gets highest margin in GI type
VIII and VI, following retailer, the intermediaries also get highest margin in these two
products (Table-9.12).
It can, therefore, be said that in the supply chain, the intermediate stakeholders
earn more than the producer. It is true for non-agricultural products but share of increase
at producers’ level is little more than in the agricultural products and share of increase of
other intermediate stakeholders in little less than the agricultural products.
175
5.1: Inspection, quality control at various stages of production
In agricultural products around 45% feel that on-site advice and inspection is the
most prevalent method of quality control. In GI type III only scientific evidences are
method of quality control. Around 15% believe that there is not formal method of
inspection and quality control (In GI type II, III and IV). Significant proportion (21%)
believe that in-situ method by producers or extension, training and group communication
are other methods (Fig.9.2). The salient features from table-9.2 can be drawn as below:
-
Scientific evidences in GI type III, and maintenance of voluntary and mandatory
standards in GI type I & III and in-situ methods by producers in GI type I are the
only available formal quality control method (expressed by 23% respondents).
-
In GI type II and IV, extension, training and group communication, onsite advice
and inspection are the only methods of quality control. Can these be taken as
formal quality control methods? In these GI types there is no other method of
quality control available.
-
Extension, training, group communication on site advice and inspection are the
major methods of quality control in all GI types in agriculture. But big question is
are these methods formal and regulatory for quality control or are these methods
just suggestions for helping producer with a view of enhancement of quality
production.
In case of non-agricultural products 19% respondents clearly believe that there are
no formal methods. About 46% believe the efforts done by producers at their own level
are the only quality control methods.
In strict sense, scientific evidences and maintenance of voluntary and mandatory
standards as believed by around 12% respondents are the only formal methods. From the
study of table-9.3, following inferences can be made.
-
In-situ methods by producers are the strongest way of quality control applicable
across all GI types.
176
-
Inspection by the producers at various levels such as raw material, manufacturing
and grading etc is available in GI type VIII only
-
Extension and training communication prevalent in GI type VI and VII
-
On Site advice and inspection is prevalent in GI type V, VI only
In GI type III & VII, the method of quality control is a formal and scientific,
which is not the case with other GI types. This kind of quality control is institutional
based. While for other GI types it is mostly self-controlled producers based.
The comparative account of methods of quality control in agricultural and nonagriculture products are in given in table-9.4
5.2: Govt. defined quality assurance methods and advice given for quality
improvement
Methods of quality assurance
The main form of government-defined method of quality assurance in agriculture
is regulating post harvest practices and production practices along with input supply.
About 16% respondents believe that there is no formal quality assurance; it is mainly in
GI type II and IV (Fig.9.5). The other salient features as presented in table-9.5 are:
-
In GI type I and III regulation of compliance for voluntary and mandatory
standard is available.
-
In GI type IV, it is observed that no method of quality assurance is available;
producers’ regulated raw material testing is the only available method.
In non-agricultural products, majority believes that producers regulated raw
material testing is the most prevailing method except in GI type VII. About 19% believe
that there is no formal method (Fig.9.6). The other salient features as presented in table9.6 are:
177
-
In GI type VII regulating production practices and input supply is main method,
followed by regulating compliance for mandatory and voluntary standards.
-
In GI type VIII producers regulated raw material testing is the major method
followed by regulating compliance for certification standards (this method is
prevailing in GI type VIII only).
The comparative statement is given in table 9.7.
Technical advice for quality assurance
In agricultural products, advice or training is facilitated through public
organizations in all GI types except IV. The other major mode is advice or training
directly on production aspects, few respondents in GI type I, II and III believe that no
training is given (Fig.9.8, table 9.8).
In non-agricultural products also the pattern is same except that on top is the
advice/training directly followed by facilitation through the public organizations. Very
few (18%) but little higher than respondents in agriculture feel that no advice/training is
given. The comparative analysis of agricultural and non-agricultural products is presented
in table-9.10.
6.2: Expected changes after registration- on market
For agricultural products, a detailed analysis as per GI type is presented in table9.39. An overall analysis of all agricultural products as represented in fig.9.40 reveals
that more than 77% responses are in agreement about 5% are not in agreement and about
18% cannot say anything to the listed parameters. The major findings are:
¾ More than 80% responses are in agreement that;
− Product Quality has standardized/will become standard
− Product grading has improved /will improve
− Income of producers has increased/will increase
− Income of traders has increased/will increase
178
− Price of the product has increased/will increase
− Overall improvement in socio-eco conditions of producers
¾ 70 – 80% responses are in agreement that
− Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers
only
− Number of producers has increased/will increase
¾ Only 60% responses are in favour that producers will produce more
¾ Only 47% responses are in favour that producers will shift from other livelihood
activities.
For non-agricultural products, the detailed analysis as per GI type is presented in
Table 9.41. The overall analysis of all non-agricultural products (Fig.9.41) reveals that
76% responses are in agreement around 7% are in disagreement and around 17% are
indecisive to the listed parameters. The response is exactly similar to agricultural
products. The major highlights are:
¾ More than 80% responses are in agreement that;
− Product Quality has standardized/will become standard
− Product grading has improved /will improve
− Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers only
− Income of producers has increased/will increase
− Income of traders has increased/will increase
¾ More than 75 – 80% responses are in agreement that;
− Number of producers has increased/will increase
− Producers are producing/will produce more
− Price of the product has increased/will increase
− Producers have shifted/will shift from other livelihood activities
− Overall improvement in socio-eco conditions of producers
179
Only 34% are in favour that producers will shift from other livelihood activities.
Results for agric and non-agric are same the institutional stakeholders do not have
enough confidence that producers will shift from other livelihoods.
6.4: Expected changes after registration- livelihoods & overall socio-economic
conditions
In agricultural products about 47% institutional stakeholders believe that
producers will shift from other livelihoods, around 27% are not able to decide anything
and rest have different opinions. The response is same across all the types, the response
for agreement is more in GI type II (50%), III (48%) and little less in GI type I (44%),
and IV (44%). Around 25% disagree; the disagreement is more in GI type I & IV. But as
far as impact is concerned about 80% believe that registration will bring overall
improvement in socio-economic conditions and rest 20% are indecisive, the response
among all categories is around 75% except in GI type I, where it is 95% (Table-9.40).
In non-agricultural products, the response is not much encouraging about shifting
of producers from other livelihood activities to production of GI, only 34% agree that
registration will bring change so that producers will shift from other livelihood activities
about 24% say no to it and 41% are indecisive. The response is poorest in GI type V,
where only 9% believe so but not 60% and rest are indecisive. For the change in overall
improvement in socio-economic conditions, the response is like agricultural products
only (78% agree, 3% disagree and 19% indecisive). The positive response was strongest
in GI type VI (97%) followed by VIII (81%) and moderate in the range of 63 – 65% in
GI type V and VII (Table-9.41).
6.6: Visualized benefits at time of GI registration
In the process of registration of product, several institutional stakeholders had
been involved in one-way or the other. What were their expectations at that time? The
response was poor as only 17 respondents in agriculture and 29 in non-agriculture could
180
provide input for this question, though number of respondents is low but some kind of
trend could be traced out of the responses. As presented in table-9.51, market
organization (24%) and enhancing regional, social and cultural benefits (24%) were the
most important expectations. Following this was the protection of production/sale rights
(13%) and next was the enhancing profit (11%). Interestingly 9% could not say anything.
Except that the enhanced production and productivity has been revealed by 11%
respondents in non-agricultural products the trend has been almost same in both the kinds
of products.
7.1: Duplicates and similar products
In agricultural products 46% believe that there are no duplicates and this belief is
most prevalent for GI type II (77% believe so, Fig.9.22). Moderate threat is available for
GI type I and III from other states. Though consumers prefer original only but this desire
is very strong for GI type I & III (Table-9.22).
In non-agricultural products also like agricultural products, 16% believe the
duplicates are present in market but unlike agricultural products 29% say no duplicates
available. The biggest problem in these products is that the duplicates from other areas
and states are threat (Table-9.23).
Institutional stakeholders have also suggested various ways and means to face
presence of duplicates and copy type in the market. In agricultural products and nonagricultural products both, the top most method is administrative measures followed by
legal enforcement in agric products and IP protection in non-agric products. In
agriculture, next is branding and labeling, in non-agric, it is high quality standards but
both branding and high quality standards are two faces of same coin. Public awareness is
more important in agric products. For details, please see figures and tables 9.24 and 9.25.
The option of legal enforcement has come from those GI types where commercialization
is comparatively higher such as GI type I and VII. The dismal fact is that creating public
awareness has not been given much weightage across all the products.
181
7.3: Competition- types and sources
Duplicate may not be a problem but competition has been seen as a serious
matter; about 75% respondents believe that product faces competition. It seems
competition is more in non-agricultural products because 83% respondents feel so, while
in agriculture 65% believe that product faces competition (Fig.9.16). But competition
from where (See table-9.17)?
¾ Source of competition for agricultural products
-
Major source of competition is same product produced in other areas of country in
general for all GI types except in GI type IV.
-
Second major sources in similar duplicates in the country and it is more severe in
GI type I and II and moderate in III.
-
Competition in export market is severe in GI type III and moderate in I and low in
III.
-
GI type IV does not have much competition
-
Similar product imported in country is severe competition for GI type I and III
¾ Source of competition for non-agricultural products
-
Same products produced in other areas of the country combined with similar
duplicates are the biggest source of competition. It is severe in case of GI type
VIII and VII and moderate in GI type V and VI.
-
Similar product imported in country and also export market competition have
been measured equally by the respondents and these are severe for GI type VI,
VII and VIII.
The respondents have also identified several other kinds of sources of competition
(Fig. 9.18). The most important is the competition from other products and also the
consumers’ preferences, especially in non-agricultural products, the preferences of
consumers are changing e.g. the modern artifacts are being preferred over traditional
handicrafts, souvenir made in Holland are preferred over khurja pottery and so on.
182
Another factor is less availability e.g. getting sehori wheat in Hyderabad or
kondapalli toys in Allahabad is a gigantic task. The last but not least is the competition
from producers group within, this is more prevalent in case of agricultural products e.g.
basmati farmers get around Rs 10 – 15/- a kilo, while the exporters groups or processing
units in Karnal get Rs. 30/- a kilo, the farmers are frustrated and feel better to grow a nonbasmati local non-descript variety such as ‘sharbati’, which gives value of Rs 8-9/- a
Kilo but production is more than double of basmati and input cost is also less.
7.4: Import of similar product and difference between imported and domestic
product
In agricultural products for GI type IV no import. In other GI types, 47%
respondents feel that imported product quality is inferior and in 25% cases respondents
are not aware of imported product. Some respondents in GI type I and III feel that
imported quality is better (Table-9.26). In case non-agric products most respondents feel
that imported quality is different (42%) and thus is applicable to each GI type except V.
In case of GI type V about 84% feels that there is no import and even if it is there product
quality may be inferior.
Like agriculture, 19% feel there is no import, 11% are not aware. About 22% feel
that imported quality is cheaper (Table-9.27).
7.5: Import of the products
The respondents are not much aware on this aspect and they do not have any
record to provide any information related to aspects like formal/informal channels of
import, volume, and entry point etc. Whatever little information available is presented in
table-19.19.
9.1: Willingness for registration and payment thereof
Average cost of registration is Rs 66,600. For agric products, little higher i.e. Rs.
83,200/-; while for non-agricultural products, little lower i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. For
183
agriculture, it may be higher because of collecting producers from far places and
conducting meetings etc. While for non-agriculture, people live in clusters and there are
associations also available. Average contribution per person was Rs. 378/- (Table-9.48).
Another significant feature about this question is that only 14 respondents each for
agriculture and non-agriculture products were available but 50% of them did not respond
to the question of cost of GI registration.
Several stakeholders have provided money for registration but government and
public institutions have been the major source (Table-9.47) followed by producers’
formal and informal associations. The contribution from individuals has been very less
and only a few cases are reported.
The producers especially small and marginal farmers or resource poor nonagriculturists will not be able to afford any money for GI registration. In 12 cases out of
47 respondents told that financial assistance has been given by financial
institutions/banks for GI registration related activities (Table-9.69). But what is bankers’
views on future endeavours of GI registration. For providing financial support 75% of
bankers agreed, there were more agreement in agriculture (89%) than in non-agricultural
products (64%), the reason may be so many rural credit schemes are available for
agriculture so that disbursements can be adjusted against those approved credit schemes
(Table-9.70).
10.5: Awareness of producers and stakeholders about GI
In several products as presented in table-9.35 more than 90% and sometimes up to
95-96% respondents believe that uniqueness, quality and reputation of the product can be
attributed to geographical origin. In GI type VII and VIII, 66% and 72% respondents
believe so.
Awareness of institutional stakeholders about community patent that is GI was
very low. In agriculture only 19% respondents knew it, while in non-agricultural products
40% respondents knew it (Table-9.37). The reason is obvious because in non-agricultural
184
products, the activities related to GI registration or training have been more than in the
agric products.
Similarly, 11% respondents in agric and 26% in non-agricultural products know
that their product is registered under. About 25% stakeholders in agricultural products
and 6% in non-agricultural products did not know anything, rest said no to the question
asked from them (Table-9.38).
10.8: Future prospects of the product
The institutional stakeholders in extreme majority see the bright future of GI type
I (95%), III (92%), VIII (91%), VII (89%), V (87%), IV (85%) and VI (83%). But in case
of GI type II (Grains & potato etc) it is only 67% who believe bright future and likely to
improve, while 24% believe that it is likely to remain same. The salient features of data
presented in Table-9.34 can be summarized as given below:
Product type
Agricultural products
Non-agricultural
products
Likely to
worsen
Pokkali rice
Remain same or
likely to worsen
Punjabi jooti
Remain
same
Pahari aloo
Allepy cardamom
Remain same but
likely to be bright
Kurnool rice
Kokum fruit juice
Saharanpur furniture
Hyderabad pearls
Kancheepuram silk
Patola saree
The products studied and not listed in the above matrix has the bright future
prospects and that is likely to improve also.
10.9: Constructive measures to make production viable and improve future
prospects
In agriculture and non-agricultural products, the top suggestion to make
production viable and improve future prospects is improvements in production, followed
by government policy support and quality standardization maintenance and assurance
(Fig.9.28, 9.29). Good market practices are another area, which needs improvement.
Another observation is that GI registration has not been mentioned as areas of
improvement (only 25% in non-agriculture, 4.3% in agriculture mentioned it). It means
185
there is lack of complete understanding of GI portfolio at institutional stakeholders level
and it is a serious matter.
For agricultural products (Table-9.28), the highlights are:
-
Post harvest level are also important and mostly in GI type III & I.
-
Quality standardization is required in all but most concerned with GI type III and
least with IV.
-
In GI type I good transport facilities are suggested
-
Good marketing practices have been suggested is all except GI type IV.
-
GI registration as a tool, has been thought of by few in GI type I & III.
-
Publicity of product (8%) also needs improvement
For non-agricultural products (Table-9.29), the highlights are:
-
Restriction on import has been sought by about 7% respondents and that too in GI
type VIII only.
-
GI registration as a tool has been thought of by few in GI type V and VI.
-
About 9% feel improvement through publicity as product.
10.10: Status of marketing and suggestions for improvement
In agricultural products, 46% respondents are satisfied with current status of
marketing. Surprisingly, the highest level of satisfaction is in GI type IV and lowest is in
GI type I (Fig.9.30). In non-agricultural products, about 69% respondents are satisfied, in
GI type V less number of respondents are satisfied. Surprisingly in GI type VI about 92%
respondents are satisfied (Fig.9.31).
The respondents have given various suggestions to improve the marketing of
products. There is difference in approach between agricultural products (Fig.9.32) and
non-agricultural products (Fig.9.33). The top three suggestions in agricultural products
are – organized and regulated market, government policy support and TQM, while the
top three suggestions in non-agricultural products are – publicity, government policy
186
support and TQM. Another big difference is that good marketing practices has been
viewed as serious suggestion in agricultural products but not in non-agric products. There
are certain specific issues in agricultural products (Table-9.32):
-
Post harvest facility i.e. storage, transport and processing is a major issue in GI
type I & III.
-
Though by few but suggestion has come for creating special marketing
-
Organized and regulated market in GI type I & III.
Specific issues in non-agricultural products (Table-9.33):
-
Good market practices have not been appreciated as a suggestion to improve
marketing.
-
Organized and regulated market as suggestion in GI type VI and VIII.
-
Though given by a few only, the wonderful idea has come i.e. use of ICTs in GI
type VI.
-
Restricting import and duplicates is major issue concerning GI type VIII.
10.12: Scientific endeavors in product development
As described in fig.9.64 and table-9.64, the research institutions are in agreement
that they are conducting research studies to find out uniqueness (42%) and to establish
uniqueness (71%) but these institutions had very poor involvement for technical
interventions to stop infringement of GI and l facilitation of the GI registration process.
Though a fair number of respondents feel that they have been involved at one or another
step in facilitation of GI registration. The trend among agricultural and non-agricultural
product is same with few exception such as the initiative ness for GI registration very low
comparatively in non-agricultural products.
The bankers also have suggested the areas of research; the areas suggested for
agricultural and non-agricultural products are different (Fig.9.71 and 9.72). In agricultural
products, the top priority is TQM followed by futuristic development and enhancement of
187
productivity. While in non-agricultural products, the top area suggested is enhancing
productivity, followed by innovations and systems development with equal emphasis.
10.13: Endeavors by depts. and agencies responsible or concerned with GI
registration
Being a community property, the role of public institutions is expected to be the
strongest amongst other stakeholders. It is, therefore, decided to interview the
government department and agencies dealing with the product and also government
departments and agencies, which are supposed to be responsible for GI registration.
Therefore, 55 institutional stakeholders in agricultural products and 60 in non-agricultural
products were contacted to get information related to GI registration. In the state
governments, no specific responsibilities have been given to any government department
to facilitate the GI registration except in Himachal Pradesh, where State Council of
Science and Technology has been entrusted the specific responsibility of GI registration.
GI is a Common Property Resource (CPR) and as usually happens in CPRs, the
same occurs to GIs also ‘means’ ‘no man’s property’. The significant number of
‘supposed-to-be responsible’ refused to take any responsibility by simply saying, “it is
not our responsibility” go to that agency or this agency or top bosses of the department.
Out of the total contacted, at least half of them mean 32 in agricultural product and 29 in
non-agricultural products agreed to provide any information on this issue (Table-9.43)
and they also take the responsibility mostly indirectly (Fig.9.43). Out of those, who
responded 44% in agricultural products and 30% in non-agricultural products, agreed that
they have been trained in GI matters (Table-9.44). And in their opinion about, 45 – 47%
staff is trained (Table-9.45). But looking to very small number of respondents, this cannot
be generalized to other offices; the results are limited to their offices only. Out of those
who have taken the responsibility of GI registration about 50% have taken several
proactive steps as detailed in table-9.46.
The weaknesses have been only in following areas where only 30 – 36%
respondents say that they have taken some action. These weak areas are:
188
-
Communication through radio / TV
-
Not engaging NGOs / consultants to do the job
-
Not taking any initiative to stop infringement of GI, mean they feel their
responsibility ends with registration
The major outcome of this portion of study is provided on following points:
-
There is no specific department dealing with GI registration.
-
Even in most concerned department e.g. Agricultural Department of M.P.
Government for sehori genhu does not have any instructions in this regard.
-
There is no systematically arranged fixed responsibility along with target to
anyone.
-
Mostly the GI registration have been done by the own knowledge gained by the
top brass/any dynamic individual of a department or subsidiary organizations
from training or elsewhere and out of their personal interest and involvement, the
registration could be done.
-
In non-agricultural production, the responsibility has been taken by several
agencies of central or state government (e.g. textile committee, handicraft
development corporations, etc.) But this could not happen in case of agricultural
products except few products, where central government boards have taken
initiative.
-
To avoid any future problems, it is strongly suggested that only government
supported departments and organizations should be allowed to retain the
ownership of a GI, and not any private organization because in very few cases
only a single organization represents the interest of larger group of society. The
small NGOs or any organization created by few persons does not necessarily
represent the interest of a larger group of society.
The problem of ownership will arise once the commercial part is strong. The
owner may refuse others to provide NOC for registration as authorized user. Are there
any guidelines for that? And ultimately it is a civil matter which may take years to
189
resolve in a civil court. Should then a genuine but unregistered producers wait for years?
An interest example can be quoted. An application for India’s most wanted product
“Basmati rice” has been put by a Karnal based organization called “Haryana Heritage
Trust”. Not a single farmer contacted in Punjab and even in Karnal itself knew about the
application and the applicant. Does this organization represent the interest of basmati rice
growers in Punjab and Haryana? The registration has not been issued to basmati rice but
reason is not that the organization does not represent the interest of producers.
More over for a common man it is impossible to find out the “actual physical
place of the applicant”, of India’s most wanted product i.e. “Basmati Rice”. It can well be
understood that what will be the case with other products of lesser commercial value.
Therefore, the responsibility of ownership of a GI cannot be left open to GI registry only,
state government must intervene in the matter above all it is the common property of the
residents of a state and not any private organization registered for the purpose. The
application system of a GI in India should not necessary be on the line of a patent i.e.
without any effective control and/or intervention of administration specially the state
governments.
10.14: Endeavors by financial institutions
There were only 28 respondents for this piece of information and at least half of
them agree that financial assistance is rendered for the producers (Table-9.65). The
average assistance is Rs. 1625 to 2089 per person for non-agric products but 1363 – 1568
for agric- products. The percent recovery is better by the producers of agricultural
products, the reason may be unlike agricultural loan, the gestation period of loans for
non-agricultural products may be higher (Table-9.66). The biggest reason for nonfinancing is the non-availability of any specific scheme and secondly the producers did
not approach for assistance and third most important reason is that facilitation/
recommendation from government department is needed (Table-9.67). The bankers also
gave their views about GI and registration and majority believe that registration will
strengthen product as a organized sector of industrial good and will bring the
190
systematized welfare of producers (Fig.9.68). For financial assistance rendered (see para
9.1) and bankers’ views on R & D (see para 10.12).
11.1: Current level of protection, drawback, enforcement problems
Total infringement cases reported are 8 (2 in agricultural and 6 in non-agricultural
products, table-9.48 and table-9.63). The action to stop infringement cases has been
informed by 26 stakeholders (11 in agricultural and 15 in non-agricultural products). In
most cases (50%) it is the post infringement actions, but only 13 stakeholders say about
it. The rest are either pre-infringement legal enforcement actions (19%) or administrative
actions at producers/organizational level (11%). The details as presented in table 9.52
clearly reflect that not much action have been taken to stop infringement of the GIs.
11.2: Problems and bottlenecks related to acquisition and maintenance of GI
The institutional stakeholders are not much aware of the deficiencies or
difficulties found in getting the GI registration because only 27 respondents have
provided any response to it (Table-9.53). Probably not many stakeholders are directly
exposed to practical aspects of GI registration. But among those responded 48% believe
that there are deficiencies with respect to producers and collectivism (means lack of
formal/informal associations and groups). The second most (reported by 30%) important
deficiency lies with government departments in terms of initiatives on several fronts, and
22% report no deficiency.
Many responses are received for problems faced by institutional stakeholders in
obtaining GI registration but large section i.e. 27% of 176 responses is not in position to
say anything about it. The rest (24%) feel lack of responsiveness from government or
non-government organizations, 21% feel that producers are in dilemma (means who will
do? Is this beneficial, what is the process? Why should join? etc.). About 12% feel that
problem is getting for technical and administrative needs for registration. Only a handful
(about 8%) did not face any problem and another small section (7%) feel the lack of
responsive government policy in registration of products (Table-9.61).
191
Another major issue, which stakeholders from institutions face, is maintenance of
registered GIs. It seems the stakeholders are not much prepared to answer such questions
because out of total responses (157), 43% are not in position to say anything and 17% are
totally ignorant about this part of GI. The responses other than these 60% are divided into
various issues; the biggest is maintenance of quality (19%) followed by administration
for enforcement and monitoring (10%) and producers’ attitude towards maintenance and
their cohesiveness for getting the maximum output from a registered GI.
It is interesting and also frustrating to note that only handful of responses 3 of 157
and that too in agricultural product only could associate marketing of product with
maintenance of a registered GI (Table-9.61). While asking the question about
maintenance of GI on a structured interview schedule, an informal question was asked
‘please tell that after how many years, you are supposed to renew your GI?’ and only
handful could answer this question correctly.
11.3: Identification of beneficiaries
There were only 19 respondents for this piece of information, mostly (42%) opine
that producers are identified through survey, 26% opined about formal discussions and
interactions with producers. The other methods were through awareness camps, through
community registration in a society. Only 16% i.e. only three respondents believe that
identification was done through producers associations (Table-9.49).
There were several problems in identifying the producers located at various
places. The large sections of respondents (49%) feel that non-awareness is the biggest
constraint. Other constraints are lack of product specific associations and organized
marketing institutions, if these exist it will be very easy task to identify most of the
producers (Table-9.50).
192
Opinion, knowledge, role and suggestions of institutional stakeholders about
agricultural and non-agricultural products- Figures
Figure-9.1: Profile of institutional stakeholders
18
15
Agriculture
Products
9
6
0
Govt.
Dept./Agencies
dealing with
Govt.
Dept./Agencies
responsible for
Govt.
supported apex
bodies
Private
institutions
(NGO, SHG,
Govt./ Pvt.
Marketing
institutions
Producers
association /
formal &
Scientific
Institutions /
knowledgeable
Banks and
financial
institutions
3
Non
Agriculture
Products
Responses %
Figure-9.2: Method of inspection and quality control of agricultural products
as advised by institutional stakeholders
No formal method of inspection
and quality control
In-situ methods by producers
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Maintenance of voluntary and
mandatory standards
Extension, training and group
communication
On-site advice and inspection
Scientific evidences
Methods of inspection
Figure-9.3: Method of inspection and quality control of nonagricultural products as advised by institutional stakeholders
No formal method of inspection and quality
control
In-situ methods by producers
20
18
Inspection by producer at level of purchase
of raw material
Inspection by producer at level of
manufacturing process
Inspection by producer at level of grading
and maintaining voluntary standards
Maintenance of voluntary and mandatory
standards
Extension, training and group
communication
On-site advice and inspection
16
Responses %
Percent
12
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Scientific evidences
Methods of inspection
193
% Responses
Figure:9.5-Methods of government defined
quality assurance in agricultural products
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No formal quality assurance
Producer's regulated raw material
testing
Quality check for exports
Methods of government defined
quality assurance
Regulating compliance for
certification standards
Regulating compliance for
mandatory and voluntary standards
Regulating post harvest practices
and processes
Regulating production practices and
inputs
F igure - 9 .6 :M e t ho ds o f go v e rnm e nt de f ine d
qua lit y a s s ura nc e in no n- a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
60
No formal quality
assurance
Producers’ regulated raw
material testing
50
40
Regulating compliance for
certification standards
30
20
M e t ho ds o f G o v e rnm e nt de f ine d
qua lit y a s s ura nc e
Regulating compliance for
mandatory and voluntary
standards
Regulating production
practices and inputs
F igure - 9 .8 : T e c hnic a l a dv ic e a nd t ra ining
de liv e rie s by ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs f o r
im pro v e m e nt qua lit y o f a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
No advice/training
10
0
% Responses
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Advice/training
facilitated through
public
organizations
Advice/training
given directly on
production aspects
I
II
III
IV
All
194
F igure - 9 .9 : T e c hnic a l a dv ic e & t ra ining
de liv e rie s by ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs f o r
im pro v e m e nt qua lit y o f no n- a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
No advice/training
60
50
Advice/training
facilitated through
public organizations
40
30
20
10
0
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
F igure - 9 .1 1 : A v e ra ge pric e inc re m e nt s in
s upply c ha in o f a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
35
30
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
I
II
III
IV
Advice/training given
directly on
production aspects
Producer’s selling
over costs
Intermediaries
supply over
purchase
Wholesaler’s
selling over
purchase
Retailers selling
over purchase
25
All
Figure-9.12: Average price increments in
supply chain of non-agricultural products
Producer’s selling
over costs
Intermediaries
supply over
purchase
Wholesaler’s
selling over
purchase
Retailers selling
over purchase
30
25
Percent
% Responses
70
20
15
10
5
0
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
195
F igure - 9 .1 3 : A v e ra ge pe rc e nt v a lue o f s pa t ia l
dis t ribut io n o f s a le o f a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
f o r t he ye a r 2 0 0 6
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Within the
region where
G.I. is claimed
In other parts
of India
As exports
I
II
III
IV
A ll
Percent
F igure - 9 .1 4 : A v e ra ge pe rc e nt v a lue o f s pa t ia l
dis t ribut io n o f s a le o f no n- a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
f o r t he ye a r 2 0 0 6
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Within the
region where
G.I. is claimed
In other parts
of India
As exports
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
% Responses
Figure-9.15: Trend of volum e and value of
m arketing of products in last three years
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
All Agric.
products
All nonagriculture
Products
Increasing- Stationary- Declining-3
1
2
196
Figure-9.16: Institutional stakeholders’
view s on significant com petition to products
Agriculture Products
Facing (yes)
Not Facing
(No)
Non Agriculture
Products
Figure-9.17: Institutional stakeholders’ view s
about m ajor type of com petition faced by
agricultural and non-agricultural products
Responses %
60
All-agriculture
products
50
40
30
All- non
Agriculture
Products
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
Figure-9.18: Institutional stakeholders’ view s about
supplem entary types of com petition faced by agricultural
and non-agricultural products
60
Competition from
other products
50
40
Consumer’s
preference
30
20
Less availability of
the same produce
10
0
Agri.
products
Non.Agri
Products
All products
Competition from
Producers group
197
Figure-9.20: Institutional stakeholders’ view s
about m ajor m ethods to face com petition
Responses %
20
Totalagriculture
products
Total -non
Agriculture
Products
16
12
8
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Note: Code [1.Production quality control and inspection quality assurance methods to be effectively introduced,
2.Through design and technological development, 3. Improvement of marketing methods, 4. Intensive publicity,
5. Export-oriented development, 6. Cutting down production and marketing costs, 7. Organizing exhibitions,
expos, and market complexes etc., 8. Seeking GI Registration]
Figure-9.22: Institutional stakeholders’ view s
on presence of duplicate / copy type of
the agricultural products in the m arket
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No duplicates
Duplicates present in market
Inferior quality of duplicates
Duplicate from other area/ states
are threat
I
II
III
IV
All
Figure-9.23: Institutional stakeholders’ views on
presence of duplicate / copy type of the
non-agricultural products in the market
70
Consumers prefer original products
only (for GI-8)/ Not much
competition from duplicates (for GI-I)
No duplicates
Duplicates present in market
60
50
Inferior quality of duplicates
40
30
Duplicate from other area/ states are
threat
20
10
0
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
Consumers prefer original products
only (for GI-VIII)/ Not much
competition from duplicates (for GI-I)
198
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Administrative measures
Branding and labeling
Consumers discourage
duplicates
High quality standards
IP protection
Legal enforcement
Promoting originals
Ways and means
Public awareness
Percent
F igure - 9 .2 5 : Ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs ’ s ugge s t e d
wa ys & m e a ns t o f a c e pre s e nc e o f duplic a t e s / c o py
t ype no n- a gric ult ura l pro duc t s in m a rk e t
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Administrative measures
Consumers prefer original
products only
High quality standards
IP protection
Legal enforcement
Public awareness
Ways and means
T a ble - 9 .2 8 : S ugge s t io ns o f ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs a bo ut
m e a s ure s t o m a k e pro duc t io n e c o no m ic v ia ble a nd im pro v e
f ut ure pro s pe c t s o f a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
45
Production level improvements
40
Post harvest level improvements
35
Quality standardization,
maintenance and assurance
Government policy support
30
Percent
Percent
Fig- 9.24: Institutional stakeholders’ suggested
ways & means to face presence of duplicates/
copy type agricultural products in market
25
20
Good transport facilities
15
Good market practices
10
5
Publicity of the product
0
Suggestion
GI registration
199
Figure-9.29: Suggestion of institutional stakeholders
about measures to make production economic viable and
improve future prospects of non-agricultural products
45
Production level improvements
40
Post harvest level improvements
Percent
35
Quality standardization,
maintenance and assurance
Government policy support
30
25
20
Good transport facilities
15
10
Good market practices
5
Publicity of the product
0
Percent
Suggestion
GI registration
Figure-9.30: Institutional stakeholders’ opinion about
current status of m arketing of agricultural products
80
70
60
50
Satisfactory
40
Not satisfactory
30
20
10
0
I
II
III
IV
All
Percent
Figure-9.31: Institutional stakeholders’ opinion about
current status of m arketing of non-agricultural Products
100
90
80
70
Satisfactory
60
50
40
Not satisfactory
30
20
10
0
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
200
F igure - 9 .3 2 : Ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs ’
s ugge s t io ns t o im pro v e m a rk e t ing
o f a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
18
Post harvest facility-storage
Post harvest facility-transportation
Special markets
Regulated price structure
12
9
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Good marketing practices
6
Government policy support
Publicity
3
0
Suggestion
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
F igure - 9 .3 3 : Ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs ’
s ugge s t io ns t o im pro v e m a rk e t ing o f
no n- a gric ult ura l pro duc t s
Export avenues
Organized and regulated markets
Regulated price structure
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Good marketing practices
Government policy support
Publicity
Export avenues
Involvement of ICTs
Suggestion
Percent
Percent
15
Percent
Organized and regulated markets
Post harvest facility-processing
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Restricting imports and duplicates
Figure-9.38: Awareness of institutional stakeholders’
whether the product under study is registered under GI
Yes-1
No-2
Cant say-3
All Agriculture
products
All non-Agri.
products
All Agri+ All
Non Agri
Products
201
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
F igure - 9 .4 0 : Ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs ’ v ie w a bo ut e xpe c t e d po s t re gis t ra t io n c ha nge s in pro duc t io n a nd m a rk e t ing o f v a rio us t ype s o f
a gric ult ura l pro duc t s in ge ne ra l
Yes
No.
Can’t say
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Note: Code [1. Product Quality has standardized/will become standard, 2. Product grading has improved /will improve,
3. Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers only, 4. Income of producers has increased/will
increase, 5. Income of traders has increased/will increase, 6. Number of producers has increased/will increase, 7. Producers are
producing/will produce more, 8. Price of the product has increased/will increase, 9. Producers have shifted/will shift from other
livelihood activities, 10. Overall improvement in socio-eco conditions of producers]
F igure - 9 .4 2 : Ins t it ut io na l s t a k e ho lde rs ’ v ie w a bo ut e xpe c t e d
po s t - re gis t ra t io n c ha nge s in pro duc t io n a nd m a rk e t ing o f
v a rio us t ype s o f no n- a gric ult ura l pro duc t s in ge ne ra l
100
Yes
No
Can’t say
Percent
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Note: Code [1. Product Quality has standardized/will become standard, 2. Product grading has improved /will improve,
3. Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers only, 4. Income of producers has increased/will
increase, 5. Income of traders has increased/will increase, 6. Number of producers has increased/will increase, 7. Producers are
producing/will produce more, 8. Price of the product has increased/will increase, 9. Producers have shifted/will shift from other
livelihood activities, 10. Overall improvement in socio-eco conditions of producers]
202
Figure-9.43: Responsibility and functions
of respondent’s office in relation to
G.I. registration in the State
60
Percent
50
No responsibility
taken
Hiring IPR
consultants
40
30
Creating
awareness
20
10
0
Agriculture
Products
Non-Agriculture
Products
Conventional
activities
Number of workers
Fig 9.58a: Average number of persons engaged in marketing of
agricultural products under study
50
40
30
20
10
0
Male
Female
Professional
Technicians
Other Skilled
Persons
Unskilled Persons
Fig 9.58b: Payments made to persons engaged in
marketing of agricultural products during the last
operating month
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Male
Categories
Unskilled
Persons
Other
Skilled
Persons
Technicians
Female
Professiona
l
Payment(Rs)/Person
Categories
203
Fig 9.59a: Average num ber of persons engaged in m arketing of nonagricultural products under study
40
30
Male
20
Female
10
0
Professional
Technicians
Other Skilled
Persons
Unskilled Persons
Categories
Payment per person
Fig 9.59b: Payments made to persons engaged in marketing of nonagricultural products during the last operating month
5000
4000
3000
Male
2000
Female
1000
0
Professional
Technicians
Other Skilled
Persons
Unskilled
Persons
Categories
80
Figure-9.64: Scientific endeavors
for GI registration
70
60
Percent
Number of workers
50
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Research Study for
finding out the unique
characteristics
Scientific
experimentations to
establish uniqueness
Initiative ness for GI
registration
Technical intervention
to stop infringement of
the GI
Facilitation for G.I.
Registration
204
Figure-9.68: Bankers’ view s on GI registration
1 1 .6 2 %
Ignorance of bankers
tow ards GI
Systematized w elfare of
producers
1 6 .2 8 %
1 6 .2 8 %
2 7 .9 1 %
2 7 .9 1 %
Strengthening product as a
organized sector of
industrial good
Ensuring community IP
rights
Easy financing and better
client relatioship
Figure-9.71: Banker’s view s on the need forresearch
and developm ent of the agricultural products
16.67%
6.67%
6.67%
26.66%
Futuristic
development
TQM
Enhance
productivity
Risk mitigation
Can’t say
43.33%
Figure-9.72: Bankers’ views on the need for research and
development of the non-agricultural products
28.95%
5.26%
18.42%
13.16%
15.79%
18.42%
Futuristic
development
Systems
development
Enhance export
Innovations
Enhance productivity
Social research
205
Chapter 10
Opinion, Knowledge and Suggestions of Consumers about
Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Products
The consumers were asked limited and most pertinent questions only, and the data
of agricultural and non-agricultural have been interpreted together. Therefore, unlike
chapter 5 & 6, all the paragraph heads will not be available in this chapter. The chapter
will have only those paragraphs, which pertain to information collected from consumers,
but to keep the coherence with other chapters the paragraph bears the same number as in
other chapters.
For this survey, 370 consumers were interviewed. About 70% were male and 30%
were female. From living background point of view, 70% are from urban areas and 30%
from rural areas. The average age of the interviewed consumers was 39 years.
6.5: Expected changes after registration- consumers’ expectations
In agricultural products, bird's eye view of the expected changes is presented in
fig.10.1, the detail as per GI types are presented in tables-10.1 to 10.6. The salient
features of expected changes across all GI types are:
-
More than 80% consumers in all GI types (75% in III) believe that product quality
will become standard.
-
More than 80% consumers in all GI type (61% in III) believe that product grading
will improve.
-
More than 73% consumers in al GI types (except 54% in III) believe that number
of consumers will increase.
206
In case of non-agricultural products, the bird's eye view is presented in fig.10.2
and details as per GI type are presented in tables-10.6 to 10.10. The salient features of
expected changes across all GI types are:
-
More than 77% consumers (71% in VIII) believe that product quality will become
standard.
-
About 60 and up to 83% consumers believe that product grading will improve.
-
Generally 55 to 72% (49% in VIII) consumers believe that number of consumers
will increase.
While comparing agricultural and non-agricultural product, it seems that impact
would be more in case of agricultural products. For additional comments given by
consumers on ‘post registration expected changes’ refer Annexure-XV & XVI for
agricultural and non-agricultural products (Table-15.29 & 16.33).
7.1: Duplicates and similar products
Producers believe that duplicate and similar products are available in almost all
GI types. But whether quality assurance led the consumers to purchase a product?
-
In agricultural products 54 and 60% consumers in GI type III & I believe so. But
for GI type II and IV, it is less number of consumers (Fig.10.1).
-
In non-agricultural products 46% in GI type V and 86% in VII believe so. But for
GI type VI and VIII the number of consumers believing so is very less (Fig.10.2).
For additional comments given by consumers on ‘duplicates’ refer Annexure-XV
& XVI for agricultural and non-agricultural products (Table-15.26 & 16.30).
7.2: Consumers’ efforts to purchase genuine product
An attempt to analyze the efforts of consumes to ensure purchase of genuine
product was made. The salient features as presented in fig.10.13 and 10.14 as discussed
below:
207
-
At the time of purchase a product, whether consumers are sure that product is
genuine? About 87% consumers in agricultural products and 96% in nonagricultural products are sure about it. It means the confidence in agri-products is
little less (Table-10.13 & 10.14).
-
It seems that surety about genuine product is because of several special efforts
made by consumers in purchasing the product. But do they really make any effort
of such kind? 51% consumers in agricultural product and 77% in non-agricultural
products make some efforts; the percent of consumers doing so is less in
agricultural products (Table-10.13 & 10.14).
Consumers make various kinds of attempts to make sure of purchase of a genuine
product. Table-10.17 and 10.18 for agricultural and non-agricultural products give
comprehensive understanding.
The most reliable method for consumers in agricultural products is ‘going to
authorized/ reliable / reputed shop’ followed by looking for a label or trademark. For
consumers of non-agricultural products most reliable important method is also ‘going to
authorized/reliable/reputed shop’ and getting authenticated receipt. The second most
important method of equal degree is ‘going to government shop ad looking for label or
trademark’. It is interesting to note that emotional relationship between seller and buyer is
very important. Therefore, it must put a pressure on trader to make sure in procuring a
genuine product to supply to consumers. The consumers' preferential priority strategy for
each GI type is given in table-10.19, and for each product-wise is given in table 10.20.
For additional comments given by consumers on ‘specific efforts’ refer Annexure-XV &
XVI for agricultural and non-agricultural products (Table-15.28 & 16.32).
9.1: Willingness for registration and payment thereof
In agricultural products, 61% consumers in GI type III and 71 - 75% in case of
other GI type are in favour of registration (Fig.10.1). In non-agricultural products 40%
and- 44% in GI type V & VII, and 61 and 67% in VIII and VI respectively are interested
for registration (Fig.10.2). Willingness for registration is higher in case of agricultural
products.
208
9.3: Willingness to pay for expected enhanced premium
When the consumers are willing for registration of product as GI, but if as a postregistration effect the sale price is increased, are they willing to pay more? 85% in
agricultural products (Fig.10.13) and 61% in non-agricultural products are willing to pay
higher (Fig.10.14). But how much premium over the prevailing price? In agricultural
products, most agree for 5 - 10%, followed by 0 - 5% (Fig.10.15). For GI type summary
see table-10.15. In case of non-agricultural products, most agree for 0 - 5% followed by
few agreeing for 5 - 10% (Fig.10.16). For GI type summary seeTable-10.16.
10.5: Awareness of producers and stakeholders about GI
Most consumers consider that unique quality; reputation, traditionality and other
characteristics are attributed to geographical origin (Fig.10.1 and 10.2).
10.8: Future prospects of the product
The consumers have given their opinion about future prospects of the product.
The product-wise summary is presented in table-10.21. The salient features are given
below:
-
Products where future is either stationery or not bight are - Coorg orange, Pokkali
rice, Bhaliya wheat, Pahari aloo, Coorg coffee, Telicherry, Black pepper,
Mahoba pan, Punjabi jooti, Harambha thresher, Patola saree and Bhadoi carpet.
In other products, most consumers feel that future is either very bright or bright.
-
The products, where most consumes have given opinion about very bright future
are - Alphonso mango, Malihabadi dussheri, Himachal apple, Harshil apple,
Ramnagar litchi, Hill rajma, Allepy cardamom, Amleta and Mahadev garlic,
Fenugreek, Kumbhraj dhania, Nannari sharbat, Kokum fruit juice, Buraansh juice,
Dodha, Bikaneri bhujia, Agra petha, Bal mithai, Kolhapuri chappal, Saharanpur
furniture, Hyderabad pearl, Nilgiri oil, Sivakashi patakha, Makrana marble, Jaipur
209
blue pottery, Ferozbad chudia & glassware, Khurja pottery, Srikalahasti
kalamkari, Paithani saree, Jaipur razai, Sarganeri print, Lucknavi chikan and
Kullu shawl.
The futuristic matrix of products as expressed by the consumers is given below:
Product type
Agriculture
Nonagriculture
Likely to
worsen
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
--
Remain same or likely
to worsen
Pahari aloo
Remain same
Coorg orange
--
Telicherry black
pepper
--
Remain same or
likely to be bright
Navara rice
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Mahoba pan
Punjabi jooti
Harambha
thresher
Bhadoi carpet
Patola saree
10.11: Suggestions for improvement to increase sale
In agricultural products, the suggestions for improvement are presented in
fig.10.11. The most impartial suggestion is to standardize the quality followed by easy
assured availability, more publicity and reasonable price and the last suggestion is to
make innovative changes keeping the traditional base. The analysis of suggestions as per
GI type is presented in table-10.11. The major points in order of their importance are:
-
In GI type I easy assured availability, reasonable price regulation and more
required publicity are most important
-
In GI type II quality standardization, innovative changes and more publicity are
major suggestions.
-
In GI type III quality standardization, reasonable price and innovative changes are
major suggestions.
-
In GI type IV, more publicity, easy assured availability, and standardization of
quality which innovative changes are major suggestions.
210
In non-agricultural products, standardization of quality reasonable price and
innovative changes are most important for overall GIs (Fig.10.12). As per GI type
analysis, the major points in order of their importance are (Table-10.12):
-
In GI type V more publicity, reasonable price and standardized quality with easy
assured availability are major suggestions.
-
In GI type VI, innovative changes, reasonable price and standardized quality are
major suggestions.
-
In GI type VII, standardized quality, reasonable price and innovative changes are
major suggestions
-
In GI type VIII standardized quality, innovative changes and reasonable price are
major suggestions.
For additional comments given by consumers on ‘specific suggestions’ refer
Annexure-XV & XVI for agricultural and non-agricultural products (Table-15.27 &
16.31).
211
Opinion, Knowledge and Suggestions of Consumers about Agricultural and NonAgricultural Products- Figures
Fig 10.1: Com parative statem ent of aw areness of consum ers about
GI im plications in agricultural products
120
Percent
100
I
80
II
60
III
40
IV
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Observations
Codes of Fig 10.1:
1. Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to geographical origin
2. Are consumers aware of GI Act?
3. If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product registered as GI
4.Quality assurance led consumers to purchase the product
5.Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become standard
6.Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve
7.Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase
Fig 10.2: Com parative statem ent of aw areness of consum ers about
GI im plications in non-agricultural products
120
Percentage
100
V
80
VI
60
VII
40
VIII
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Observations
Codes of Fig 10.2:
1. Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to geographical origin
2. Are consumers aware of GI Act?
3. If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product registered as GI
4.Quality assurance led consumers to purchase the product
5.Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become standard
6.Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve
7.Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase
7
212
Fig 10.11& 10.12: Consum ers’ suggestions for the areas of
im provem ent in agriculture & non agriculture products under study
30
Percentage
25
20
15
10
5
0
Agriculture Products
Non-Agriculture Products
Suggestions for im provem ent
Quality to be standardized
Innovative changes to be made keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and kept w ithin reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
More publicity required
Others
Percentage
Fig 10.13: Consumers’ preferential purchase of genuine agricultural
products and their willingness to pay extra for GI registered product
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
II
III
IV
1
2
3
Observations
Codes of Fig 10.13:
1. At the time of purchase of products, whether consumers are sure that product is genuine
2. Whether consumers make any special effort to purchase genuine product
3. As a post registration effect, whether consumers are willing to pay more for the product
213
Fig 10.14:Consum ers’ preferential purchase of genuine nonagricultural products and their w illingness to pay extra for GI
registered product
120
Percentage
100
V
80
VI
60
VII
40
VIII
20
0
1
2
3
Observations
Codes of Fig 10.14:
1. At the time of purchase of products, whether consumers are sure that product is genuine
2. Whether consumers make any special effort to purchase genuine product
3. As a post registration effect, whether consumers are willing to pay more for the product
Fig 10.15 & 10.16: Preparedness of consumers to pay premium over the
prevailing price for registered agricultural and non-agricultural products
Agriculture
products
Non-agriculture
products
60
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
0-5
5-10
10-15
Percent premium
>15
214
Chapter 11
Opinion,
knowledge
and
suggestions
of
Traders
about
agricultural and non-agricultural products
Like consumers, the traders were also asked limited and most pertinent questions
only, and the data of agricultural and non-agricultural have been interpreted together.
Therefore, unlike chapter 5 & 6, all the paragraph heads will not be available in this
chapter. The chapter will have only those paragraphs, which pertain to information
collected from traders, but to keep the coherence with other chapters the paragraph bears
the same number as in other chapters.
For the opinion survey 375 traders were interviewed 70% of them were from
urban background (Table-11.1). About 45% are local shopkeepers (Table-11.2), some of
them are consumers also, mostly sale the products from home. About 93% are male and
average age of traders is 42 years (Table-11.3).
4.5: Mode of purchase by traders
The modes of purchase by the traders have direct impact on the price decisionmaking system of the producers.
In agricultural products, the major purchase is direct followed by local middlemen
and mandi. Though the purchase from producer group is less but it is very strong in case
of GI type I and strong in GI type III, in these GI type, the presence of middlemen and
mandi is also good. In GI type IV, the purchasing is not organized and disturbing trend is
seen. Producers group are absent in GI type IV and quite weak in GI type II and III.
Direct purchase is most significant mode of purchase but it may not be good indicator for
the small producers (Fig.11.30). In some cases such as wayanadan tea, they purchase
from factory out let, packing group or whole sellers, and in others such as alleppy
cardamom from auctioneers (Table-15.30).
215
In non-agricultural products, the direct purchase is more prevalent than
agricultural products. The main source of purchase is direct, followed by producers
group, producers group are stronger in non-agricultural products than agricultural
products. The direct purchase and through producers group is very strong in GI type VIII
and VI. Local middlemen are most prevalent in GI type VIII and VII. For better
bargaining, a collective bargain process need to be initiated especially in GI type VI and
VIII. A mandi kind of arrangement is weak through all GI except GI type V, it need to be
strengthened. (Fig.11.31). Mandi is better in case of agricultural products. In many cases
traders are producers also (Bal mithai, thanjavur plate, haramba thresher, kullu shawl etc.
in some cases such as kancheepuram silk it is buy-back method of purchase. In some
cases such as phulkari, the purchase is direct from families producing in several villages.
In some cases traders purchase from importers such as Hyderabad pearls (Table-16.34).
4.7: Contribution of uniqueness to sale
In agricultural products, more than 32% traders in GI type I and III feel that
unique characteristics of the product give better market value. Also the sale of product is
better than the other products in the same category (The big question is around 60% do
not believe so?). In GI type II, the percent of such respondents is 25 – 28%, the situation
of GI type IV, the situation is worse because respondents below 7% only believe so
(Fig.11.8).
In non-agricultural products, the belief of traders that unique characteristics gives
better market value and because of the unique characteristics, the sale of product is better
than other products in the same category can be expressed in following way in decreasing
order of importance (Fig.11.9).
-
In GI Type VIII , 37 – 38% believe so
-
In GI Type VII , 24% believe so
-
In GI Type VI , 21% believe so
-
In GI type V, 16% believe so
216
4.8: Trend of sale
In agricultural products in general about half of traders feel that sale is increasing
significantly (Fig.11.4). The salient features from table-11.4 are as given below:
-
Increase in sale is highest in GI type I, moderate in II and III but very low in IV.
-
For those who believe sale is more or less stationery, about half belong to GI type
III and one fourth to GI type II.
-
Only 15% traders across all GIs believe that sales are declining but 85% does not
believe so.
In non-agricultural products also, the trend is like agricultural products (Fig.11.5).
The salient factors from table-11.5 are as given below:
Across GI type, significant number of respondents GI type VIII (40%) and GI
type VI (25%) feel that sale is increasing significantly, but on negative side for example
75% respondents is GI type VI does not believe so.
-
Those who said sale is more or less stationary most below to GI type VII (30%).
-
Only 20% traders across all GIs believe that sale is either declining or very little
or no sale but 80% does not believe so.
4.9: Price decision and trend of unit price
In the price decision between trader and consumer bargaining is main process to
arrive on a win-win situation for both. In agricultural products, the main bargaining is in
GI type I, III and II in that order, in GI type IV no bargaining (Fig.11.8).
In non-agricultural products, the main bargaining is in GI type VIII, followed by
VI, VII and V (Fig.11.9). Gender issues are clearly reflected here e.g. in India for
purchase of textiles (GI type VIII) mostly women are involved, therefore, bargaining is
done it is felt by highest number of traders (42%). In case of handicraft also the
involvement of women is quite high. But where men are involved GI type V and GI type
VII the bargaining is least.
217
5.5: Traders’ view to maintain product quality
In agricultural products high quality production practices and also inputs is the major
concern; next to it is the good practices at market yard (Fig.11.48). These two have been
the major concerns through out all types of GIs but are of very high importance in case of
GI type III and II; good practices at market yard are of high importance in case of GI type
I and III (Table-11.48). The other salient features described in table-11.48 are:
-
Good practices at processing unit and proper handling in supply chain are areas of
concern in GI type III and I.
-
In GI type II removal of market malpractices and development and enforcement
of quality standards is area of concern.
-
Purchasing through authorized dealers is area of concern in GI type III.
-
Publicity, training and awareness creation is area of concern in GI type I and III.
In non-agricultural products also, the major concern is quality production practices
and inputs but next to it is involvement of technically efficient human resources.
Facilitation and enforcement of quality standards is another area of concern (Fig.11.49).
Other important features as detailed in table-11.49 can be summarized as given
below:
-
Good practices at processing units is important in GI type VIII
-
Publicity, training and awareness is important in GI type VIII and VI
-
Inspection and monitoring are reflected in only GI type V, it’s a matter of further
study, whether inspection and monitoring is available in other kinds of GI types.
-
Good practices at market yard are of high importance in GI type VI, VII and V.
-
Some respondents in GI type V and VII feel that quality is already good.
218
7.1: Duplicates and similar products
In agricultural products regarding presence of duplicate or copy type, the views of
traders are conflicting. About 33% percent say no duplicates are available, while 27
percent says these are available. Another 27 percent says these are available but of
inferior quality (Fig.11.19). The detailed scrutiny of table-11.19 reveals the following
facts.
-
Mostly no duplicates in GI type I and IV
-
Duplicates are mostly available in GI type III and II
-
If duplicates are available, these are of inferior quality mostly in GI type III.
-
In GI type III, are mostly from other areas or states are threat
-
In GI type III, mostly consumers prefer only, but this is not the case of mostly
with other GI types and not at all for GI type IV.
When duplicate or copy type products are available, then in traders’ view what are
means and ways to face the situation? In their view administrative measures are to be on
top, and other important measures are legal enforcement and public awareness
(Fig.11.21). The detailed picture is given in table-11.21, the salient features are:
-
For GI type I public awareness must be the top priority
-
For GI type II and III administrative must be the top priority
-
Duplicates is not a problem in GI type IV
For non-agricultural products most traders’ view duplicates are available but half of
them believe that these are of inferior quality. The duplicates from other areas or states
are threat (Fig.11.20). The salient features from the data available in table-11.20 are:
-
Duplicates from other areas and states is a threat in all GI types moreover these
duplicates are of inferior quality.
-
The duplicates are available mostly in GI type VII and VIII and to little extent in
GI type VI also.
219
-
In GI type VI and VIII mostly consumer prefer original products only.
The traders have also suggested the ways and means to face the duplicates or copy
type in non-agricultural products (Table-11.22). Like agricultural products, the most
important is administrative measures; and next to it is protection of product as IP
(Fig.11.21). The high quality standards along with IP protection are most suggested ways
and means for GI type VIII.
7.3: Competition- types and sources
About 67% percent traders feel that products are facing competition in their items.
Among these about 59 percent are for non-agricultural products (Fig.11.10).
In agriculture, the major competition is from same product produced in other
areas of the country followed by similar duplicates available in the country (Fig.11.11).
GI type III and I face highest competition (Table 11.11). Other important features are:
-
Same product produced in other areas of country is extreme in GI type IV and III
and severe in II and I.
-
Similar duplicates in the country is extreme in GI type I and II and severe in III.
-
Similar product imparted in country put severe competition to GI type II and III
-
Competition in export market is severe in GI type III and moderate in I.
Methods to face competition
The traders have also suggested several methods to face the competition arising in
agricultural and non-agricultural products.
In agricultural products, the most important suggested method is introduction of
quality control and inspection mechanism. The others are improvement in marketing
methods, intensive publicity and improved design and development (Fig.11.16). Table11.16 provides the detailed information with respect of each GI type and trend of
suggested methods is in the same pattern all through various GI types. A few traders have
also suggested supplementary methods also (Table-11.18).
220
In non-agricultural products, the suggested methods are little different than
agricultural products. The most important method here is improvement through design
and development followed by equally important ‘improvement in marketing methods’
and ‘intensive publicity’. It follows some other methods as given in fig.11.17. The
detailed information is given in table-11.17 but the pattern is more or less similar across
all GI types. A few traders are of the opinion that nothing much can be done in this
matter (Table-11.18).
7.4: Import of similar product and difference between imported and domestic
product
The response to the question on measuring the opinion of respondents regarding
aspects of difference between imported and domestically produced products was not
much encouraging. Only 62 respondents in agricultural products and 86 in nonagricultural products responded to this question.
In agricultural products 79% respondents feel that imported product quality is
inferior to the domestically produced. This has been major observation in GI type III and
II and to little extent in I also, in GI type IV no such observation is made (Table-11.14).
A few traders in GI type I and III also feel that imported products’ quality is better.
In non-agricultural products, the view is different than the agricultural products.
About 50 percent respondents observe the quality difference, 25 percent feel that
imported products are cheaper. A few respondents in GI type VI and VIII feel that
traditional nature of indigenous products is highly valued. Those who feel that imported
products are cheaper, about 60% belong to GI type III, 23% to GI type VI and 18% to GI
type VII (Table-11.15).
7.5: Import of the products
Traders could not give any information regarding the formal/informal channel and
volume and value of import.
221
7.6: Export and trade option of the products
The knowledge of trade suitability of product is very important to design the
appropriate trade and finance policy. Using the preferential matrix ranking method, the
priority scores were obtained to find out the final trade suitability of the product. The
results as per GI type are incorporated in the tables from 11.36 to 11.43.
The comparative analysis for agricultural products reveals the following facts as
presented in table-11.44:
-
GI type I: Mostly suited for domestic consumption including the states also, the
second option is suitability for export.
-
GI type II: Mostly suited for export, second option can be domestic consumption
in country
-
GI type III: Mostly suited for export, second option can be domestic consumption
in country
-
GI type IV: Mostly suited for domestic consumption in country, second option
can be consumption in state of production.
The comparative analysis of non-agricultural products in table-11.44 reveals the
following facts:
-
GI type V: Suited for local consumption only, second option can be export.
-
GI type VI: Suited for export, second option can be domestic consumption in the
country.
-
GI type VII: Suited for local consumption only, second option can be domestic
consumption in the country.
-
GI type VIII: Suited for domestic consumption in the country, the second option
can be export.
A product-wise explanation about suitability of each product has been given in table
11.45.
222
The trade suitability will not always match with priority approach in trade. In the
understanding of traders, the preferential approach could be adopted as per the kind of the
product.
The results contained in table-11.46 reveal very high expectation from the
products. For almost all, they want to have the preferential approach, which must be
export oriented with equal weight to domestic sale. The second preferred approach differs
for different product types as given below:
-
For GI type I, II, IV, V and VII: The approach can be more for the domestic sale.
-
For GI type III, VI and VIII: The preference can be given for export than
domestic sale.
The product-wise details about the preferential approach are given in table-11.47.
9.3: Willingness to pay for expected enhanced premium
In agricultural products, 34, 31 and 28 percent traders respectively for GI type I,
II and III share the opinion that as a registered GI, the product should provide enhanced
premium to the producers an traders. For GI type IV, only 7 percent preferred this idea.
(Fig.11.8).
In case of non-agricultural products except GI type VIII, the traders favouring
enhanced premium are lesser than for agricultural products. In GI type VIII about 36%
percent believe so but in other GI types, it is between 19-22 percent (Fig.11.9).
Enhancement over prevailing cost price
Now the question arises how much increase over prevailing costly price is
expected? Most expect 10 percent increase or less in agriculture (Fig.11.32) and similar is
the situation for non-agricultural products (Fig.11.32). For agricultural products as
detailed in table-11.32 in GI type-I most traders see increase between 10-15%; in GI type
II between 5-10%; and in GI type III below 5% only.
223
For the non-agricultural products most traders in GI type V expect less than 5%;
in GI type VI between 5 - 10%; in GI type VII less than 10% and similarly in GI type
VIII also most see below 10%.
Enhancement over selling price
In case of both agricultural and non-agricultural products, most traders expect
enhancement of 15% or below (Fig.11.34, 11.35) while in case of prevailing cost price it
was mostly below 10% enhancement.
Expected increase in agricultural products in 15% or below for GI type I, 10% or
below in GI type II and III, in case of GI type IV, the traders are divided but most expect
the increase of 10% or more (Table-11.34). Similar was the trend observed for enhanced
premium over prevailing cost price in this GI type.
Expected increase in non-agricultural products in 10% or below for GI type V and
VI, 5 - 15% in GI type VII. In GI type VIII traders as fragmented, about half expect
increase of less the 5% and other half expect it more than 10% (Table-11.35).
In both agricultural and non-agricultural products, the traders expecting increase
of more than 15% are very few (26% in agri and 10% in non-agriculture).
10.3: Earnings and income
Not many traders are satisfied with their earnings from sale of agricultural
product. As detailed in table-11.8, 37% in GI type I, 35% in III, 15% in I and about 12%
in IV are satisfied. It means from 73 to 88 % in various GI types are not satisfied.
The situation in non-agricultural products is even worse, where only 12% in GI
type V, 18% in VI ad 28% in VII are satisfied. About 82-88% are not satisfied. For GI
type VIII a little relief is there because about 41% of traders are satisfied with their
earnings (Table-11.9).
224
10.8: Future prospects of the product
Traders have given their opinion about future prospects of the product. The salient
features of product-wise details are available in table-11.27. The summary is presented in
the matrix below:
Product type
Likely to
worsen
Remain same or likely
to worsen
Remain same
Agriculture
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Coorg orange
Telicherry black
pepper
Sanganeri print
Non-agriculture
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass
material
Kancheepuram silk
Ludhiana hosiery
Remain same or
likely to be
bright
Navra rice
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Worli painting
Mysore sandal
soap
Nilgiri oil
Maralubha
thresher
Jaipur blue
pottery
Patola saree
Panthani saree
Phulkari
All other studied products not listed in the matrix have bright future, which is
likely to be improved. For some products, no data is available; these are sehori genhu,
kurnool rice, malwa potato, kumbhraj dhanania and buraansh juice.
10.9: Constructive measures to make production viable and improve future
prospects
For improving the economic viability and future prospects of the product, the
traders have suggested various constructive measures. The detailed analysis is available
in table-11.28 and 11.29 for the agricultural and non-agricultural products.
In case of agriculture, the major suggestions are improvement at production level,
quality standardization, maintenance and assurance, good marketing practices and
publicity of the product (Fig.11.28). The trend is almost same except few deviations such
as:
225
-
In GI type III much emphasis is given on quality management, good marketing
practices and post-harvest level improvements.
-
Government policy support has been observed very important in case of GI type
II an IV.
-
Publicity of product has been felt important in GI type I, III and IV.
-
The unawareness of traders is reflected because in almost all cases, GI
registrations have not been understood as constructive measure for the purpose.
For non-agricultural products, the top priority is same as in agricultural products
i.e. production level improvements, it follows the government support and then equally
important quality management and good marketing practices (Fig.11.29). Other salient
features are:
-
In the sector of textiles few have raised restriction on import as a measure
-
GI registration has not been understood as an instrument of improvement except
in case of GI type V and VIII. But situation is better than agricultural products.
10.10: Status of marketing and suggestions for improvement
In agricultural products, 51% respondents are satisfied with the current status of
marketing. The satisfaction level in GI type I is low, in others it is five (Fig.11.23). In
non-agricultural products also the situation is similar to agricultural products. More than
50% of respondents are satisfied in each GI type, while for GI type III the satisfaction
level is up to 80% percent. (Fig.11.24).
10.11: Suggestions for improvement to increase sale
For agricultural products, the major suggestions are standardization of quality,
more publicity and reasonable price (Fig.11.6). As explained in table-11.6, the major
issues are:
-
In GI type I, easy availability is also important
-
In GI type II, innovative changes with keeping traditional base is also important
-
More publicity is most important in case of GI type IV.
226
For agricultural products, the additional suggestions given by the traders for some
products are reproduced below:
Product
Additional comments by traders
Banganpally mango
Connecting yield with sale because when the yield is less marketing
of the produce is also less, but when production is more, there is
problem. Therefore early marketing is beneficial.
People are ready to pay Rs.100/kg for apple. But attitude is such
that they do not think beyond Rs.25/- for mango.
Production should be increased.
Check adulteration and enhance production.
Mandi should be available in dungarpur district. Farmer’s training
also to make available.
Government recognition and brand creation.
Alphonso mango
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Dungarpur zinger
Nannari sharbat
For non-agricultural product also, standardization of quality is most important. It
follows the innovative changes with keeping traditional base and more publicity
(Fig.11.7). As explained in table-11.7 the major issues are:
-
Publicity is top most issue in GI type V and second top most in GI type VI and
VII
-
Innovative changes keeping traditional base is most important in GI type III
followed by standardization of quality.
For non-agricultural products, the additional suggestions given by the traders for
some products are reproduced below:
Product
Additional comments
Agra petha
Kondapalli bommalu
Thanjaur art plate
Need technical mechanism.
Not recognized as the special artisans in the market.
Raw material cost should be controlled. Govt. should arrange for
export. Government should purchase as memento for government
functions as before. Raw material cost should be controlled.
Duplicates avoided.
Production in one area instead of spread here and there.
More number of shops and less customers. Not only sale but service
is also important. Govt. recognition to the labourers and traders’
involved in the business.
New varieties as per demands and feedback from Consumer’s
traders.
Exhibitions for publicity.
Kolhapuri chappal
Punjabi jooti
Hyderabad pearls
Patola saree
Phulkari
227
Opinion, knowledge and suggestions of Traders about agricultural and nonagricultural products- Figures
Fig 11.4 & 11.5:Trend of sales of the products under study
according to traders
60
Sales increasing significantly
More or less stationary
Sales are declining
Very little or no sale at all
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Agriculture Products
Non-agriculture
Products
Trend in Sale
Fig 11.6 & 11.7:Traders’ suggestions to im prove sales of
agricultural and Non-agricultural products
35
Quality to be standardized
Percentage
30
Innovative changes to be
made keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and kept
w ithin reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
25
20
15
10
More publicity required
5
Others
0
Agriculture Products
Non-agriculture
products
Suggestions to im prove sales
Percentage
Fig 11.8: Traders’ views on agricultural products under study
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
I
II
III
IV
1
2
3
4
5
Observations
Codes in Fig 11.8 & 11.9: 1. Unique characteristics of this product give better market value than the other products in the
same category available in the markets, 2. Due to unique characteristics, the sale of this product is better than the other
products in the same category available in the markets, 3. Satisfaction with the current earnings from the product under
study, 4. As a registered GI, it should provide enhanced premium to the producers and traders, 5. Do the customers
bargain the prices of these products?
228
Percentage
Fig 11.9:Traders’ views on non-agricultural products under study
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
V
VI
VII
VIII
1
2
3
4
5
Observations
Codes in Fig 11.8 & 11.9: 1. Unique characteristics of this product give better market value than the other products in the
same category available in the markets, 2. Due to unique characteristics, the sale of this product is better than the other
products in the same category available in the markets, 3. Satisfaction with the current earnings from the product under
study, 4. As a registered GI, it should provide enhanced premium to the producers and traders, 5. Do the customers
bargain the prices of these products?
Fig 11.10: Traders’ view on products facing significant competition
Agriculture Products
Facing
Competition
Not Facing
Competition
42%
58%
Non Agriculture Products
Facing
Competition
Not Facing
Competition
24%
76%
Fig 11.11 & 11.12: Major types of competition faced by
products under study as viewed by traders
Percentage
50
Agriculture
products
Non-agriculture
products
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Types of Competition
4
Codes in Fig 11.11 &11.12: 1.Same product produced in other areas of the country, 2. Similar duplicates in the country,
3. Similar products imported into the country, 4. Competition in the export market from other countries producing similar
products
229
Fig 11.16 & 11.17: Traders’ opinion about m ethods to face
com petition in agricultural & non-agricultural products
Percentage
25
20
Agriculture
products
Non- agriculture
products
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Responses for methods to face competition
Codes for Fig 11.16 & 11.17: 1.Production quality control and inspection quality assurance methods to be effectively
introduced, 2.Through design and technological development, 3. Improvement of marketing methods, 4. Intensive
publicity, 5. Export-oriented development, 6. Cutting down production and marketing costs, 7. Organizing exhibitions,
expos, and market complexes etc., 8. Seeking GI Registration
Percent response
Fig 11.19: Traders’ views on presence of duplicate / copy type of the
agricultural products under study in the market
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
II
III
IV
1
2
3
4
5
Views on duplicates
Percent response
Fig 11.20: Traders’ views on presence of duplicate / copy type of the
non-agricultural products under study in the market
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
V
VI
VII
VIII
1
2
3
4
5
Views on duplicates
Codes for Fig 11.19 & 11.20: 1. No duplicates, 2. Duplicates present in market, 3. Inferior quality of duplicates, 4.
Duplicate from other area/ states are threat, 5. Consumers prefer original products only (for GI-8)/ Not much competition
from duplicates (for GI-I)
230
Percent response
Fig 11.21: Ways and m eans to face com petition : Opinion of
traders about agricultural products
50
Public aw areness
40
Legal enforcement
30
Administrative
measures
Consumers
discourage duplicates
High quality standards
20
10
0
Branding and labeling
Agriculture products
IP protection
Ways & m eans to face com petition
Promoting originals
Percentage
Fig 11.22:Ways and means to face competition : Opinion of
traders about non-agricultural products
60
Public awareness
50
Legal enforcement
40
Administrative measures
30
High quality standards
20
IP protection
10
0
Administrative procedures
Non-agriculture Products
Administrative action
Ways & means to face competition
Percent response
Fig 11.23:Traders’ opinion about current status of marketing of
agricultural products
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Satisfactory
Not satisfactory
I
II
III
GI Types
IV
231
Percent response
Fig 11.24: Traders’ opinion about current status of marketing of
non-agricultural products
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Satisfactory
Not
satisfactory
V
VI
VII
VIII
GI Type
Percent response
Fig 11.25: Suggestions of traders to improve marketing
of and regulated
Organized
agricultural products
markets
Post harvest facility-processing
25
Post harvest facility-storage
20
Post harvest facilitytransportation
Export avenues
15
Regulated price structure
10
Good marketing practices
5
Total Quality Management
(TQM)
Government policy support
0
Suggestions to improve
marketing
Publicity
Special market
Fig 11.26: Suggestions of traders to improve marketing of nonagricultural products
Organized and regulated
markets
Government policy support
35
Percent response
30
Publicity
25
Good marketing practices
20
Export avenues
15
Total Quality Management
(TQM)
Regulated price structure
10
5
Involvement of ICTs
0
Suggestions to improve marketing
Restricting imports and
duplicates
232
Fig 11.28: Traders’ suggestions for constructive measures to improve
economic viability and future prospects of agricultural products
Percent response
25
Production level
improvements
Quality standardization,
maintenance and assurance
Post harvest level
improvements
Good transport facilities
20
15
Government policy support
10
Good market practices
5
Publicity of the product
GI registration
0
Constructive measures to improve
economic viability and future prospects
40
Fig 11.29: Traders’ suggestions for constructive m easures to
im prove econom ic viability and future prospects of non-agricultural
products
Percent response
35
Can’t say
30
Production level
improvements
Quality standardization,
maintenance and assurance
Good marketing practices
25
20
15
10
Government policy support
5
0
Publicity of the product
Constructive m easures to im prove
econom ic viability and future prospects
GI registration
Restriction on import and
duplicates
Fig 11.30: Sources of purchase of agricultural products by traders
45
Percent response
40
35
30
I
25
II
20
III
15
IV
10
5
0
Direct
Local
middlemen
Producers
Group
Mandi
Local shop
Any Other
233
Fig 11.31: Sources of purchase of non-agricultural products by
traders
60
Percent response
50
40
V
VI
30
VII
20
VIII
10
0
Direct
Local
middlemen
Producers
Group
Mandi
Local shop Any Other
Fig 11.32 & 11.33: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing
cost price of agricultural products and non-agriculture products after GI
registration
Percent response
50
Agriculture
Products
Non-agriculture
Products
40
30
20
10
0
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Percent increase over prevailing cost price
Percent response
Fig 11.34 & 11.35: Traders’ expected percent increase over the
prevailing selling price of GI registered agricultural and nonagricultural products
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Agriculture
products
Non-agriculture
products
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Percent increase over selling price
234
Percent response
Fig 11.48: Traders’ view about maintenance of quality of
agricultural products
High quality production
35
practices and inputs
Good practices at market yard
30
Good practices at processing
units
25
Proper handling in supply chain
20
Publicity, training and
awareness
Purchasing through authorized
dealers
Removing market malpractices
15
10
5
Developing quality standards
0
Facilitation and enforcement of
quality standards
Maintenance of Quality
35
Percent response
30
25
20
Fig 11.49: Traders’ view about maintenance of quality of nonagricultural products
High quality production
practices and inputs
Good practices at market
yard
Good practices at processing
units
Facilitation and enforcement
of quality standards
Inspection and monitoring
15
Publicity, training and
awareness
Involvement of technically
efficient human resource
Motivation through incentives
10
5
0
Maintenance of quality
Quality already good
235
Chapter 12
Case Studies of Few Registered Products
In this chapter, the cases of ‘Coimbatore wet grinder’, ‘Mysore silk’, ‘Chanderi saree’,
‘Solapur chaddar’ and ‘Kangra tea’ have been discussed.
A. COIMBATORE WET GRINDER
Coimbatore Wet-grinder Manufacturers and Accessories Suppliers Association
(COWMA), Coimbatore has done the registration of ‘Coimbatore Wet Grinder’ (CWG)
as Geographical Indication (GI). Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development
Institute (MSMEDI), Coimbatore, which is an organ of Ministry of MSME, Govt. of
India has facilitated the process of GI registration. COWMA filed an application with GI
registry, Chennai on 14.03.2005 and granted registration on 30.01.2006 as GI no. 26 and
certificate no. 23.
1. What is CWG?
It is a grinder to make paste for idaly and dosa etc. it is mostly produced in
Coimabtore but also some producers available in Erode and Madurai in Tamilnadu.
2. How and to whom the idea of GI clicked?
It was clicked to MSMEDI, which obtained the first and foremost knowledge
about registration of industrial products as GI during a training program at Hyderabad
based institute. After that other stakeholders such as United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO) consultants also informed about the GI possibility.
236
3. Why the idea of protecting product as GI?
The product is exclusive to Coimbatore, there were several un-answered questions
regarding need to protect this product as GI. There can be few strong reasons for getting
registration of GI for a product but these were not applicable for CWG as given below.
¾ Will GI help in facing competition? Probably ‘no’ because this is an exclusive
product and local producers have competitive edge due to several reasons listed
elsewhere in this case. The main competition is among the producers at
Coimbatore itself, where GI is helpless.
¾ Will GI help in getting a premium price? Probably ‘no’ because there is no similar
product is available in the market, it is ‘the only’ product and made in a restricted
area in Tamilnadu.
¾ Will GI help in market expansion? Possibly ‘no’ or partly ‘yes’ because of
advertisement of the product during the process of registration, and also chances
are available to become proud owner of first manufactured product registered as
GI in India, it will lead to added value for advertisement.
Then, why the registration applied and done?
There were three basic questions for self-appraisal as given below along-with their
answers which support the idea of protecting the product as GI.
¾ The producers association known, as COWMA consist of all the producers except
one manufacturer thus represents each and every producer at Coimbatore. It was
registered in 1995 with a purpose of functioning as a pressure group especially
with taxation departments but it was not active for other positive developments.
Now there was a question, whether existence of COWMA is a good opportunity
for GI registration and vice versa can GI make COWMA an effective pressure
group for socio-economic developments of producers? The answer to this
question was strong ‘yes’.
237
¾ Does the product/producers need recognition as GI? Yes, because it is a special
product made by especially skilled people in a niche area using locally available
raw materials, therefore community intelligence must be recognized, respected
and honored, which can be done as GI only.
¾ Can GI be used as a tool for standardization and quality management? The answer
was strong ‘yes’ because it was a long felt need to take actions for the
standardization and quality management. Other options like ISO certification etc
were available but GI had several added advantages over these certification
standards. In certification, it is given to producers individually, it need money
therefore small producers will be at loss. Further COWMA does not have any role
or control over standards and quality. While GI is almost free, applicable to all
and COWMA will have strong role not only developing protocols of standards but
also would have control over it. Moreover GI does not stop in having other
certifications; therefore option is always available for them who wish to have it.
4. Process of GI registration
There are several registration requirements as discussed below:
Step-1: Identifying producers and their association
The first question was, who will do it? There was no confusion as COWMA was
available and ready to take all responsibilities including financial implications. Then the
next question was to define the producers. Therefore in this case following are the
producers:
Producers
Number at Coimbatore
Medium Scale Unit (MSU)
Small Scale Industry (SSI)- composite
Small Scale Industry (SSI)- assemblers
Suppliers or sub-contractors (Manufacturers of drum, motor, stone, plastic
injection moulders, and arm-set manufacturers and other component
traders)
Total
01
50
150
500
701
238
Step-2: Satisfying technical needs of GI
For a GI basically there are three fundamental technical needs e.g. to establish
proof of origin, to establish the facts of uniqueness and to provide the inspection
mechanism.
Proof of origin
For historical proofs, the literature and document survey helped to draw a time
line of milestone activities as given below:
1955
– Invention of mechanized wet grinder by a person called Mr. Sabapathy.
1970 – Wet grinder made popular.
1980 – Tilting type by M/s. Shantha Industries.
1985 – Development of various attachments.
1995 – Table top by M/s. ELGI Industries.
In support of time line several evidences are collected and presented to GI office,
these include:
¾ A Communication from District Industries Center (DIC), Coimbatore of 1955
regarding establishing a manufacturing unit of grinder
¾ Advertisements released by M/S. Sri Lakshmi Industries in different newspapers
during 1970’s
¾ A court case proceeding dated 25th Augut1987.
Uniqueness
¾ Natural cluster, which exists only in Coimbatore
¾ Invented, designed and developed at Coimbatore
¾ Availability of strong supply chain
239
¾ Use of a particular stone from quarries available mostly at Coimbatore and 1-2%
at Erode. To establish the scientific facts, the physico-chemical analysis was done
by PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore.
Inspection mechanism
¾ There is no IS specification for wet grinders.
¾ These units are testing the motors as per the relevant IS standards.
¾ The final product wet grinder is tested for its grinding performance, running
smoothness and safety.
¾ The manufacturers have developed their own method of testing the product.
¾ Some of the motor manufacturers have obtained ISI marking license. Because of
stringent procedures several of small producers are not interested in ISI
certification
¾ COWMA and MSMEDI are doing all efforts to develop standards; till such
standards are developed the MSMEDI is doing the inspection. Once the standards
are finalized, the COWMA will take over this responsibility.
Step-3: Financial arrangements for GI registration
The fee of Rs 5000/- and the fee for legal consultants approximate Rs 15000/- was
paid by COWMA. The expenditure for conducting several meetings and training sessions
etc was done by MSMEDI and approximate expenditure on such activities was to the
tune of Rs 20000/-.
Step-4 collecting and establishing the product and production facts
Producers
¾ There are middlemen exporters (05) with annual turn over of Rs 25 crore, but they
are not producer. And there are 201 manufactures (01 medium scale, 150 large
240
SSIs and 150 Medium SSIs) and 500 component suppliers (motors, drums,
castings, stones, arm sets etc). The SSI manufactures have annual turn over of Rs
200 crore and sub-contractors or accessories suppliers have Rs 150 crore annual
turn over.
¾ About 10-15 manufactures have their own brand name and they have authorized
dealers and service centers at several places in the country. Most of the medium
SSI manufactures do not have any brand name and service delivery mechanism.
¾ About 25% manufacturers are large type earning Rs 1- 5 lakh per month, about
75% are medium type earning Rs 10,000 to 100,000 per month. The accessories
suppliers earn Rs 10,000-20,000 per month.
Product
There are several kinds of grinders
Product type
Share in market (%)
Product remark
Conventional
60
Table top
20
Tilting
10
Commercial
Special purpose
09
01
Take longer time about 45 minutes in grinding,
models ranges from 1 to 50 liter capacity
Take less time about 15-20 minutes in grinding,
model ranges from half liter to two liters capacity
Hygenic as no hands are used, models ranges
from 1 to30 liter capacity
Mostly conventional or tilting types
For restaurants or big catering units etc.
241
Production steps
The development of the product involves several steps as detailed in the flow diagram
below:
WET GRINDER PRODUCTION PROCESS – FLOW CHART
Stainless steel
sheet for basin
Stone Quarry
Stone dressing
manually
Cutting
Stone
machining
Rolling
MS angles
Stamping
Fabrication
SS Sheet or
plywood sheets
Welding
Stator
Rotor
Winding
Die-casting
Varnishing
Machining
Finished stone
Forming
Assembling
(Cast iron, MS
body, Bearings,
etc.)
Polishing
Assembling
Drum, Stone assembly
Other bought out components
such as belts, pulleys, plastic
components etc.
Cabinet
Motor
Final Assembly
Testing
Packing
242
Market statistics
¾ The annual turn over is approximate Rs 200 crore
¾ The industry provides employment directly to 20000 persons and indirectly to
50000 persons.
¾ About 80 percent of market is in four southern states and 20 percent market is in
other parts of the country or export.
¾ The main marketing season is between two important festivals i.e. Deepawali to
Pongal
5. Post GI registration activities and impact
¾ Development of a GI mark is in progress
¾ COWMA does not force any standard, its purely a voluntary action at part of
producers
¾ No infringement or GI protection administrative action has been taken because no
any such activity is reported and moreover the product is exclusive to the GI
claimed region.
¾ The GI name ‘Coimbatore wet grinder’ is not in use even after one year of
registration. The COWMA has not permitted any one to use the GI name. The
name would be used after the standards are in place and regulated & enforced by
COWMA.
¾ GI has been used as a tool for convincing government to reduce Value Added Tax
(VAT) from 12.5 to 4% in 2007-08 budget. It gave the big relief to the producers
¾ Strengthening of COWMA has been the significant achievement of GI
registration.
¾ Press coverage at several milestone activities, publicity and advertisement without
any cost.
243
6. Competition policy
¾ There is no threat to the product from other similar product
¾ The main competition is between local producers
¾ Continuous innovations and R&D
¾ Local producers have competitive edge over producers at other places such as
Delhi. The producers located at other places especially in Central and Northern
India can never compete with respect to quality and cost.
7. Price policy
¾ The household grinders are sold at Rs 1750/- for conventional and table top and
for Rs 2250/- for tilting type. The price varies with the capacity and type of use
i.e. for household or commercial.
¾ There has been an increase of 10% in the prices from last year but the rates of raw
material increasing. To keep the manufacturing cost less, the several tricks are
adopted- mass production, replace steel body to plastic body, reducing the
thickness of stone.
¾ The producer earns 10-15% over manufacturing cost, the mediator earn 20-25%
over procurement cost, the efforts have been done to reduce middle-men and
ensure direct domestic sale or exports.
8. Marketing policy
¾ All the manufacturers to have their own brands, they will use GI name and GI
mark.
¾ All will follow the standards as agreed by COWMA, and also inspection
procedure as developed and adopted by COWMA.
¾ The COWMA has a greater challenge of fixing the Maximum Retail Price (MRP).
¾ Service support is provided to dealers through training their staff or sending the
service engineers in case of any special requirements. The manufacturers do not
have their own service centers like big companies.
244
¾ Can the COWMA have a common brand and direct marketing through its own
outlets as done by KSIC? This model will not work because there are so many
producers, all would like to maintain their own identity and every producer would
like to sale their product on priority basis through these outlets. Further the
product nature is such that there cannot an exclusive showroom or outlet for this
product only; no trader would be interested in that. The traders would like to sale
this product along-with other consumer durables.
9. Gender issues
¾ Women are engaged in various activities including men dominating activities
such as wielding and assembly etc.
¾ Most of the medium units are located along-with the house or nearby area,
therefore 10-15% of such units are supervised by women
¾ COWMA is organized body, the women members are there but they are not
officials of COWMA
10. GI vs brand name
All the manufactures of grinder are members of COWMA except one large
producer selling the product under brand name ‘ELGI’. The producer claims to be the
innovator and developer of the tabletop model, and further claims that others are copying
it. But still the producer has some own secret innovations in the product. The product is
popular in the market and brand name is an established name in the domestic and foreign
market. There is a conflict of GI and brand name, the producer is not willing to share the
secret innovation and bound the product as per standards of COWMA, the producer is
neither authorized nor willing to use GI name, the producer is confident that the brand
name does not require the support of GI name for selling their product either in India or
abroad.
245
11. Integrated efforts for product development
The erstwhile Small-scale Industry Service Institute (SISI) now known as
MSMEDI is taking care of this product in more organized way since 2004. The GI
registration was a small activity done under the organized efforts. As a component of
cluster development activity during 2004 to 2007, MSMEDI has spent around Rs 20-25
lakhs on various activities and about 100 lakhs on creation of Common Facility Center
(CFC). The major activities performed during the period of intervention are:
Strategic interventions
¾ Strengthening the association
¾ Technology up-gradation
¾ Creating new markets
¾ Taping export potential
¾ Developing BDS to assist the cluster
¾ Making the cluster an organized one
Problems identification at first phase
¾ Main raw materials from outside cluster
¾ Inadequate financial resources
¾ No direct exports by manufacturers
¾ Poor design and development
¾ Non employment of BDS providers
Problems identification at second phase
¾ Association office secretariat is weak
¾ Absence of Technically qualified workers
¾ No uniform standard for the product
¾ Poor institutional linkages
¾ Non employment of latest marketing techniques
246
On the basis of the problems identified the diagnostic actions were taken by MSMEDI,
which are presented below in the table.
Problem
Major
raw
materials
outside the cluster
Initiative taken and outcome
from
Inadequate financial resources for
Micro units of the cluster
No
direct
export
by
the
manufacturers
Poor
Design
Development of the product
and
Non employment of BDS providers
Association
secretariat is weak
office
No
uniform
standard
for the product
Poor institutional linkages
Non employment of latest marketing
techniques
Un-organized functioning of cluster
Establishment of Common Facility Center (CFC). The CFC is in
operation and Central and state government has given funds for this.
The facility, in full operation will provide all kinds of raw material
at one place, facility of quality testing of raw material and finished
product, and also training for quality management.
Financing the units under Mutual Credit Guarantee Fund (MCGF)
scheme, 30 units have been financed up to Rs one lakh.
Website launched with 50 member’s details , B2B meets organized
at Kuala -Lumpur and Singapore with a 16 member delegation
during Feb – 2007. Opportunity to establish direct contact for future
business opportunities and also understand their product
requirements.
Eight weeks technicians training programme organized by PSG
college of Technology, Coimbatore with financial assistance of
DST
BDS providers introduced in the areas of ISO 9001: 2000, Costing,
Export promotion, Design, Marketing, etc. And the outcome is that
5 units are certified for ISO 9000, few more in progress; 5 units
have started exporting directly and Other units are availing BDS
services for various purposes
Implementation of association strengthening activities such as
opening a office, annual general body meeting, starting a news
bulletin, weekly meetings and platform to discuss problems and
also other activities as negotiations
Registration as GI to improve standardization. Formulation of IS for
the product by BIS is under progress
Linkages established with PSG Tech., GIR, NSIC, SIDBI, CGTSI,
Banks, EEPC, MATRADE, KOTRA, IACC, TANSTIA – FNF,
DIC, Other Industry associations, CII, ICC, Press media, etc.,
•Exclusive food melas, B2B meets organized at various places in
North India resulting into orders of Rs 25 Lakhs and appointment of
dealers. Same activity done for eastern India also
•Common website launched
•CD-ROM developed for marketing purpose
Lobbying at various quarters and submitting representations
resulting into favourable business decisions such as reduction of
VAT from 12.5% to 4% in 2007-08 financial budget. The units
have started to function in an organized manner resulting into
trebled turn over during first quarter of 2007-08. the sector was
organized into various consortia as ‘Arm set consortium – each unit
saving Rs. 6000 pm’, ‘
Accessories consortium – each unit save Rs. 10000 pm’, ‘III
consortium – each unit save Rs. 10000 pm’ and ‘Motor consortium
resulting into common purchase’. In total five consortia formed (3
for MCGF, 1 for export and 1 for RM ). Market for the product has
been expanded into new areas. More mutual trust has been
established among cluster actors due to formation of more no. of
consortia and frequent meetings. Financing of CFC by Tamilnadu
state government also
247
Financial strategy
A scheme known as Mutual Credit Guarantee Fund (MCGF) was launched by
MSMEDI involving producers and financial institutions. Under the scheme a consortium
of 10 producers collect 25 percent of desired loan amount, State Industrial Development
Bank of India (SIDBI) provide the matching grant without any interest. Now this amount
(50% of desired loan amount) put as Fixed Deposit (FD) with a commercial bank. The
consortium provides interest on the FD amount, and bank provides the desired loan
amount to the consortium on a subsidized interest rates. The benefit of this scheme is that
the consortium need to pay minimum interest rate, producers develop repaying capacity
and because of involvement of so many stakeholders, the commercial banks have the
confidence about repayments.
Marketing strategy
¾ Promoting direct business contacts- producers official website: There is website
of COWMA ‘www.wetgrindercoimbatore.com’, in addition about five exporters
have their own exclusive websites.
¾ Forward linkages- delegations to abroad: The expos are conducted at several
countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore etc. Here the producers came
into direct contact of other effective bodies such as Kulalampur Little India
Merchant Association (KLCCI). The producers did get not only direct
orders/dealership but also important feedback such as expectations of importers,
desired modifications in the machine and food regulations of country such as
Singapore.
¾ Forward linkages- delegations in the country: Several food melas in North and
Central India helped to boost the sales
¾ Promotion of direct exports without involvement of any middlemen, in 2004 only
one establishment was doing direct export but now there are 10 units exporting
CWG worth Rs 25 crores directly.
248
¾ Product publicity: Several means are adopted for publicity, the most innovative is
the development of a CD, the CD is distributed free and cost of developing a CD
was about Rs 25000/- that was borne by the COWMA.
Training strategy
Many of the producers and their workforce were not technically qualified,
therefore they were not very innovative. To think beyond present knowledge boundaries,
one need proper training. Several programs are organized with the funding support of
Department of Science and Technology (DST) and technical support of PSG College,
Coimbatore.
Service strategy
Hired consultants: The consultants are identified and provided to COWMA to support for
various services such as:
¾ Certification- at least five units are certified for ISO
¾ Marketing- at least ten units are exporting directly now
¾ Institutional networking for backward and forward linkages
¾ Costing method- this is an important area, where many of small and medium
producers are completely un-aware.
Networking and communication strategy
The organized and stronger COWMA now provide a platform for discussions and
formal and informal communications. Several problems are solved informally e.g. a
trader from Bangalore take the grinders from one producer and delay the payments for a
larger period, in the mean time he take the machine from other producers. Now the
producers’ came to know about his strategy so all decide not to supply him anything
without proper payment scheduling.
249
Creating common Facilities
A Common Facility Center (CFC) was created that would cater the needs of producers in
following way:
¾ Opportunity of networking
¾ Standardization and testing facilities
¾ Training on innovative design etc.
¾ Providing raw material under one roof
12. Growth of industry during integrated approach and exit
The impact of integrated approach has been discussed elsewhere in this case
study. The important growth parameters are presented in the table. The MSMEDI also
planned the exit from the scene now.
Parameter
Before intervention- 2004
Post intervention-2007
Production (no.)
Direct employment (no.)
Business (Rs in crore)
Export (Rs in crore)
Direct exporting units
ISO 9001 certified units
60,000
20,000
225
25
01
Nil
100,000
30,000
400
50
10
05
Exit strategy
¾ Responsibility of organizing the activities shifted to the association.
¾ Well established linkages developed with various agencies like State Govt.,
NSIC, SIDBI so that the activities can be continued in the future.
¾ Association office has been strengthened with necessary infrastructure and
sources of information like magazines, internet, etc.
¾ Linkages established with other associations for synergy.
¾ Various BDS have been introduced in the cluster whose services can be availed in
future also.
¾ COWMA cluster services registered under societies registration act will look after
the implementation of CFC
250
B. MYSORE SILK
1. Ownership of the ‘Mysore silk’ as GI
To the general public in India, ‘Mysore silk’ refers to the reputed fabric and
clothing such as ‘saree’ produced at Mysore. Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation
(KSIC), Bangalore, which is a state government enterprise, is the sole proprietor of the
‘Mysore silk’ as a GI, the registration has been done under various classes for yarn,
textile and clothing. The KSIC got registration of this GI in November 2005. The
dynamic Managing Director took steps for the registration of this product as GI but these
initiatives are the result of the awareness created by the Geographical Indication Registry
officers. The KSIC responded to the awareness with great zeal by initiating the
registration program immediately. The registered geographical area for this product is
Mysore city and nearby area only (not the complete Mysore district).
KSIC claims the sole ownership, there is no other producer of ‘Mysore Silk’.
Historical records put by KSIC trace the growth of this product since way back in 1912,
when ‘Maharaja of Mysore’ established a factory at Mysore primarily to meet the royal
needs of the silk fabric. In 1928, the cocoons grown at Mysore were taken to Europe for
reeling (yarn making) and crepe making through power looms. This experiment had sown
the seeds of crepe silk making in India as the suitable power looms were selected and
imported in India from Switzerland and other countries, hence the production of crepe
silk started in 1932. The factory at Mysore was later on handed over to Directorate of
Sericulture, Karnataka government, and finally to KSIC in 1980. KSIC is the only
organization in India, which is involved from yarn making to finally fabric and product
making such as ‘Sarees’ etc. The cocoon processing for yarn making is done at Narsapur
factory, while the processing of fabric is done at Mysore factory. The complete
production chain involves power-operated machines only. Because the KSIC is the sole
producer, therefore the complete expenditure on registration is born by KSIC, which was
around Rs 500,000/-.
251
At this moment, there is no authorized user other than the proprietor. The new
producers willing to become the authorized user shall take No Objection Certificate
(NOC) from KSIC, in such case, KSIC would give emphasis on:
¾ Producer must be located in the registered geographical area i.e. Mysore city and
adjacent area of about 20 Kms.
¾ Producer must follow quality and procedural standards of KSIC.
¾ KSIC may ask for royalty also.
2. Uniqueness and geographical link
Following are major factors contributing for geographical link and uniqueness;
¾ Product quality i.e. crepe silk, which does not shrink and uniform because it is
made using specific production method; it also has specific standards.
¾ Use of the locally produced cocoons called ‘Mysore silk worm’, which produces
yellow yarn has certain specific features such as multi-voltaine.
¾ Local climate influence mulberry production and finally rearing of local race
cocoons.
3. Method of production
Yarn preparation
There are two types of cocoons, one –Mysore local race, these are yellow in color
and multi-voltaine; other types are white/hybrid/import from china and Japan, these are
bi-voltaine. In Mysore silk, local silk worm cocoons are used for yarn making, each
cocoon approximately gives 2 dennier or about 600-800 meters of yarn, it means for
producing 26/28 dennier, about 13 cocoons are required. The worm inside the cocoon is
killed using impregnation in boiled water (the other methods of killing worm are hot air
treatment or storing for 6-8 months). The gum (sericin) loosen it for reeling. Semi-
252
automatic machines imported from Japan are used for reeling, these machines take care
whether to take 13, less or more number of cocoons to keep the standard of 26/28dennier.
The yarn is uniform. Yarn is manufactured in a factory situated at Narsapur, near Mysore.
Construction of fabric
It is unique, which is consist of WARP and WEFT of 26/28 dennier, it means, a
yarn of 9000 meters weighs 26 to 28 grams. WARP does not have any twist, but WEFT
has twist, where two yarns are twisted, one clockwise and another anti-clockwise (see
fig). The fabric so constructed known as ‘Crepe’; it is different than other product such as
‘Kancheepuram silk’ where neither WARP nor WEFT is twisted, while in ‘Georgette’
both are twisted, in ‘Chiffons’ both are highly twisted.
The border has interlacing of gold and silver, which constitute, 0.65% (1.52 gms)
of gold and 65% (15gms) of silver. First silver coating is done followed by coating of
gold using electrolysis method. Gold and silver as raw material is obtained from Surat in
Gujrat. The testing facility is available at a laboratory of defense situated at Chennai. The
fabric is manufactured in a factory at Mysore, weaving and processing is done in such a
way that uniformity is available throughout the fabric.
4. IP protection and enforcement
Prior to GI, the ‘Mysore silk’ was already protected as trademark, Soon after the
new legal Act came into existence, the product is registered as GI registration. In the
process of GI registration ‘Mysore silk’ faced opposition from a private establishment in
Bangalore called ‘Chamundi textiles’. The opposition was sorted out at the GI registry
office level by submitting a joint memorandum by both the parties that both GI ‘Mysore
silk’ and trademark ‘Chamundi silk’ would exist because both are different, and
‘Chamundi textiles’ withdrawn the opposition. Chamundi textile is situated in Bangalore,
they use imported cocoon and dinnier standard and type of twist is also different than the
‘Mysore silk’, therefore they will not use the name ‘Mysore silk’ and vice versa.
253
The legal registrations alone are not enough to protect any IP, therefore the other
measures were also adopted. One such measure was conducting a survey to know about
the use of name ‘Mysore silk’ by traders. A private company was hired for this survey at
Bangalore, Mysore and other parts of Karnataka, KSIC spent about Rs 50,000/- for this
purpose. Another post registration measure was to create awareness among traders and
consumers regarding GI and its scope, it was done through newspapers etc., the purpose
of these advertisements was to enhance the knowledge of stakholders about GI and
product both.
Warp- no twisting
Weft- interlacing of two
yarns fibers as twisted
clockwise and anti-clockwise
Border of gold and silver
of specific standard
Unique features of construction of
fabric of Mysore Silk
As a policy of IP enforcement as GI, the shop owners were informed about the
proprietorship of KSIC, complains were lodged with shop owners regarding not to use
the name ‘Mysore silk’. When it does not work, the legal notices were issued to these
shop ownership, since last two years about 20-25 such notices have been issued, mostly,
the shop owners are complying with such notices. In one case, in 2005, a First
Information Report (FIR) was registered against a shop owner ‘Karnataka International’
at Bangalore, who was using this name despite the legal notice. A police officer of the
rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police raided the shop and confiscated all the silk
sarees to which the name was used as ‘Mysore Silk Saree. The matter is under the
judicial process in a ‘Metropolitan Court’ at Bangalore.
254
The KSIC at this moment does not have any design patent, but there is a great
scope of protection of ‘Mysore silk’ in this form also. Further KSIC has also not
protected ‘Mysore silk’ as a trademark or certification mark of GI in any other country. If
KSIC protect these IP forms in other countries, it would certainly be linked with
enhanced manufacturing capacity to make out the rising demand from abroad.
5. Marketing networks
KSIC ensures quality product, and subsequently put lot of efforts for brand
development through various means such as ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certification.
Advertisement in visual and print media is the major sales strategy; exhibitions and
institutional sales are other main sources for sales. Prior to 2003, the marketing was done
through dealership all over the country, KSIC had about 80 dealers, who sold the product
to customers. After 2003, the policy is changed to direct marketing, now KSIC has about
12 outlets of its own in various parts of country especially metro cities. For northern
India, there is a private wholesale distributor at Delhi. As a result of IP protection and
sales promotion measures, the annual sales increased from Rs 24 crore in 2005 to Rs 40
crore in 2007, the production of silk is around 35000 meter per month, previous to GI
registration, it was around 30000 meter per month. At present there is no export of
‘Mysore silk’ is done by KSIC.
6. Socio-economic upliftment of producers
As a producer of ‘Mysore silk’ KSIC is not directly involved in socio-economic
upliftment of producers because there is no other producer of ‘Mysore silk’ other than the
KSIC itself and it’s a public undertaking of Government of Karnataka. But KSIC does
support the cocoon producers in the local region.
The area near Bangalore and Mysore is famous for mulberry plantation and silk
worm rearing known as ‘Mysore silk worm’, these are yellow in color and reputed race
for good quality yarn. Unlike places like Dehradun, the mulberry plants are available
through out the year thus the production of cocoon.
255
In Ramnagram mandi itself the turnover through auction is around 25 tonnes
cocoons per day. KSIC purchases around 2 to 4% of it. Mostly the purchases are made by
the groups of reelers as collective bargaining, therefore silk worm producers remain at
loss. KSIC play a role in fixation of minimum price in the auction market. KSIC also
tried tie up with the producers but it does not work well because the constant supply of
cocoons is not assured, whenever these producers find better rate than the contract rate
with KSIC, they did not sell it to KSIC. From the point of socio-economic upliftment, the
protection of ‘Mysore silkworm race’ as a GI is another area, either cocoon or eggs can
be protected as GI. The efforts for its registration can be done by organization such
Central Silk Board of Govt. of India.
256
C. CHANDERI SAREE
1.
About Chanderi
Chanderi is a small town inhabiting about 40,000 persons in District Ashoknagar
of Madhya Pradesh. The town is old and had been in history since 13th century AD.
Mostly (about 70%) population is engaged in textile manufacturing or business either
directly or indirectly because the land is not suited for agricultural purposes, therefore the
population adopted non-agricultural profession as a means of livelihood but it had been a
means of subsistence29 only. The rainfall is between 700-1100 mm and temperature
varies from 8-46 0C. The other means of livelihoods are cultivation of crops such as
wheat, maize, mustard, jowar, groundnut and soybean. Some families collect and sale
sand and gravel from the quarries.
2.
History of chanderi fabric
The Chanderi was a place of textile production during the reign of Mugal
emperor, Aurangjeb, but the first descriptive account of chanderi fabric was given by Mr
I.C. Sterndale in 1857. He describes that the chanderi cloth was consumed through out
India in south and west parts also, the cost of fabric was quite high (Rs 800-1000/saree),
the value of the cloth was based on the softness and transparency of the cloth. The
industry has several ups and downs but the weavers population is increasing day by day.
In 1921, the 1811 persons were involved as weavers, one of the expert Mr A. H. Silver
supported the industry through providing several changes in designs etc.
3.
Uniqueness
The chanderi saree has certain unique characteristics in the method of production
and also quality. Transparency is one specific characteristic. In earlier times there used to
be weavers, who use to make a pagari (head gear) of about 20 feet consisting of 100
29
Most weaver earn Rs sixty a day. About 2000 weavers’ families at the node of poverty, for details seehttp://www.lred.info/locgov.pdf
257
grams only. Earlier the cloths were made from cotton, later shifted to cotton mixed with
silk and now it is mostly silk only, the uniqueness claimed is available in GI journal30.
4. Product characteristics
Following are the special characteristics produced at Chanderi
Product
Saree
Salvar/kameej
Duppatta
Curtains
Plain cloth
Others
Per cent production
35
15
05
02
40
03
Special characteristics
Transparent, length-5.5 m, width-46 inches
Semi-transparent, length-7.5 m, width-46 inches
Transparent, length-2.5 m, width-36 inches
Transparent, length-2.5 m, width-46 inches
-
The main products i.e. Saree, salwar suite etc. is around 18 lakhs/annum. The
plane fabric is produced to the tune 09 lakhs meters/annum. The total production from the
industry in a year is about Rs 16.9 Crores with the profit of around Rs 3.62 crores every
year.
5. Producers’ characteristics
Type weavers by class
There are Master weavers and other weavers. Prsently more than 3600 families
are involved as given below31: Among the total weavers 56 percent are Muslims
(Ansaris) and rest are mostly Hindus (Kolis), some SCs are Muslims by religion.
Community
No. of families
Percent
Muslims
SC
Others
STs
Total
2065
1271
310
13
3659
56.4
34.7
8.5
0.6
100
30
31
For details please refer ‘chanderi sarees’ application no. 7, GI Journal 02, September 2004.
See http://www.msmefoundation.org/pdf/chanderi.pdf.
258
The share of wages out of the business is to the tune of Rs 5.9 crore annually but
most weavers earn Rs 55-65 per day and live at the subsistence level only mostly. The
recent reports claim that during 2004-2006, there had been an increase 10-15 per cent in
the wages32.
Type weavers by function
The weavers from Muslim and Hindu community are engaged in different
activities as described below in the table:
Type of professional function
Master weavers provide raw material and design, the
weavers work at their houses. They do job work only
Master weavers provide design only, the weavers arrange
raw material, work at their houses. They provide ready
material on agreed price
Master weavers provide design, raw material and loom.
Weavers work at work place and take labour price
Independent weaving and sale
Weaving for the weavers cooperative societies and receive
labour price
Working for Self Help Groups (SHGs) and Bunkar Vikas
Sanstha. Receive raw material and design and also labour
price for job work. In addition also get bonus every year
Total
Percent weavers
Muslim weaver
Hindu weaver
Total
25
15
40
08
07
15
03
02
05
10
05
15
03
02
05
15
05
20
64
36
100
6. Manufacturing units
There are about 39 registered Master weavers and 15 non- registered small scale
units, the total number looms are 2011 but only 1369 of them are working. The total
operating handlooms are 2756.
7. Producers association
The weavers’ cooperatives are quite strong at chanderi, there are around ten
weavers’ cooperatives functioning at Chanderi, the first cooperative known as ‘The
Bunkar Sahakari Sameti’ was registered in194633. Latest in this effort is ‘Bunkar Vikas
32
33
See http://www.unido.org/file-storage/download?file_id=81773.
Registration number 4468 dated 12.01.1946 has the membership of 557 weavers.
259
Sanstha’ registered in 200434 with membership of 119 persons. At present there are
around ten registered cooperatives in and around Chanderi. Besides there are 31 NGOs,
of which 25 are functioning. The GI ownership lies with ‘Chanderi Development
Foundation’ formed in 2004 with 11 representatives from weavers, traders and yarn
manufactures etc.
8. Stakeholders’ support
Chanderi silk industry has got support from various government and nongovernmental institutions. United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO) helped in facilitation of GI registration. Hastshilpa and Hathkargha Vikas
Nigam (HHVN), an autonomous organization of Govt. of MP support various activities
in trade development including conduction of 118 exhibitions at various places in the
country during 2007.
Another important stakeholder is Self-Help Groups (SHGs). Presently about 60
SHGs are working at Chanderi, each consist of 10-12 weavers families. In 2002, UNIDO
collected most active SHGs and constituted an apex local organization called ‘Bunkar
Vikas Sanstha (BVS)’, which was registered in 2004. in the initial stage, only 7 SHGs
became its member by paying Rs 2000/- each. The BVS has played a vital role in not
only collecting orders from India and abroad but also keeping control over the quality.
The UNIDO and BVS explore the opportunities of market expansion, the training of
workers and also to improve their socio-economic conditions.
9. Marketing
The master weavers and other weavers sale their product at chanderi and also
send to other places. The market is mostly dominated by the traders or sahookars. The
raw material is now available at the chanderi only but the trade of raw material is
controlled by the middle-men, who sale at their own decided cost. Mostly the rates or
34
Registration number 8557 dated 25.02.2004
260
prices of raw material and finished products are controlled and decided by the sahookars.
National
Market Channels of Chanderi Fabric
Development Corporation has
now interfered in the matter and
started
Yarn Supply
Handloom
supplying
the
raw
material to HHVN, which in
Banaras/Bangalore
Silk
Coimbatore
Surat
Cotton
Zari
turn provide it to the needed.
But this supply is presently only
three per cent of demand.
Traders
Master Weavers
All Society &
Co.Operative Society
HHVN has also initiated a
scheme called ‘Yarn bank’. If
we look to the style of domestic
Weavers
sales, we observe the following:
Finished
Traders
Master Weavers
All Society &
¾
Co.Operative Society
Sale throughout India
Private sale – 50%
Exhibition Sale – 40%
Govt. emporium – 10%
Source : India Entrepreneurship Development Institute, Ahmedabad office at Chanderi
Private sale channel- 50
%
¾
Exhibition sale- 40%
¾
Govt.
supported
showrooms & emporiums10%
The complete flow of supply chain to marketing channel is given in the flow diagram
10. Use of GI as marketing tool
Though several plans like logo and market intelligence were there but the tool of
GI has never been used in practice
11. Reasons of poverty of weavers
Ineffective functioning of production units and other reasons lead to poverty of
weavers; some of the very important reasons are given below:
261
¾ Managerial incapacity and less economic viability of weavers’ cooperatives
¾ Improper and costly supply of raw material and tools
¾ Master weavers are not fully trained in latest technologies
¾ Well planned and institutional marketing channels are not available
¾ Weavers takes loan and repaying capacity is less, therefore they are under debt,
they also fall prey to the bad habits such as drinking and gambling. They often
sale their houses to repay the loans and than work in the rented houses which is
not conducive for proper and effective work.
¾ Due to less economic capabilities, the backward and forward marketing linkages
are very weak.
¾ In case of no repayment of loans, the weavers shift to other means of livelihoods
such as vegetable vendors, fish vendors, bidee (locally made smoking material)
making and rural migratory vendors etc.
¾ Predominance of traders and middle-men
¾ Exploitation of some weavers by the master weavers and sahookars.
12. Suggestions to improve the socio-economic conditions of weavers
¾ Reducing the cost of chanderi products to bring into reach of common man so that
there will be drastic improvement in domestic sales.
¾ Chanderi products are made through handlooms only, the process is not only time
and labour consuming but also not competitive with other products, therefore
introduction of new techniques without power looms must be welcome.
¾ It has been observed that the demand of traditional clothing and sarees from
chanderi have certainly reduced, therefore production should be on the basis of
market survey. In addition new verities of products should also be launched in the
market.
¾ Proper availability of raw material at lowest prices in the local market of chanderi.
¾ Advertising and publicity of traditional clothing from chanderi fabric.
¾ Reducing the middle-men to the extent possible.
262
D. SOLAPUR CHADDAR AND TERRY TOWEL
1. History and Proof of origin
Corporate-Cooperative- Individual ownership
In the manufacturing of Solapur chaddar and terry towel several weaving
communities (60% from AP, 20% from Karnataka and 20% from Maharashtra) are
involved. The industry has long history of about 500 years, when the industry developed
at Medak in AP under the patron of Nizams. The Solapur spinning and weaving mills was
started by a corporate sector, and labour migrated from Medak to Solapur, slowly the
industry established. The main reason for the establishment was Jacquard design used by
the industry, which at that time was used in Manchester only and availability o cotton
from surrounding areas. Earlier it was the production of saree but later shifted to
production of chaddar. There was a beginning of deterioration of solapur mills from 1911
and following years due to plague epidemic, wars, labour and cotton shortage35.
After independence, the cooperative movement started, several mills started people
got employment. The corporate mill closed and several industries came up. The workers
became masters in several components of textile making e.g. yarn dying, weaving,
warping, stitching etc and a ‘Workmanship’ was developed and established with the use
of Jacquard design. During China war, there was a recession in the industry, cooperative
movement was failing, and another war with Pakistan. The cooperative mills started
closing down. The workers started their own small units, during 1970’s the production of
terry towel was also started. The erstwhile weavers became the owners of production
establishments. Why the industry established in the recent past, there are several reasons,
but being a decentralized sector, the major policy related reasons are:
¾ No Value Added Tax (VAT)
¾ No sales tax
35
For details refer Manjiri N. Kamat, 1998.
263
¾ Subsidized electricity
¾ Relaxation in labour laws
¾ Relaxation in Employees Insurance Scheme laws
2. Present scenario of production units
Presently, there are about 750 weaving units with range of 8 to 24 power looms. In
total there are about 25,000 power looms. There were 24 spinning mills but four are
closed in the recent past, there were 03 composite units but two are closed in the recent
past, there were 06 sizing units but three are closed in recent past. About 300 units are
hand-processing units, out of the total 8 lakh population of Solapur, about 1 lakh are the
worker in the textile sector, and approximate 12% of them do the job work. The nature of
work distribution of different production units is given below:
1. Producing Terry towel only- 58%
2. Producing chaddar only- 31%
3. Producing chaddar and terry towel both- 8%
4. Others- 2%
The annual turn over of trade is to the tune of Rs 250 crore for chaddar in the
domestic market; for terry towel it is about Rs 500 crore in domestic market and about Rs
450 crore in the export market. Owing to decline of export during 2002 to 2004 Solapur
region lost the business to the tune of Rs 300- 350 crores36.
3. Producers’ Associations
The producers association in the sector are quite strong, at present there are 15
producers associations and one exporters association is available. The important ones are
given below:
36
Maharashtra losing out to Gujarat, an article by Renni Abraham in Mumbai, March 16, 2004 at
rediff.com available at http://www.rediff.com/money/2004/mar/16maha.htm
264
¾ Textile Development Foundation
¾ Solapur M.I.D.C. Industries Association
¾ Yantramag Sourakhan Samiti
¾ Solapur Zilla Yantramag Dharak Sangh
The Textile Development Foundation (TDF), who is the proprietor of GI has its
own about 180 members and also about 500 members representing other production
units.
4. GI registration
How the idea of GI emerged?
The knowledge of about GI received in one of the training programs in 2003 at
Ahemdabad, the ideas was clicked to one individual and later it was facilitated for Textile
Development Foundation (TDF) to take the real shape. The total expenditure about Rs
50,000/- was born by the TDF.
Why the GI protection?
As far as name ‘solapur chaddar and terry towel’ is concerned there was no
competition, though competition is available within textile sector. For example chaddars
from panipat or other areas compete, the terry towel from companies like ‘Bombay
dyeing’ compete. But there were no reported cases, where the traders are selling, other
kind of textile material in the name of solapur chaddar or tery towel. Therefore the
reasons of GI registration are:
¾ To protect the identity developed after so many years of learning
¾ To protect the product from becoming generic
265
Which geographical area?
Very small geographical area i.e. industrial area of Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (MIDC) has been registered. If the small registered area is not
sufficient in future, could the addition of new geographical area be done in future after
some time? Another question is what is the basis of marking the area? Is it the presence
of establishment of producers or exclusion of those geographical areas that do not
contribute to particular reputation? Therefore what is the principle of geographical
exclusion?
How uniqueness defined?
¾ The uniqueness was defined on the basis of following three basis components
¾ Jacquard design
¾ Workmanship
¾ Production under one roof
¾ The complete process from raw material to final product at Solapur
Inspection mechanism
The standards are to be checked by TDF, testing facility on payment is provided
by textile committee also.
Was there any opposition?
Several companies put the opposition to the application of GI for solapur chaddar
and terry towel. But on the basis of proof of origin and uniqueness, the TDF won the
opposition, the final grant of GI certificate took about one year.
266
5. GI as a trade tool
Use and impact
¾ Till now no administrative or infringement action has been taken
¾ As such GI has not been used for any trade distinction etc
¾ Indirectly it had been of some significance but it has not played major role37 such
as reduction in competition or enhancement of premium over product. Because
competition is within the local producers and also other domestic producers. The
prices are market controlled, these are not producers’ controlled.
Future planning
¾ Development of inspection and monitoring system
¾ Efforts for brand building in the form of GI mark
¾ The trademark of each and every producer is not recommended because several of
producers are so small that they can not meet the market requirement. There are
several traders, who do not have any manufacturing unit but take material from
several manufacturers and sale under their trade name or with their own
trademark. But the traders can also be authorized user as per GI Act, this is a big
challenge for the producers’ organizations.
6. Integrated efforts for product development
Protection as GI was one of the integrated efforts, but the major effort has been
done through cluster development approach of the enterprise. The Government of India
has initiated cluster development program for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs),
which suffer from disadvantages of being in a relatively isolated environment. The
program involves technical assistance, subsidies for technology upgradation and
37
The initial studies of textile committee also reveals that solapur chaddar & Terry towel cluster has not
received post registration benefits with respect to positive indicators in terms of productivity, disposable
income and employment (Trade Globalisation & Textiles, Jan-June 2007, p 9, Textile committee, Mumbai)
267
marketing support. This program began in 2002 and would end in 2008, and has
strengthened the competitiveness of the SMEs, which has also consolidated their position
in the global value chain. A case in point is the initiative undertaken by the Textile
Committee under the Ministry of Textiles, which has undertaken a cluster-based
programme for capacity building in textile and clothing SMEs in across 20 clusters in the
country, the Solapur is one of them.
Some key objectives of a cluster based approach for developing SMEs are:
¾ Networking among enterprises
¾ Economies of scale
¾ Improved bargaining power
¾ Technology and skill up-gradation
¾ Global visibility and being part of the value chain
¾ Easier access to finance
¾ Greater institutional support.
Some of the weaknesses in textile sector as identified by textile committee are:
¾ Highly fragmented sector
¾ High dependence on availability of basic raw material i.e. cotton
¾ Low productivity
¾ Declining mill segment
¾ Technological obsolescence
¾ Non-participants in trade agreements
7. Major efforts under cluster development program
¾ Conducting benchmark surveys and diagnostic surveys time to time
¾ Extensive training in various areas such as licensing, packaging, credit,
knowledge enrichment for technology Upgradation, inventory management, uses
of internet, marketing beyond boundaries etc
¾ Improvement in water quality used for dyeing
268
¾ Strengthening backward integration leading to discounted purchase, better price
negotiations and bulk purchases.
¾ During 2004, formation of three consortium i.e. Robotox (for mini apparel park),
classic terry towel (for expos abroad) and Euro terry towel (for bulk purchase).
The conflicts in consortium has been a big challenge to manage.
8. Impact of integrated approach
¾ Implementation of development programs on the basis of proper surveys
¾ Extensive participation of producers in trainings in various one-day programs
¾ Fourteen units have ISO certification
¾ Expansion of market- earlier the middlemen at Mumbai used to procure the terry
towel @Rs110/kg and export it @Rs400/kg, but now producers either avoid them
or export directly.
¾ Direct export- about 110 units export directly
¾ Strengthening on-line information- about 65 units have their own websites
269
E. KANGRA TEA
1. Owner of Registered Geographical Indication
Himachal Pradesh Patent Information Centre, State Council for Science,
Technology & Environment, Govt. of H.P. is the proprietor at the behalf of growers and
producers of tea at Kangra, some parts of Chamba and Mandi Districts.
2. What is kangra tea?
Kangra Tea, grown in Kangra Valley & Jogindernagar area of Mandi District and
Bhatiyat Tehsil of Chamba District is mainly produced in the southern slopes of
Dhauladhar ranges of Western Himalayas at present with in the altitude range of 900m to
1400 m. The geographical map of present Kangra Tea growing areas and potential tea
growing areas comprising of Kangra, Chamba, Mandi, Kullu districts is enclosed. The
Kangra valley receives high amount of rainfall. Dharmshala town and its surrounding
areas are recorded to be second highest rain receiving areas after Mesynram in
Cherapunji district of Assam. The average rainfall at Dharmshala averages between 270350 cm per year. The Kangra tea can also be grown in potential areas at a later stage the
favourable conditions for tea cultivation prevail in the region.
3. Grades of Kangra Tea
Black tea grades
¾ SFTGFOP: Super Fine Tippy Golden Flowery Orange Pekoe
¾ FTFGOP: Fine Tippy Golden Flowerly Orange Pekoe
¾ TGFOP: Tippy Golden Flowerly Orange Pekoe
¾ GFOP: Golden Flowery Orange Pekoe
¾ GOF: Golden Orange Fannings
¾ FOF: Flowery Orange Fannings
270
Green tea grades
¾ Whole leaf used- Y H F Y H: Young Hyson Fine Young Hyson
¾ Broken leaves used- G P H F H: Gun Powder Hyson Fine Hyson
¾ Fanning- SOUMEF
¾ Dust
4. Biochemical characteristics
Kangra tea with perfect blend of liquor and flavour has bountiful of health
nourishing natural products. Kangra tea leaves have up to 13 % catechins that are saved
with high efficiency whole leaf - orthodox manufacture. These polyphenols are proven
antioxidant, hypolipidimic, hypotensive, anticarcinogenic, diuretic, antidentalcariatic and
antimicrobial. It also has 3 % caffeine and amino acids like theanine, glutamine, and
tryptophan - the important vitalizers. Kangra tea is derived from the leaves, buds and
tender stems of plants the botanical name of tea plants is Camellia sinensis or their
Sinensis grown in Kangra valley consisting of Kangra district and parts of Mandi, Chamba
districts of H.P. Kangra Tea is an agricultural plantation crop and the forest species of
economic importance as shade trees. Due to high intensive spreading nature this crop
provides the most suitable soil conservation measure particularly on hilly terrains under
high rainfall conditions. The woody after leaf fall and the lopping from trees can be
utilized as fuel wood by working labour/ supply to factories as energy source for
processing tea
5. Uniqueness
The colour and flavour of Kangra tea is unique and distinctive which can only be
called as Kangra tea flavour. In liquor characteristics Kangra teas have body, liquor, colour
and flavour which can only be called as Kangra flavour unlike Darjeeling teas which have
flavour but less of body liquor. The unique colour and flavour of Kangra tea is due to
unique climatic conditions prevailing in snow clad Dhauladhar ranges of Himalayas. The
grades of Kangra tea both black and green tea are given in Table 1. Kangra tea belongs to
271
species of tea Camellia sinensis, variety sinensis, having multi stemmed frame, narrow
leaves and planted from seed stock is raised here in Kangra valley. Both black and green
teas are manufactured as Kangra teas. The average age of the existing plantations is more
than 100 years, planted between 1850 to 1900 A.D. Since the plantation is raised from
seeds, the population is heterogeneous and is richest source of genetic variability and
existing gene pool in tea suitable for quality black orthodox tea and green tea. As compared
to other tea growing areas of India like Assam, Darjeeling, south India and Uttaranchal,
Kangra tea plantation is not much attacked by many pests. Kangra tea is attacked by Thrip,
mites, aphids, mealy bugs and other minor pests. Out of which if not checked only mealy
bugs are observed at an epidemic stage in past few years. The requirement of these
pesticides used to control these pests is very less as compared to other tea growing areas. If
the pesticides are used, it is only at the time of pest attack. In recent years, market survey of
Kangra tea reveals that the Kangra tea is free from the pesticide residues38.
6. Historical perspectives
Introduction of tea gardens
Tea industry of Himachal is about 150 yrs old. In 1849 Dr. Jameson, the
Superintendent of the Botanical Gardens, North-West Provinces, travelled through these
hills to identify the area to grow tea. He found the region suitable for growing tea later he
brought a number of tea plants from the nurseries at Almora and the Dehradun. These
were planted in three Government gardens, one at Kangra, at an elevation of 2500 feet,
another at Nagrota, in the valley at altitude of 2900 feet, and the third at Bhawarna, on the
higher plateau of Palam, 3200 feet above the sea. The plants were slightly damaged as
these were brought during the season of the hot winds from Almora to Kangra, and the
experiment was commenced under trying circumstances. At Kangra the plants did not
thrive, partly owing to the high temperature, aggravated by the vicinity of the town, and
38
Kolukkumalai tea in district Munnar, Tamilnadu ia also organic and processed in orthodox manner. The
gardens started in 1935 spread over 500 acres utilize about 80 labours during normal activity and 350
labours during peak activity. The tea gardens on high mountains are used for tourist purposes also and
generate additional income (Anita Satyajit, Windows & Aisles, Paramount airways, 2008, p 15).
272
partly on account of the scanty supply of irrigation. But in the other two gardens, the tea
flourished beyond even Dr. Jameson's anticipation. The subsequent history of the
introduction of tea up to 1872 is well given in a report furnished in that year by Major
Paske to Government. The formation of these nurseries were followed by the
establishment of a government plantation on a large scale, at Holta- a spot above six miles
far from the Bhawarna nursery, and an elevation of 4200 above the sea. The Holta
plantation was successful, under many unfavourable conditions by Mr. Rogers, who
remained incharge of it till government sold it in 1866 to Majot Strut, and in 1860 the
outturn of tea amounted to 29,312 lbs. In 1859 and 1860, the success of the government
plantation led to the introduction of private enterprise and capital. The lands which were
situated in different localities throughout the valley were all well suited for tea cultivation,
and have formed the nucleus of what have since become very valuable estate. Other land
was acquired by private purchase, and in 1867 there were 19 tea estates, the aggregate area
of which comprises 8708 acres, 2635 acres being actually under cultivation.
The gross aggregate produce for the season of 1868 was 241333 lbs. of tea. Major
Paske had attributed the tea plantations to show how far the Kangra valley possesses the
advantage of climate, soil and other conditions considered essential in the success of tea
cultivation. As regards climate, a hot, a damp climate, with a rainfall of not less than 100
inches per annum is shown to be required for teas, and this climate the Kangra valley
possesses for at least 7 months in the year, at elevation from 2500 feet to 4500 feet above
the sea. The lowest elevation at which an estate is situation is 2437 feet, and the highest
elevation of any estate is 5500 feet.
After observing preliminary success of tea plants at nursery stage, Dr Jameson
recommended the lower slopes of Dhauladhar ranging between 900m to 1400m above
mean sea level receiving an annual precipitation of 1500-2500 mm and soil below pH 6.0
as the most suitable areas for tea cultivation.
The first commercial tea plantation was established as “Hailey Nagar Tea Estate”
at Holta near Palampur in 1852 at an elevation of 1291 m above sea level. The production
273
from this plantation was sold at a very high premium in 1860. It encouraged many private
entrepreneurs and by the end of 1880, an area of about 4183 hectares was brought under
tea cultivation extending from Jogindernagar in Mandi district to Shahpur in Kangra
district. Tea industry in the region flourished well till 1905, when the great earthquake
ruined many establishments. The panic stricken Britishers sold their plantations to the
local buyers.
Historical testimony of quality tea
Kangra tea industry occupied prime position with respect to its quality from the
last quarter of nineteenth century to beginning of twentieth century. Tea made in Kangra
during this period was comparable with that of any part of India. The mention of quality of
Kangra tea in the Gazetteer of Kangra district (1882-83) is like this "The tea now made is
probably superior to that produced in any other part of India. The demand for it has been
steadily increasing and much is now bought up by natives for export via Peshawar to
Kabul and Central Asia". The gold and silver medals won by the Kangra tea in London
and Amsterdam markets in the late nineteenth century (1886 to 1895) bear testimony of its
quality at international level. The tea made in the hot weather used to be second to none
and was sold as well as any. Kangra tea as such has acquired substantial and international
reputation. The Kangra Tea has a vast market in London, and Europe and the Central Asia
and also exported to Europe, America and Australia. The Kangra valley during 1920's
produced nearly half the green tea manufactured in India, and it was exported to
Afghanistan and Iran.
7. Characteristics of Producers
A total no of 3679 tea growers representing an area under tea of 2312 hectare
spread over four tehsils of Palampur, Baijnath, Kangra, Dharmsala in the district of
Kangra and one each in Jogindernagar & Bhatiyat in the districts of Mandi and Chamba
respectively. Tehsil Palampur covers the maximum area of 1256 hect are followed by
Baijnath 564.4 hect, Dharmsala 231.7 hect, Jogindernagar 193.4 hect, Kangra 65.49 hect
274
and lastly Bhatiyat with 0.98 hect (Fig. 1&2). Most significantly approximately 96
percent39 of the total tea growers are having possession less than 2 hect comprising
46.97% of the total area while rest 53.03% tea area are shared among 4% of the tea
growers only (Fig. 3). Only 150 tea growers having possession of 444.9 hect which comes
to 4% of the total tea growers are fully dependent on tea for their livelihood while 469.4 &
625 hect fall under neglected and abandoned category respectively for various reasons like
absentee land lords, lack of economic resources etc. there are also an area of 3572.15 hect
other than tea under the tea growers possession.
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Fig 1: Production scenario of Kangra Tea in HP.
Tehsil Baijnath
Tehsil
Dharmsala
Tehsil
Jogindernagar
Dist. Mandi
Tehsil & Dist.
Tehsil
Palampur
No. of grow ers
39
Area under Tea (in ha)
Total Production of
Green leaf (in Tonnes)
A tea estate less than 25 acres are regarded as small holdings, and the small tea growers (STGs)in the
country contribute 20 per cent of the annual production of tea. About 39 percent garden in Assam, 34 per
cent in Tamilnadu and 24 per cent in North Bengal are small holding. Only 10 per cent of STGs are
registered with Tea Board, therefore large number of STGs do not get any institutional finance, although
several schemes are available to for subsidies and grant to this sector. These growers for the first time form
an apex body- the Confederation of Indian Small Tea Growers Association (CISTA). But most of the
Kangra tea cultivators are not the members of this newly constituted body. The Hindu, Hyderabad edition,
21 December 2007.
275
Fig 2: Profile of sm all Producers of Kangra Tea in HP.
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
No. of
growers
Area
under
Tea(in ha)
Tehsil B aijnath
Tehsil
Dharmsala
Tehsil & Dist.
Tehsil
Jo gindernagar
Dist. M andi
Tehsil
P alampur
Fig 3: Kangra Tea holdings in Himachal Pradesh.
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Up to 2 Hect.
Above 2 Hect.
No. of Planters
%age of total Planters
Total Area of Holding(in ha)
8. Characteristics of Production
Both black and green Kangra teas are manufactured in the Kangra valley. Earlier
only black tea was manufactured by the Europeans only, while green tea by the native
proprietors because the green tea manufacturing process required very less machinery and
also the market for green tea trade was available at Amritsar.
The process of black tea manufacture was not different in basic steps from today’s
manufacturing procedure – green leaves plucked by hands, brought to factories in baskets
276
and then spread out on round bamboo trays for “withering”. Next day, the withered leaves
are subjected to “rolling” in the rolling machines propelled by steam or water power for
about one hour. The capacity of each machine at one time was 100 to 200 lbs of withered
leaves. The rolled leaves then exposed for “fermentation” for about 4-6 hours. The
fermented leaves were “rerolled” for about half-an-hour, and then passed into drying
machine called ‘Siroccos’ for “drying” or “firing”. Alternatively, the drying was done over
the charcoal fires in grates, this completes the manufacturing process. The dried tea was
then subjected to “shifting” and “packing”.
For green tea manufacture, the leaves were “scorched” in heated pans and
“rolled” off at once by hand then “cooked” upon in the same pans. The leaves then
artificially “coloured” with soft stone. For this, the soft stone was powdered and sprinkled
into tea and both rubbed together in the pans.
Now days the modern industries are manufacturing the tea with new techniques.
Making of Black tea from fresh shoots involves several steps. During the first step the
shoots are spread in a leaf storage place (trough) and allowed to stand for 12-22 hours
under a floor of air (temperature below 35oC). This storage the nursery chemical changes
(chemical wither), which is essential for good tea. This storage step accounts for 50% of
parting square and also consumes mainly 20% of energy consumed in a factory. A new
technology, involving pre conditioning of fresh shoots, has been developed to enhance the
rate of withering. The technology depends upon inherent biochemical reactions to achieve
desired chemical changes as well as the ability to given physical wither needed for
processing of tea shoots. The main advantages are
¾ The wither in time is reduced to 4-5 hours.
¾ No loss in quality of made tea.
¾ Reduction in power equipment,
¾ Squaring of factory space for processing more leaf.
277
Predominating kinds of black teas were Pekoe, Pekoe Suchong. Coarse tea and
Fanings: while in green teas Hyson, Young hyson and Coarse grades were popular types.
The good quality teas were packed in lead and wooden cases while coarse grades in
coarse bags.
9. Marketing and profit
Apart from negligible private sale, most of the produce of Black & Green tea are sold at
Kolkata and Amritsar markets. Out of total produce of processed tea 55% & 45% are
manufactured in Co-operative and private tea factories respectively. There are several
constraints in marketing:
¾ Producers are mostly small
¾ Advertising not profitable
¾ Only few producers have their own trademark
10. Future planning
The tea gardens can’t be used for cultivating any other crops, the profits are very low,
therefore several steps are in planned, these include:
¾ Develop a common logo and advertise it as a brand
¾ Sale of the common logo and use the generated money for the intensive advertising
of the product.
¾ Use of tea gardens for other purposes such as eco-tourism
11. GI initiatives
The product was registered as a GI but the GI as a marketing tool has never been used. In
the process of registration approximately Rs 50,000 were spent on various accounts such as
awareness program and meetings etc. At the time of registration, no list of producers was
submitted, the efforts are in progress to prepare the complete list and submit it to the GI
office. There was no opposition for the product; the complete process of registration has been
done without involvement of any attorney. The scientific institutions were involved to
establish the uniqueness of the product.
278
Learning from the case studies
The various case studies display several management issues related to GI portfolio and
product development. The salient features are given below:
¾ GI is not a primary marketing tool, it is an additional tool, which can be used at
appropriate time but it does not give additional value to the product.
¾ The GI though registered but has mostly not been used in market expansion or
development.
¾ An integrated approach of product development is the precursor of use of any GI.
¾ GI initiatives have led to several non-monitory benefits such as cohesiveness
among producers.
Acknowledgments
The case studies have been developed in consultation with several key stakeholders
as given below:
Mysore silk
Kangra tea
Coimbatore wet
grinder
Chanderi saree
Solapur chaddar
Mr P. Vijayan, IAS
Managing Director
Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation (KSIC), Bangalore
Other officials of KSIC
1. Mr T.S. Rajkumar, former General Manager
2. Mr C. Radhakrishnan, Finance Manager
3. Mr P.M. Chandrashekaraiah, Deputy Manager (Personnel
and Industrial Relation)
Dr S.S. Chandel,
Principal Scientific Officer,
HP Patent Information Center, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh
Mr N. Rama Krishnan,
Assistant Director
Small Scale Industries Service Institute (SISI), Coimbatore
Mr Muzaffar Kalle Bhai
Author of History of Chanderi (2005)
Old Bus Stand, Chanderi- 473446, Madhya Pradesh
1. Dr P. Nayak
Director (Marketing)
Textile Committee,Mumbai- 400 025
2. Mr S.A. Puranik,
Quality Assurance Officer
Textile committee, Solapur
279
Chapter 13
Geographical Indications in INDIA: The legal framework, its
implementation and Issues for the future
Introduction
The protection of Geographical Indications for Goods is an emerging topic in
India with up to now nearly 100 applications, out of which 40 registered geographical
indications. This demonstrates a wide implementation of the recent Geographical
Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which entered into force in
September 2003. The Geographical Indications of Goods Act (GI Act) was passed to
comply with obligations from international agreement on intellectual property (TRIPS40,
1995, WTO). Before enactment of GI Act, geographical names were protected in India
under trademark law and passing off action, without granting specific protection to local
products part of the huge Heritage of India. However, the protection of Geographical
Indications was experimented in France since the beginning of the 20th Century, and then
homogenised at the European level in 1992, being an example of a legal system first
oriented to protect wines. The brief description of the French and European objectives of
the protection of Geographical Indications and the comparison with the objectives of
Indian GI Act will help to understand the different utilities of GIs. Clearly, the way the
Geographical Indication Act has been implemented and used by the interested party will
give some understandings on whether the GI Act reaches its objectives to protect
consumers from deception, add to the economic prosperity of the producer of such goods
and also to promote goods bearing Indian geographical indications in the export market.
The analysis will also help to determine what lessons could be learnt from these first
years of implementation in order to improve the efficiency of the protection of
Geographical Indications.
40
Trade related aspects of Intellectual Property
280
1. Ancient protection of GIs in France and in Europe
French History
The protection of geographical indications started in Southern countries of Europe
like France, Italy and Spain at the beginning of the 20th century trough the protection of
appellation of origin and indication of sources and was harmonised at the European level
in 1992. The legal protection of Appellations of origin were motivated in France to
identify wines coming from a certain geographical area, following the important misuses
of names due to reconstructions of wine growing areas or “terroir”41, after the Phylloxéra
disease which destroyed most of French vineyard in the mid 1800’s. The first law in 1905
was on the repression of frauds, including repression of false indication of source and
origin, in the agro-food sector for public health reasons, following poisoning of
consumers by fake products. Thus protection was only of a geographical area, delimited
by administration, without mention of any method of production giving the quality. Later
the law of 1919 defines appellation of origin as a collective right which can never be
generic neither be registered as a trademark. Anybody could use the appellation he finds
himself legitimate to use and could file complaints in front of the courts on uses that were
considered prejudicial. But there were no description of the method of production of the
product, method which shall be “local, fair and constant”. Only courts would give such
description in case of conflict. Mainly appellations for wines were protected under such
law, and very little for other food products like cheese42. Only four appellations of origin
on handicraft products were protected by Courts according to the law of 191943. Indeed,
seeing the confusion of use of appellation of origin not predefined according to practices,
a new law in 1935 enacted the creation of a National Committee, which will become the
French National Institute for Appellation of Origin (INAO). INAO is responsible for the
grant of appellations of origin, according to both practices and geographical area, and
providing a controlling mechanism. INAO was first only for wines and spirit and then
enlarged to other agricultural products in 1990.
41
Unique combination of climate and soil composition.
Law of 1925 for the appellation of origin Roquefort, providing obligation of using sheep milk and
processed only in Roquefort.
43
Dentelles du Puy, 19 february 1931, Court of the Puy; Mouchoirs et toiles de Cholet, 17th November
1936, Appeal Court of Angers; Poterie de Vallauris, 19th November 1930, Supreme Court; Emaux de
Limoges, 14th November 1950, Supreme Court.
42
281
Later, in 1992, European Union, provided regulation for the protection of
appellations of origin and of geographical indications, for agro-food products. Thus, apart
from appellation of origin, a new concept of geographical indications was enacted in
French law. History explains the reason why GIs in Europe are only granted to
agricultural goods, whereas TRIPS Agreement opens it to all goods. But; trough the
internationalisation of GIs, the issue remains of the availability of GI protection for non
agro-food products from non European Countries.
Seen the history of building of GIs protection scheme, the literature usually
distinguishes four kinds of objectives pursued by geographical indications, which
appeared at different time of the construction of GI systems. First is the protection of
consumers against frauds, second is the protection of the producer who will control the
supply of the agricultural market, third is the territorial development, the local
development, the regional development and the rural development; and the last is the
conservation of the biological resources, biodiversity and cultural diversity
(SYLVANDER, ALLAIRE et al. 2006). Those objectives are added one to each other
and the new one do not replace the first one but on the contrary lead to different layers of
objectives, enriching the utility of GIs. The link between GIs and local biodiversity
appeared in the 1990’s, thanks to all the international debates around the Convention for
Biological Diversity forum.
GIs and European system
In Europe, GI are part of the common agricultural policy to enhance rural
development in a context of food production superior to demand and thus a shift from an
economy of quantity to an economy of quality. Therefore, preamble of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992, confirmed by Council regulation (EEC)
No 516/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products reads: “as part of the adjustment of the common agricultural policy
the diversification of agricultural production should be encouraged so as to achieve a
better balance between supply and demand on the markets; whereas the promotion of
products having certain characteristics could be of considerable benefit to the rural
282
economy, in particular to less-favoured or remote areas, by improving the incomes of
farmers and by retaining the rural population in these areas”. In France, the protection of
GIs is mainly codified under the Rural Code and partly under the Consumer Code,
showing the importance of GI in the development of rural areas.
The cases law of the European Court of Justice were mainly on the justification of
the restriction of freedom of trade within the EU following the recognition of exclusive
rights on geographical names44. The restrictions were permitted because of the existence
of a link between the quality, characteristic of the product and the place of origin. Thus
depending on the importance of the link between the product and the place of origin, two
types of signs have been defined by the European Union in Regulation 2081/92:
designation of origin and geographical indication45. Designation of origin is considered in
France equal to appellation of origin while geographical indication was a new concept.
The designation of origin means the name of a region, a specific place or, in
exceptional cases, a country, used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff:
−
Originating in that region, specific place or country,
−
The quality or characteristics of which are essentially or exclusively due to a
particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors, and
−
The production, processing and preparation of which take place in the defined
geographical area; a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country, used to
describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff:
−
Originating in that region, specific place or country, and
−
Which possesses a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributable
to that geographical origin, and
−
The production and/or processing and/or preparation of which take place in the
defined geographical area.
44
45
See ECJ cases C 12/74, C 47/90, C 3/91, C 321/94, C 324/94
Article 2 of Regulation 2081/92 replaced by Regulation 516/96.
283
The very specific aspect of GIs is that it is a collective right for the producers of the
good. Thus EU regulation provides a definition of applicant: Only a group shall be
entitled to apply for registration. A ‘group’, means any association, irrespective of its
legal form or composition, of producers or processors working with the same agricultural
product or foodstuff. Other interested parties may participate in the group. A group may
lodge a registration application only for the agricultural products or foodstuffs, which it
produces or obtains46.
Concerning the scope of protection, it is very high as European regulation provides in
its article 13 that registered names shall be protected against:
(a) any direct or indirect commercial use of a registered name in respect of products not
covered by the registration in so far as those products are comparable to the products
registered under that name or in so far as using the name exploits the reputation of the
protected name;
(b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated
or if the protected name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as ‘style’,
‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘imitation’ or similar;
(c) any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance, origin, nature or
essential qualities of the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or
documents relating to the product concerned, and the packing of the product in a
container liable to convey a false impression as to its origin;
(d) any other practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product.
Such level of protection has been agreed at the international level in the TRIPS
agreement (see §3 below), but, due to lack of consensus between the states, it is granted
only for the protection of GIs designating wines or spirits. Moreover, for example in
France, appellations of origin, one of the two signs protecting local product having a very
strong link with the place of origin are not only protected against any use infringing their
rights but the area itself is also protected, having specific statute for urbanisation. Here
again, the motivation for rural development was the main objective.
46
Article 5 of Regulation 2081/92 replaced by Regulation 516/96.
284
2. Situation before Indian GI Act: action in front of the Courts
Before the enactment of the GI Act, 1999 there was no specific statutory law
governing geographical indications of goods in the country. The protection of the
interests of producers of such goods was largely governed by the common law action of
passing off or unfair competition law, under the consumer protection law or by the law
dealing with certification trademarks.
Common Law Action of Passing off in India
Common law principles enables aggrieved person to file an action of ‘passing off’
for protection of his right. ‘Passing off’ is defined as an actionable wrong for the
defendant to represent, for trading purposes, that his goods are those or that his business
is that of the plaintiffs.
Scotch whisky cases in India
There have been several decisions by the various High Courts as well as the
Trademarks Office in India, refusing to register trademarks’ containing
geographical indications as well as trademarks suggestive of famous geographical
indications thereby upholding the rights in geographical indications. Interestingly,
most of these pertain to the protection of the geographical indication 'Scotch
whisky', introduced by the Scotch Whisky Association. The defendants were trading
whisky produced in India with label and devices suggesting Scottish origin and thus
damaging the reputation and goodwill of “Scotch Whisky” and its genuine distillers,
blenders.
The genesis of the first case in front of the Delhi High Court (AIR 1980 Delhi
125), was an application filed by Dyer Meakin Breweries, the defendant company,
to register the mark 'Highland Chief' in respect of a product described as 'malted
whisky', in 1964. The trademark also contained the device of the head and
shoulders of a Scottish gentleman wearing feather bonnet and plaid and a tartan
285
edging. Highland is the region in Scotland most famous for Scotch whisky.
The application was opposed by Scotch whisky Association which is a nontrading body consisting of producers and sellers of Scotch whisky and established
with the principal aim to protect the interests of these producers and sellers in the
name Scotch whisky. The opposition was rejected on the grounds that there was no
evidence to indicate that the public in India associated the words 'Highland Chief' with
whisky produced in Scotland. Appeal was formed against this decision. However, the
Appellate Judge held that the use of Highland was a case of false trade description within
the meaning of Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. 'False trade description'
means, inter alia, a trade description which is untrue or misleading in a material respect
as regards the goods to which it is applied. Highlanders being Scottish soldiers arc wellknown in history and literature and the highlands are well-known ns the best region of
Scotland producing and thus the public is mislead when the whisky is sold under this
labelling but not made in Scotland. The High Court of Delhi confirmed the decision of
the Appeal, giving right to Scotch whisky Association.
The second case in front of the Bombay High Court (AIR 1992 Bombay 294),
was a passing off action initiated by the SW A along with a producer of Scotch whisky
against the use of the device of the Scottish Drummer wearing a kilt or the tartan band or
the word 'Scotch' coupled with the description 'Blended with Scotch' on whisky made in
India sold under the marks 'Drum Beater' and 'Gold Tycoon'. This use would amount to
passing off its whisky as Scotch whisky, thereby misleading other traders and customers
and damaging the reputation and goodwill of Scotch whisky. To prove their interest and
locus standi, the plaintiff annexed statements showing the exports of Scotch Whisky to
India for the years 1937 to 1986 and thus proved that scotch whisky was available in
India on a fairly large scale and is being consumed by various category of consumers.
The definition of Scotch whisky has been defined by British legislation as a whisky
which has been distilled and matured in Scotland. The definition of Blended Scotch
Whisky is taken from a booklet entitled published by the Scotch Whisky Association as a
blend of a number of distillates each of which separately is entitled to the description
Scotch Whisky. Accordingly, the said expression, when used in respect of whiskies
286
which are not Scotch, even if one of them is Scotch would be improper.
Scotch whisky Association succeeded in defending its geographical
indication because it could prove that the public was misled as the public was
aware of the origin being Scotland. This high burden of proof was only possible
because of long trade existing on this product and very high reputation. The
Common law principle of passing off would not be so efficient for GIs less famous
in India or recently introduced in the market, even if those GIs are very well known
in their country of origin. Even in India itself, some GIs might be well known at the
level of their place of origin and not in the entire country of India.
Unfair competition law in France: Darjeeling case in France
In European countries of civil law tradition, the action against misuses of
geographical indications is offered only to registered geographical indications according
to a statutory law on the protection of either protected denomination of origin or
protected geographical indications. This means that to be entitled to protection, GI have
to comply with the criteria required by the statutory law on GI to be registered. Such
application for registration is examined by a competent body, and goes trough an
opposition procedure to allow third parties to express their views. Once it is registered, it
will benefit of the protection attached to it, according to the level of protection in the
European Union, which is directly applicable in members’ states, together with the
national provisions which shall be consistent. Still, an action under unfair competition
law, which is quite similar to passing off action, can be lodged to defend geographical
indications which are not registered, according to article 10 bis of Paris Convention on
the Protection of Intellectual Property. But in that case, the burden of proof is very high
for the claimant who has to argue that the geographical indication is well known in the
country of the lawsuit.
One recent case law in France illustrates this uncertainty and the difficulty of the
burden of proof. This case involves the Tea Board of India and Jean-Luc Dusong who
had registered in France, in 2002, a trademark comprising the word Darjeeling and a
device of a teapot for artworks, engraving, books, journals, communication and
287
consultancy. The Tea Board has requested the cancellation of the trademark on the
allegation that the use would deceive customers into believing that these products and
services, though not related to tea, would somehow be associated with the superior
quality and reputation enjoyed by Darjeeling tea. The Tea Board had lost the first round
of its battle with the Court of the First Instance in Paris47 (akin to a trial court here), on
the ground that it has not been demonstrated that the consumer associates Darjeeling,
besides being a tea, to a precise geographical area and that there was no risk of confusion
with the trademark Darjeeling of JL Dusong as the goods covered by the trademark are
not similar and are not identified by their geographical origin. But India tasted success
when the Court of Appeals in Paris (which may be equivalent to a High Court) upheld
the Tea Board's claim that the use of the word Darjeeling with the teapot logo, and its
registration was a violation of the rights represented by the Tea Board in respect of
geographical indication Darjeeling for tea48.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Court of First Instance's ruling saying that on
the basis of various materials like French daily newspaper, scholarly works and
encyclopaedias in French placed before it by the Tea Board, it is evident that Darjeeling
is well known in France and thus qualified as a GI for a tea having unique attributes and
originating from Darjeeling in India. Thus Darjeeling could get the protection under
unfair competition law as provided by article 10bis of the Paris Convention on the
protection of Intellectual Property (1883) which calls for sanctions against acts which are
contrary to honest industrial and commercial uses and to which both India and France are
signatories.
Unfair competition law in France includes act that misleads the public as to the
true origin of the product but also act of exploiting the reputation of the geographical
indication, even for other goods, if the act is done as to benefit from the high reputation
of the GI. Then, although Mr. Dusong was using the mark on non-tea goods and
services, he was still riding on the superior reputation of Darjeeling Tea and benefiting
from the same. Indeed, Mr Dusong was using in its advertising the statement “La
47
48
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 3ème chambre, 1ère section, 6th July 2005
Cour d’Appel de Paris, 4ème chambre, sect.A, 22nd November 2006
288
communication, c’est notre tasse de thé” meaning “Communication is our cup of tea”,
typical expression meaning that Mr Dusong was very skilled in communication. Thus Mr
Dusong was using the reputation of high quality of tea of Darjeeling to give its products
high quality reputation.
An interesting comment is to look at what would have been the procedure and
decision if Darjeeling had been registered as either a protected denomination of origin
(PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) in Europe and France. The main
difference is that the registration confers a proof of right that the denomination is a GI
and thus avoids the burden of proof of such reputation, which has to be proved in the
territory of the legal action, France, i.e. the exporting country. Whereas, to get the
registration of a denomination as a PDO or PGI, the reputation of the good in the place of
origin might be sufficient.
Trademark laws
Another solution to protect geographical indications before enactment of GI Act,
was to register them as collective trade mark or certification trade mark. Collective and
certification trade marks were first protected under the Indian Trade and Merchandise
Act 1958 which was replaced by Trade Mark Act, 1999.
A collective mark belongs to a group or association of persons and the use thereof
is reserved only for members of the group or association of persons and the use thereof is
reserved only for members of the group or association of persons. It intended merely to
distinguish the goods or services of such group for others. As an example, the trademark
TATA is reserved for use by only members of the TATA group of companies.
The purpose and function of a certification mark is to show that the goods on
which the mark is used have been certified by some competent person in respect of
certain characteristic of the goods such as origin, mode of manufacture, quality, etc. The
certification mark is not owned by an association or group of producers of persons but
owned by the certifying agency or authority, which does not itself trade in those goods.
One example is Silkmark.
289
As this was the only way to get protection trough intellectual property law,
certification trademark has been registered by Tea Board to protect the logo Darjeeling in
India filed on October 9th 1986 (trade mark n°532240). Later the word Darjeeling was
also registered as a certification trademark (n°831599) filed on 10 December 1998.
But getting a trademark for a geographical name is not always easy as the word
alone might be considered as descriptive and thus invalid for being a trademark. Indeed a
geographical indication as defined in GI Act is neither a collective mark nor a
certification mark and is in the nature of a public property as any producer producing the
good according to the specification shall be registered as authorised user of the
geographical indication. The conditions for registration of a GI are different from those
of a trade mark, as it only for particular goods originating in a certain country, region or
locality where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods are
essentially attributable to the geographical origin.
3. International Agreements
The bases for the enactment of the Indian GI Act are the provisions of the TradeRelated Intellectual Property Right Agreement (TRIPS Agreement) of World Trade
Organisation which came into force on January 1, 1995. Its objective is to provide
minimum of protection of intellectual property in all WTO members in order to facilitate
their international protection. For countries like India without statutory protection of GIs
at the time of signature of TRIPS Agreement, TRIPS was not only useful in protecting
foreign GIs in India but first, it was useful to give the opportunity to protect Indian GIs in
the domestic market and eventually at the international level.
Articles 22 to 24 of Part II, Section III the TRIPS Agreement are concerned with
GIs. Article 22 defines GIs as “indications which identify a good as originating in the
territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality,
reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical
origin”. TRIPS provides minimum standard of protection for all products and additional
protection for wines and spirits. Standard protection prevents uses of a GIs that misleads
the public as to the geographical origin of the goods or constitutes an act of unfair
290
competition. For the additional protection, uses of a geographical indication identifying
wines for wines not originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication in
question or identifying spirits for spirits not originating in the place indicated by the
geographical indication in question, even where the true origin of the goods is indicated
or the geographical indication is used in translation or accompanied by expressions such
as "kind", "type", "style", "imitation" or the like shall be prevented. Members’ states are
free to determine the legal means to achieve the objectives of TRIPS. Thus India, which
had the obligations to implement it before January 1st 2000, passed on December 30th
1999 a specific legal framework for the protection of GIs: the Geographical Indications
of Goods Act. The rules were enacted and entered into force on September 15th 2003.
The preamble to the GI Act refers to TRIPS Agreement as a basis and defines the
legislation as, “an Act to provide for the registration and the better protection of
Geographical Indications relating to Goods…in providing a statutory mechanism for the
registration of GIs for the first time in India, it was felt that the ‘exclusion of
unauthorized persons from misusing geographical indications would serve to protect
consumers from deception, add to the economic prosperity of the producer of such goods
and also to promote goods bearing Indian geographical indications in the export market.
Unless a geographical indication is protected in the country of its origin, there is no
obligation under the TRIPS Agreement for other countries to extend reciprocal
protection. India would, on the other hand, be required to extend protection to goods
imported from other countries which provide for such protection. Thus, in view of these
circumstances, it was felt that it was necessary and desirable that a comprehensive
legislation, for registration and for providing adequate protection for GIs, be enacted by
Parliament” 49.
4. Geographical Indications of Goods Act
Following the signature of TRIPS Agreement, India enacted GI Act in 1999. One
main difference and thus interest of GI compared to trademark is that the application for
GI protection shall be done by representative of the interest of the producers and that the
49
See Statement of Objects and Reasons, as appended to the Geographical Indications of Goods
(Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
291
good has to comply with the specification of the good of the GI application, which
guarantees the quality of the product and is an in depth description of the characteristics
of the product, its method of production, and the geographical area of production.
Geographical Indications of Goods Act is organised in 87 Sections. Sections 1-10
deal with definitions, settlement of registry and prohibition of certain geographical
indications. Sections 11-16 deal with the procedure for registration, sections 17 with the
registration of authorised user, section 18 and 19 with the duration and sections 20-26
deal with the effect of registration, i.e. with the rights conferred by registration of GIs.
The last sections deal with penalty, miscellaneous.
Definition of Geographical Indication50
The Act defines a GI as an indication which identifies such goods as agricultural
goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in the
territory of a country, or a region or locality where a given quality, reputation or other
characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. For the
manufactured goods, one of the activities of either the production or of processing or
preparation of the goods concerned takes place in such territory, region or locality, as the
case may be.
Indication can be word, logo, geographical or not but which indicates the origin
of the good.
Goods51
The goods mean any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of
handicraft or of industry and include food stuff. Thus, depending on the good, producer
shall mean any person who produces the goods, processes or packages such goods;
exploits the goods; makes or manufactures the goods.
The definition of Geographical Indication is exactly the one of TRIPS plus a more
precise but not exhaustive definition of goods: GI Act clearly embraces all goods and
50
51
Section 2 (e).
Section 2.1.f
292
opens the door to the protection of others than agricultural or agro food products as it is
the case in the European Union. The Act does not provide any protection for services, as
it was not included in TRIPS during its negotiation.
Registry52
The Act sets up a Registry of Geographical Indications, and also specifies that an
application must be filed at the said office of the Registrar. A GI register53 is created,
with part A for the registration of the geographical indication and part B for the
registration of authorised users.
Applicant54
The Indian system distinguishes between the applicant of the GI who will be the
registered proprietor and the authorised user being any person claiming to be the
producer of the goods in respect of which a geographical indication has been registered55.
Geographical Indication being in its concept a collective right, the applicant shall be any
association of persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or
under any law, representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods.
Interestingly, the Act does not explicitly make clear what is an authority established by or
under law. Neither does it explain what it means to represent the interest the producers
and whether it shall be all the producers of the good concerned.
Authorised users56
It is only at the end of the Act that the provisions concerning the users are
coming. The producers have to register at the GI registry to get the exclusive right for
using the registered geographical indication. The authorised user has exclusive rights to
use the registered geographical indication in respect of goods to which it relates, subject
to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject. The Act also deals
with the rights of co-users and states that they have co-equal rights.
52
Section 5 and Section 6
Section 7
54
Section 11
55
Section 17
56
Section 21
53
293
Application57
To get registration of a GI, an application with technical details shall be filed at
the GI registry comprising:
(a) a statement as to how the geographical indication serves to designate the goods as
originating from the concerned territory of the country or region or locality in the
country, as the case may be, in respect of specific quality, reputation or other
characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical,
environment, with its inherent natural and human factors, and the production, processing
or preparation of which takes place in such territory, region or locality, as the case may
be;
(b) the class of goods to which the geographical indication shall apply;
(c) the geographical map of the territory of the country or region or locality in the country
in which the goods originate or are being manufactured;
(d) the particulars regarding the appearance of the geographical indication as to whether
it is comprised of the words or figurative elements or both;
(e) a statement containing such particulars of the producers of the concerned goods, if
any, proposed to be initially registered with the registration of the geographical indication
as may be prescribed; and
(f) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
Method of production58
The application shall contain the standard as regards the production, exploitation,
making or manufacture of the goods and the mechanism to ensure that such standards are
maintained by the producers. The statement shall also include the particulars of the
inspection structure.
Uniqueness59
The statement shall contain the particulars of special human skill involved or the
uniqueness of the geographical environment.
57
Section 2.2.
Rule 32
59
Rule 32
58
294
Producers60
The application shall comprise a statement containing such particulars of the
producers of the concerned goods proposed to be initially registered and any other
particulars including a collective reference to all the producers of the goods. As proof of
evidence of this collective aspect, the statement shall include an affidavit as to how the
applicant claim to represent the interest of the association of persons or producers or any
organisation or authority established by or under any law.
Examination procedure61
The application is first scrutinised by the GI registry and then by a Consultative
group of not more than seven persons from organisation well versed in that field.
Advertising62
After the acceptance by the registrar, advertisement of the application is made in
the GI Journal.
Opposition63
Any interested party can file an opposition within 3 months. This opposition is
then forwarded to the concerned applicant, who is required to reply within 2 months. In
the event the applicant replies, this shall then be forwarded to the person making the
opposition. Finally, the Registrar is required to make a decision as to whether the
opposition is to be accepted or rejected. If no opposition or if the opposition is rejected,
the GI is registered64.
It is interesting to consider the question as to who may oppose an application for
registration of a GI. The statute does not seem to lay down any restriction in this regard,
such as that the person must have a personal or commercial interest in the matter in order
to oppose. This sort of a procedure for opposition is more to protect the interest of the
public at large, than any particular individual.
60
Rule 32.1
Section 11 (5)
62
Section 13
63
Section 14
64
Section 16
61
295
Duration65
The protection of the GI is for 10 years. The registration of users is for 10 years.
Renewal is possible.
Right conferred66
As any intellectual property right, GI registration confers exclusive rights on the
use of the indication for the authorised user. The GI Act is silent about whether the
applicant is also an authorised user and therefore can use the geographical indication.
It gives both to the registered proprietor of the geographical indication and the
authorised user the right to obtain relief in respect of infringement. Infringement means
any uses of such GI that indicates or suggests that such goods originate in a geographical
area other than the true place of origin of such goods in a manner which misleads the
persons. It also prevents all the uses which constitute an act of unfair competition
including passing off.
But no more action for infringement is possible for geographical indications
which are not registered under the GI registry. Common law protection is still there for
passing off action. The main difference between infringement and passing off action is
the nature of evidence to be brought by the plaintiff and the scope of protection. GI
registration facilitates largely the action of the owner of the registered GI against misuse.
Central Government may, provide additional protection to certain goods
according to the possibility offered by TRIPS Agreement67. In that case, any uses of any
GI to goods not originating in the place indicated by such other GI is prohibited even if
there is the mention of the true origin of such goods (for example prohibition of Ceylon
65
Section 18
Section 20, 21, 22, 23
67
TRIPS agreement provides two level of protection : a standard level fo all products where the GI is
protected against use that mislead the public and an additional level of protection for wine and spirits where
the GI is protected per se, even without misleading of the public. India together with Europe and other
developing countries is negotiating for the extension of the additional protection to all the products. See
Addor, F. and A. Grazzioli (2002). Geographical Indications beyond wines and spirits, a roadmap for a
better protection for Geographical Indications in WTO/TRIPS Agreement Journal of World Intellectual
Property. vol 5.
66
296
tea from Malaysia even if it does not mislead the public) or accompanied by expression
such as “kind”, “style”, “imitation”, or the like expression. The effect of such additional
protection is to reduce the burden of proof upon the users of the GI. The registered
proprietor together with the registered authorised users of the GI may apply for additional
protection of the Act once it has been notified by government68. The special protection is
granted keeping in mind the reputation of the goods on a global scale
Law suits shall be filed in a court no lower than the district court69. In case of the
GI it could be for its infringement, relating to any right in it or for passing off. The courts
after hearing the case are allowed to pass only the following decrees, viz. injunction,
award damages or order an account of profits. The court may also order destruction of
such goods.
Relation with trademarks70
It is not possible to register a trademark if the trademark contains or consists of a
GI for same goods not originating from the place indicated by GI if such use misleads the
public as to the true origin of the good. When the GI is protected under the additional
protection scheme, it is not possible to register a trademark containing or consisting of
such GI without any further justification. Therefore there is a much better protection of
GI against registration of Trademark for goods benefiting of the additional protection
under section 22 (2).
In the case of prior trademark, if they were registered in good faith before the GI
was registered, or before the Act came into force, nothing contained in the GI Act shall
prejudice the registrability or the validity of the registration of such trade mark.
Assignment71
As GI is a right having some kind of “public” flavour, the rights can only rest in
the original application, as a GI shall not be the subject matter of assignment,
transmission, licensing, pledge, mortgage or any such other agreement. This is to secure
68
69
70
71
Section 22, rule 77 and 78
Section 66 and 67
Section 25 and 26
Section 24
297
the interest of the local producers, considering that the rights are linked to their territory
and accessible to all of them located in the area. This point is an important difference
with a trademark.
Foreign GIs72
For foreign GIs, countries members of the Paris Convention on the Protection of
Intellectual Property (1883) are eligible for application of protection of their GIs in front
of the GI registry following the same procedure as the domestic GIs.
5. Implementation of GI Act: who has applied for GI protection and for which
goods?
General figures
Table in Annexe-XIII gives all the data about the name of the geographical
indication, the applicant, the date of filing and the date of registration, when available. Up
to November 2007, there were 117 GI applications at the GI registry, out of which more
than 40 were registered. Until now, no application for GI was refused by the Registrar.
As the Act is very recent, no action for infringement in front of courts was noticed. But
13 oppositions to registration were noticed, most of which were rejected and little
concluded in amendment of the application. Still is it interesting to note that the number
of opposition is increasing, as people are more and more aware about GI.
Protection Conferred
Interestingly, no notification has been made by the government to provide
additional protection to certain goods according to section 22(2). Not for wines and spirit
as it is mandatory according to TRIPS Agreement or for Indian products like Darjeeling
Tea. However, India is very active at the negotiations on GI at WTO on the extension of
the standard protection to all products.
Kind of Goods
72
Section 84 and 85
298
GI Act defines none exhaustively four categories of goods: agricultural goods,
natural goods, manufactured goods, goods of handicraft, goods of industry, food stuff.
Looking at the list of GIs, it appears that there is 23 GIs for agricultural goods including
silk cocoon and horticulture. There are 20 applications in textiles, and 3 on embroidery.
The rest half is for handicrafts, whether in wood, metal, jewellery…Very little
applications for manufactured goods: one GI for soap and 5 GIs application still pending
for petrol and oil. Finally there has been one foreign application, for wine: Pisco from
Peru, in the process of opposition. It is interesting to note the diversity of product and the
important part of non agricultural products. Therefore the agricultural products and food
stuff represent less than a quarter of the GIs whereas in Europe, GIs are only granted for
agricultural products and food stuff. The issue is the link with the place of origin and the
maybe less important impact of the natural factors on the uniqueness of the product.
When the raw material is not from the area of origin, uniqueness of the handicraft is
mostly the result of human knowledge, which may more easily be delocalised.
Kind of applicants
Looking at the whole list of GI application, it appears that the applicant can be
divided in different categories. Most of the applicants request the help of an advocate for
the application.
Company
Some private companies have applied for GI as for example Reliance Industries
Limited, for the GI Jamnagar Petrol. On the other side, many state companies are there.
For example Karnataka silk industries corporation Ltd, a government of Karnataka
undertaking for Mysore Silk, Karnataka State Handicraft Development Corporation
limited, a government of Karnataka undertaking, for Channapatna toys, Mysore
rosewood inlay.
Society
Societies registered under society Act 1860, which already existed or created
especially for the protection of the GI are there as Payyanur pavithra ring Artisans &
Devp. Society for the GI Payyanur pavithra ring, Pochampally Handloom Weavers Co-op
299
Society Ltd for Pochampally Ikat…Association can be also qualified as societies, as there
are registered under same Society Act, 1860 are also applying for GIs as Alll India
Agarbathi Manufacturers Association (AIAMA) for the GI Mysore Agarbathi.
Foundation
Some foundation comprising stakeholders from all the interested party and
supported by government or other bodies have applied for a GI as one aspect of their
whole activity in managing the production and interest of the producers. Example is the
Chanderi Development Foundation.
Boards
Special authorities created by law or an Act to manage the production, marketing,
quality of a specific product are very active in filling GIs. For example Coir Board for
Allepey Coir, Tea board for Darjeeling Tea, Coffee board for Monsoon Coffee, Spices
board for Coorg green cardamom, Malabar pepper.
Each board is different, raising the following issues: What is the role of the board?
Does it have exclusivity of the marketing of the product? Is the registration of producers
of the good under board management mandatory?
Government
And finally, government itself has been the applicant for many products, as the
Director of horticulture, department of horticulture, Govt. of Karnataka for Coorg
Orange, Mysore Jasmin, or the Department of Handloom and textiles, govt of Tamil
Nadu for Kancheepuram Silk.
The government sometimes acts trough Counsel in Intellectual Property
established by the department of sciences and technology like Himachal Pradesh. Patent
Information Center, established by TIFAC (technology information, forecasting and
assessment council).
For applicant being Government and Board, the link between the applicant and
the place of production is not obvious. For example, National Institute of Fashion
300
Technology (NIFT), based in Delhi, has initiated nation-wide registration of crafts under
the Geographical Indication Act in collaboration with the Development Commissioner
(Handicrafts) to protect the traditional handicrafts in 20 States. The project entails indepth study of the “Handicrafts” in the respective States. Suitable crafts with GI potential
have been identified and GI applications for identified crafts are currently being drafted
to be filed73. It will be interesting to see who is the applicant of the GI: the government
or the artisan community?
The main issue is whether the applicant always qualifies to the definition of the
applicant according to the Geographical Indication Act, Section 11 in representing the
interest of the producers and whether it represents all the producers74. Depending on the
nature of the applicant, the answer might not be the same.
Users
Concerning the authorised users, Part B of the register is empty, as no user has
applied for registration. The reason might be that it is a high burden for all producers as
they lack resources and awareness about it. Indeed the application for being authorised
user shall contain a statement of case of how the producer claims to produce the goods
covered by the Geographical Indication75 and such application will be scrutinize by the
Registrar in the same manner as the application for registering the GI in part A of the
register. The rules also provides for the authorisation of the registered proprietor to the
registration of the authorised user as the application for a producer to the Registrar as an
authorised user shall be made jointly by the registered proprietor and the proposed
authorised user (rule 56). Therefore the agreement of the registered proprietor is always
needed. The inexistence of authorised users raises the issue of who is eligible for using
the GI. According to the Act, only authorised users can use the GI, and not the applicant.
The reality is that the applicants are the one using the GI, as for a trademark.
73
Minister of the State in the Ministry of Textiles (SHRI E.V.K.S. ELANGOVAN), Lok Sabha unstarred
question No 1946 to be answered on 13.03.2007.
74
Rule 32 (1) (5) provides that the application shall contain the particulars of the producers to be registered
and may include a collective reference to all the producers.
75
Rule 56
301
Application
The application is organised trough the following items: name and address of the
applicant, list of association of persons/ producers/ organization/ authority, type of goods,
specification, name of the geographical indication, description of the goods, geographical
area of production and map, proof of origin (historical records), method of production,
uniqueness, inspection body, others. In the GI Journal, the item list of association of
persons/ producers/ organization/ authority is not published and shall be provided on
request. Historical records are usually very detailed as well as the method of production,
showing the interest of the applicant for the product. But it shall be paid attention to a too
narrow description of the method of production that could fix it without leaving space for
innovation. Indeed, the core of the method of production, which is responsible for
obtaining the quality of the product, should be mentioned. Indeed the conformity with
description is legally bending those willing to use the geographical indication.
Examination
Members of the Consultative group are generally tree persons from the
Intellectual Property Office and other experts from University or Research institutes,
nominated by the Registrar. An oral presentation of the case is made by applicant in front
of Consultative group which will the same day provide its report. In many cases, the short
report of the Consultative group is positive with little requirements. The main
requirement concerns the maps which are not properly provided. This shows that the
concept of an intellectual property right where the delimited geographical area
determines the scope of protection is not yet immediately understood by the applicant.
Moreover the geographical area is mostly the administrative area, not always
corresponding to the area of production of the goods. For the substantive analysis, is it
not sure whether the members of the consultative group, not having full understanding of
the whole background of the product may be able to make comments on the method of
production or the size of the geographical area claimed.
302
Enforcement of rights after registration
As the GI Act is very recent, there has been no action in front of the court up to
now. But some registered proprietor has used its rights to threaten unauthorised users of
the GI trough official letters and complaint at the police. For example the General
Director of Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation, registered proprietor of the GI Mysore
Silk sent a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police from Devaraja Division in
Mysore City to inform him about the registration of the GI Mysore Silk filed a filed a
plaint against owner of Mysore Silk Saree, St Philomena Church in Mysore. Another
action is the request of KSIC to seize the goods of Mysore Karnataka Silk International in
Bangalore.
Another example is the enforcement of GI « Pochampally Ikat » against the
misuse of the name by the trader « Hyco », settled in Mumbai and Hyderabad.
Following action in front of the court of Delhi High Court, an agreement has been signed
between the parties to stop the misuse of the name. The legal action was supported by the
government of India. Indeed, it is estimated that almost 60% of the market is with fake
products.
6. Examples of registration of GI: bottlenecks in the acquisition of rights
Darjeeling Tea
Darjeeling Tea was the first GI registered in India, both for the word Darjeeling
and the logo, to ascertain a strategy of protection of Darjeeling tea first organised trough
certification marks before GI Act was passed. Certification Trade Mark n°532240,
registered in India since 1986 for the logo consisting of the word DARJEELING and a
representation of an Indian woman holding tea leaves, all arranged in a roundel and has
been registered in many foreign countries76.
76
See http://www.teauction.com/industry/boards.asp
303
Applicant
The applicant is the Tea Board of India, created under the Tea Act, 1953. All teas
produced in the tea growing areas of India are administered by the Tea Board of India.
The Tea Board is not involved in the manufacture of any product and is run on a nonprofit basis. The functions of the Tea Board are, amongst other things, to regulate the
production and cultivation of Indian tea, to improve the quality of Indian tea and to
improve the marketing of Indian tea within India and abroad.
Product
Darjeeling tea is produced in the 87 gardens of Darjeeling district. It has the
distinctive and naturally occurring organoleptic characteristic of taste, aroma and mouth
feel which have won the patronage and recognition of discerning consumers all over the
world. Botanic name is “camellia sinensis”. It is a hardy, multi stemmed, slow growing
evergreen shrub which if allowed to can grow up to 2.5 meters in height. It takes 4 to 6
years to mature, is able to withstand severe winters, extended drought and the high
altitude of Darjeeling. Yield are much more lower than non Darjeeling Tea area. The
leaves are small, leathery, dark, glossy green in colour often covered with a downy
silvery pubescence. Processing is done in the area of production.
Plucking begins in March and closes by late November. A set of agricultural
practices has been developed to sustain growth of shoots, while maintaining bush heights
suitable for manual plucking. Darjeeling tea leaves are processed in the traditional
"Orthodox" way. Once the leaf reaches the factory, it is "withered". The object is to
evaporate moisture from the leaf. The leaf becomes limp so as to withstand twisting and
rolling under pressure without crumbling. The withered leaf is then removed from the
trough and loaded into rolling machines, which, by subjecting the withered leaf to a
rolling movement under pressure , twist the leaf, rupture the cells and release the natural
juices, promoting oxidation and accelerating the pigmentation. Next, the leaf is thinly
spread in a cool well ventilated room to slowly oxidize (ferment). This stage, in which
the flavanols combine with oxygen in the air develops the unique flavour of Darjeeling
Tea.
304
The distinctive, exclusive and rare character of Darjeeling tea is the result of
several factors. The tea gardens are situated at elevations from 610 to 2l34 meters on
steep slopes which provide ideal natural drainage for the generous rainfall the district
receives. Coupled with this, the intermittent cloud and sunshine combine to impart the
unique character of Darjeeling tea which has the distinctive and naturally occurring
organoleptic characteristics of taste, aroma and mouth feel which have won the patronage
and recognition of discerning consumers all over the world.
The population of the tea growing areas of the Darjeeling district is approximately
700,000 out of which 60 000 workers in the tea gardens.
Strategy
The objective of the Tea Board is to put in place a mechanism to ensure the
supply chain integrity for DARJEELING tea so that the tea leaving the shores of India
and claimed as 'DARJEELING' tea worldwide is truly a genuine Darjeeling tea. Indeed,
all the process is located in the area of production but the final packaging and thus the
risk of blending with other varieties is done in the exporting countries, with huge problem
of counterfeiting. Thus the word and logo Darjeeling is broadly protected in export
market countries, with a very offensive policy, trying to cancel all individuals trade
marks containing the name Darjeeling even if it is not for tea related products.
Tea board controls the quality by a strong traceability process monitored trough
declaration of production and granting of licences for the use of the Certificatin
Trademark ( CTM) Darjeeling word and the Darjeeling logo. Licenses are granted to
persons who wish to use the Certification Marks if it is satisfied that those persons will
only use the Marks in relation to tea conforming to appropriate standards and coming
from the Darjeeling area. The manner of use of the Certification Marks upon or in
relation to Darjeeling tea certified as such, would be determined by the Tea Board and be
subject to its approval before commercial use thereof. A license fee shall be paid. The
CTM is easy to handle for licensing system in India and in foreign countries. For GI,
there is no need of license as to be authorised user of the GI; registration at the GI
305
registry is needed. But there is no registered authorised user of the GI, not even the
licensees of the Certification trade mark.
Difference between GI and CTM is that the registration of users is made in front
of a government authority, according to GI Act provisions and with payment of a fixed
fee, equal for all producers and all GIs. There can be an opposition for registration of GI.
However, Tea Board is a kind of government agency, so it might be suggested that their
licensees shall automatically be authorised users according to GI Act. The problem will
be for other producers complying with the GI application but not licensee of the CTM:
they shall also be authorised user of the GI, but they can not use the logo and word
without a license. Thus this double protection represents for the producer a double
burden: registration at the GI registry and license with Tea Board.
Aranmula Metal Mirror
Aranmula Metal Mirror is a mirror giving an image similar to silicon synthetic
glass mirror image without any distortion produced in the small town of Aranmula in
Kerala, South India.
Aranmula Kannadi (Aranmula Metal Mirror) is a unique metal mirror of
reflecting a rich culture as well as mythological heritage in the history of Kannadi. This
wonderful creation of human skill is made of metal alloys. As traditional as the mirror
making technology is the artisans' belief that the metallurgical composition ofthe mirror
is divine and that some undisclosed metals alloyed with the copper and tin are responsible
for the distortion-free images. This highly brittle high-tin-bronze is also known as
Speculum Metal yields a highly polished surface and a clear reflection image and are
very popular for clarity. This Mirror also has got telescopic effect on its mage (i.e.)
distant objects can be seen near by.
Applicant
The applicant is the viswabrahmana aranmula kannadi nirman society, comprising
all the 28 producers. During the procedure the society became the applicant in place of
306
Parthasarathy Handicraft Center. Representative from Ministry of Commerce and
Industry and members from Gandhi University, Faculty of Chemistry (Kerala) came to
meet the artisans and took the initiative to register a GI. The registration fees have been
paid by the Indian government.
Method of Production
Preparation of moulding and casting are top secrets. First the alloy is prepared
consisting of 10 parts of copper to 5 ¼ parts of tin. Now two plates of extremely fine
Aranmula special clay are made in the shape of the mirror to be cast. One plate is placed
over the other with an oval ring of prepared wax between them along the edge. The
cavity is provided with an opening in the form of a jet. The mould is then strengthened by
adding several layers of clay. The mould is then heated and the wax inside is drained out
completely. The copper and tin are melted together in a separate crucible and then slowly
poured into a bamboo or wooden cylinder filled with rice bran. The hot liquid chars the
bran as it passes trough and solidifies into a rod. The impurities in the alloy disappear
during this carbonization process.
The-purified alloy is then put into the crucible
attached to the mould, which is then sealed with clay and the mould is heated over a fire.
Then the mould is left undisturbed for 2-3 days to allow it to cool. It is then taken out and
the layers of burnt clay removed from the new metal mirror plate. The plate is then
polished. It is to be noted that the product is not completely described in the GI
application as the composition of the alloy is kept secret by the producers.
The legend of making the product has a strong religious meaning: 8 families of
expert in temple arts and craft had been brought by the local Royal Chief of Aranmula in
connection with certain works in the Parthasarathy Temple centuries ago. While working
with the bronze to make a crown for the Lord Parthasarathy, to their surprise the artisans
discovered the reflective property of one particular copper-tin alley. However they failed
to reproduce the compositions. The oral history continues to say that a divine interference
came from Parvathi Amma, a widow of community, through a dream. She received a
secret ratio of the alley.
The clay available in Aranmula Grama Panchayat area is peculiar and of better
quality than the clay available anywhere else, playing a key lead role in moulding and
307
casting. Thus the geographical area is the administrative boundaries of the town of
Aranmula. But as important, the features contributing to the uniqueness are the human
factors, beeing the very old and partly secret know how of the artisans.
Strategy
This case is very unique due the very little producers involved but for a very high
reputation product, very costly, and full of religious meaning. The composition of the
product is kept secret and even trough the GI registration is not disclosed, which raises
the issue of how can the GI be a collective right open to any producer complying with the
specification. It is more a collective right of a particular community, closed and limited as
only people inside the community can produce the mirror. However, thanks to the GI, the
traditional know how is protected. As the clay must come from the area of origin and
there is very important human know how, it is an interesting case of combination of
human and natural factors.
Coorg Orange
Coorg orange (Kodagina kittale) is an ecotype of mandarin. It is a small tree that
grows well in evergreen, subtropical, hilly tracts of 600-1200 meter elevation from sea
level. It requires annual rainfall of 80-200cm per annum and warm winter climate.
Applicant
The GI was filed by the Department of Horticulture, representing the
Government, which was thought be able to stand in for the orange producers, too few and
unorganized as per the Department perceptions to bear the costs of drafting the GI
application.
Product
Coorg Orange was first grown in India by British before 160 years.
Coorg orange is a variety of orange with thin, moose peel. It is an ecotype of
mandarins. It is medium sized, tight-skinned, yellow in colour, having dark orange pulp,
being tender, juicy with a rich flavour and excellent blend of acid and sugar with fairly
308
good keeping quality. Precise description of habit, root, stem, branching, leaf,
inflorescence, flower, fruit, seed. DNA finger print is under preparation by the applicant.
Coorg is a mountainous region and is famous for its orange. Soil should be loamy,
deep and well drained, slightly acidic. Climate should be sub-tropical summer but warm
winter. Propagation, planting is described. Oranges are grown in the coffee estate. The
high rainfall and duration of rainfall and hilly terrain with well drained soil gives the
specific taste, aroma and keeping quality to this particular cultivar. If grown in other
places, loses that specific aroma.
The map provided is not limited to Kodagu, as it includes also the districts of
Hassan and Chickmangalur.
Strategy
The two main objectives pursued by the Department of Horticulture were to
protect and revive a traditional crop variety and to provide high quality (disease free)
plant material, bringing economical development to the region. In response to the
conflicts over Basmati rice, the Government of India incited its administrations to
identify and protect the local varieties and products, in a push towards protection against
biopiracy.
Being a collective right, the strategy of the Department is to educate the farmers
about the GI and then try to gather them in a registered society to whom could be
transferred the ownership of the GI. The objective of such GI is the revival of a
traditional local variety and thus the protection of genetic resources diversity. Indeed, the
Coorg Orange is no more cultivated; following destruction of the plants by a disease a
decade ago. The Objective of Department of Horticulture is thus also to provide high
quality planting materials to farmers.
The main challenge faced now by the Department of Horticulture is successful
transfer to the producers and the revival.
309
Pochampally Ikat
Pochampally Ikat is a textile obtained trough a process involving tying and dyeing
the threads in a visualized design prior to the weaving of the fabric. The terme “Ikat"
stems from the Malay-Indonesian expression 'Mangikat' meaning to bind, knot or wind
around.
Applicant
The Applicant are Pochampally Tie & Dye Silk Sarees Manufacturing
Association and Pochampally Handloom weaver's cooperative society. The initiation of
the initiative of protection of the GI and the identification of the applicant has been
conducted by Andhra Pradesh Technology Development & Promotion Centre (An
autonomous society of CII, Government of AP & TIFAC under Dept. of Science &
Technology, Govt. of India) and Textile Committee, Govt. of India. Financial Resources
for filing of GIs & Prosecution was provided by NABARD - National Bank for
Agriculture & Rural Development.
Method of production
Pochampally Ikat is made of natural materials such as cotton or silk or a
combination of both, having designs that are evocative of the diffused diamond or
chowka design. Ikat or resist dyeing, involves the sequence of tying (or wrapping) and
dyeing sections of bundled yarn to a predetermined colour scheme (pattern) prior to
weaving. Thus the dye penetrates into the exposed sections, while the tied sections
remain undyed. The patterns formed by this process on the yarn are then woven into
fabric. There are more than 200 patterns. More precisely the process includes: 1.
Predying treatment of cotton yarn. 2. Mordanting treatment to facilitate the bonding of
dye. 3. Design is drawn out and broken into units. 4. Warp is spread out on a grid stips
and then tied. The area to remain not dyed are tightly wrapped separately to resist the dye
bath. 5. The warp is dyed by hand between the tightly boud resist area. 6. Unwrapping of
the yarn. 7. The loom is warped. 8. The weaving is done by shuttle by hand 9. either wrap
yarn or weft yarn or both (called double Ikat) are tyed and dyed.
310
The know-how located in that area is responsible for the uniqueness. Such method
of production started in late 19th century in Chirala near Chennaiwhich was the producer
place of cotton, a few hundred km from Pochampally. It was then later introduced in
Pochampally in the 60's by the All India Handicrafts Board assisted the weavers of
Pochampally to start weaving sarees. The Ikat technique is broadly spread in India and
Indonesia, the uniqueness being the specific patterns and motifs characterized by their
bold, geometrical motifs, in red, black and white, offset by wide single colored borders,
they were used in India by fisher folk and cowherds as loincloths, lungis or turbans. The
geographical area is Pochampally, districts of Nalgonda and parts of Warangal. There are
many duplicate: Fabric where the design is printed after weaving. No process of tye and
dye.
Strategy
To maintain the production in the area, Pochampally Ikat Foundation was then
created to develop the GI as a marketing tool. But ownership of the GI is not transferred
to the Foundation and rests in the hands of the association of producers and traders. Also
to help the revival of weaving, the Handloom Park is in progress, for training and
employing weavers in Pochampally, with important funding from the government.
Comments
In this case there is a strong public and private policy to protect the Pochampally
Ikat with ownership of the GI to associations of producers. The objective is to forbid
unauthorised uses and to use the GI as a marketing tool. But the product itself can be
easily reproduced elsewhere as the link with the place of origin is based exclusively on
human factors. Moreover, this knowledge was not traditionally located in Pochampally.
However, demand for Pochampally Ikat is increasing as their fabric is fashionable.
311
7. Example of a GI opposed
Mysore Silk
Mysore silk is defined in the GI application as 100% pure silk sarees in Crepe-deChine or Georgette. The saree can be with or without Gold Lace in Borders, Body, Pallu
(Cross Border), with or without prints. Mysore silk also includes plain & printed dress
materials.
Applicant
The applicant is the Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited, (A
Governement of Karnataka Enterprise), located in Bangalore. KSIC is managed by a
board of directors nominated by the government.
Products
Crepe-de-Chine is obtained using 26/28 Denier untwisted Raw Silk yam in warp,
26/28 Denier 2 ply twisted yarn in weft. Georgette is obtained using 26/28 Denier 2 ply
twisted yarn both in warp and weft.
Method of production:
Soaking: the outer sericin is made soft, thereby making the silk yam supple.
Softening (Supple) of the Raw Silk is necessary, so that the silk which is brittle to feel in
grey form withstands the further process like Winding, Doubling, Twisting etc.
Winding: the soaked hanks of silk are transferred on to the bobbins to facilitate further
processes like doubling etc.
Doubling: two or more number of silk threads are taken together and wound parallelly.
The number of threads so wound depends upon the finished weight of the fabric,
structure of the fabric etc. This is a preliminary process to twisting.
Twisting: the yam from doubling is twisted together to make the yam stronger and to
alter the structure of the fabric as per requirement. The twist per inch varies from 400
TPM to 3000 TPM, depending on the intended use of the yam. Twist is inserted in
312
different stages and directions of Sand Z.
Vacuum Heat Setting: the twist setting is done by keeping the twisted yam in a vacuum
chamber and then letting the steam for 15-45 minutes depending upon the twist inserted.
Rewinding: the twist set silk yam on the barrels are wound on to the bobbins at the
stage. After rewinding, the yam is sent for weaving.
Cone Winding: the yam from winding is taken and again rewound on to the cones, so as
to increase the length of the individual yam and also to remove weak points in the raw
silk, ifany.
Warping: a fabric consists of two sets of yam known as Warp which runs along the
length of the fabric.
Weaving: all done by machine. At weaving, both warp & weft interlacement takes place.
The yam from the warp is drawn through the healds and reeds in two sheets and between
the two sheets weft yam is introduced.
At the weaving stage, gold lace in border, body and at pallu is introduced depending upon
the pattern and the requirement of the designs.
Degumming: the sericin in the raw silk is removed and the fabric is made soft. This is
carried out in a stainless steel tub containing solution of chemicals like soap, hydros etc.
The degumming has to be made for the period varying from 4-6 hours at boiling
temperature.
Dyeing: colouring is introduced to the degummed fabrics. Normally, dyeing operation is
carried out on winches, where the fabrics in rope form is rotated in a solution of dye
stuff and other chemicals at high temperatures for about 1 Y2 to 2 hours.
Stentering: the dyed fabric is ironed out and t~e width of the fabric is set. Normally, the
width would be around 45" for the sarees. The dyed fabric is fed to the stentering
machine through clips and the fabric is finished on the Calendering Cylinders at the end
of the stentering machines.
313
Finishing: the stentered fabric is cut-out into saree lengths and are individually
inspected, labelled, folded and sent to the retail outlets.
Uniqueness
In the application, it is claimed that Mysore silk is unique due to the use of the
best quality yarn and the use of 65% Silver and 0.65% Gold Lace for the Zari. The
distinctive, exclusive characteristics of Mysore Silk Fabrics are the result of different
factors. Mysore Silk Fabrics are mainly grey woven and then piece dyed, with unique
twist patterns in the weft preparation resulting in grainy effect and drape. The Mysore
Silk Fabrics have a very high weight per linear metre of the finished fabrics. The designs
are mainly embossing type unlike flat type in many other silk fabrics. These fabrics are
washable any number of times due to the unique structure· and processes of these
fabrics. According to Mr Vijayan, General Director of KSIC, Mysore Silk is highly
reputated because the yarn used is coming from local cocoon and not from imported silk.
Further, the application stipulates that KSIC is the only company which
manufactures silk fabrics with different product range from cocoon to fabric.
According to KSIC, more than 65% of silk sold under name Mysore Silk is
duplicate (i.e. not coming from KSIC)
Procedure of examination
The Consultative group comprises: Registrar of GI, SN Maity; joint registrar of
Trade Mark, V. Ravi; Assistant registrar of GI, V. Natarajan; Dr T.N. Singh, IIT
Mumbai; Dr P.K. Bose, Professor, Mecahnical Engg Dept, Jadavpur University.
The Consultative group requested KSIC to provide the map of the geographical
are and the list of artisans and producers of Mysore Silk. KSIC provided the data on the
organisation of the company: president, director general, board of directors. Production
Units are managed by general directors. Thus the application was accepted and
advertised. The map of the city of Mysore were KSIC has its factory was produced.
314
Opposition77
A notice of opposition to application for registration of the GI Mysore Silk was
given by Chamundi Silks Textiles limited, Gandhinagar Bangalore78. The opposition is
based on the grounds that many producers are using the denomination Mysore Silk and
that such name can not be exclusively claimed by KSIC. The opponent further claims
that the method of production the silk described in the application is known by all the
producers and that the applicant can not claim any property on such production.
According to Chamundi (manager), the uniqueness of Mysore silk is the zari border on
the crepe, as the crepe itself is an usual product which started in France.
In response to the opposition, KSIC argues that it does not claim any property
right on Mysore silk but the registration the name according to section 11 of GI Act.
Concerning the uniqueness of the goods produced by the applicant, protection is
required against infringement of exclusive rights of the company to guarantee that the
public is not misled by unauthorised persons. Another argument is that KSIC is the only
company which produces 100% crepe the chine silk with zari comprising 65% of silver
and that the quality of the goods of KSIC depends upon the geographical area of
production, a specific link existing between the products and their geographic origin.
A hearing was organised and further postponed and eventually a memorandum of
understanding was signed between the applicant and the opponent: withdrawal of the
opposition by Chamundi if Chamundi can still use the name Chamundi Silk to sell its
products79.
According to a manager of Chamundi, Chamundi is doing the same as KSIC, and
the name Mysore is related to the previous name of the actual state of Karnataka and not
only to the actual Mysore district. KSIC has interpreted the name of Mysore in a very
narrow way because its factory is in Mysore City. But all the silk done in what was
before Mysore state is the same, using the cocoon of Mysore. During the opposition
77
All the information’s are from consultation of the file « Mysore Silk », available at the GI registry and
open for public inspection according to GI Act, provision 78
78
Letter dated February 17th 2005.
79
Agreement dated 25th November 2005.² ²
315
procedure, Chamundi requested the extension of the geographical area to the whole state
of Karnataka but this proposal was not accepted80.
Another notice of opposition was given by Mysore Powerloom Silk
manufacturers’ cooperative society, Bangalore and Karnataka Weavers Federation,
Bangalore. The notice of opposition came too late at the GI registry81. One argument is
that the applicant, company owned by the government of Karnataka, has only one unit of
production. It is one producer or manufacturer but it does not represent the others silk
manufacturers in Mysore or in Karnataka. According to the opponents, the claim on the
yarn 26/28 deniers creates confusion: indeed, for georgette or crepe de chine, it can be
also produced with yarn 18/20, 20/22, 22/24 or 28/30. Small producers use denier 18/20.
Strategy
The uniqueness of the product comes from the whole supply chain: quality of the
cocoon and thus the yarn due to the geographical area, quality of the silk due to unique
process of weaving by adding the zari to the crepe. But this origin of the cocoon which is
the main reason for the quality was not claim in the GI application which only describes
the process of manufacturing of the silk fabric. Moreover the process is not handmade
but is with machines and quite recent.
But the main issue is about the registered proprietor. It is not sure whether KSIC
represent the interest of all the producers and the question remains of what is its
motivation to define the geographical area in such a narrow way. Indeed, the product as
defined in the application is the one produced by KSIC, with the yarn 26/28 deniers.
Others producers of Mysore silk were also using yarn deniers of 18/20, 20/22, 22/24 or
28/30. It is then doubtful that the GI Mysore Silk is a collective right as KSIC claims
many times to be the only producer of Mysore Silk. Its legal form as an enterprise of
government of Karnataka does not automatically make it representative of all the
producers. It seems, as claimed by the opponents that the GI was to increase the sale of
KSIC, single company. Indeed, according the director general of KSIC, there has been
80
81
Interview with Chamundi Textile, april 2007.
Notice of opposition dated February 23rd 2005.
316
more than 40% of increase of the sales following the registration of GI. This is due to a
very good marketing from KSIC on the GI and an active policy against competitors
saling duplicates at a very high level. Is it that this policy would have been less
successful if endorsed trough a collective action of all the producers? Would the
consumer be so easily helped in its choice for silk if Mysore Silk is produced and sold by
many producers? Is a GI meant for protecting public goods such as goods manufactured
by government companies? Or GI is before everything a collective right. Many defend
the concept that GI is for all the producers of a product having its uniqueness coming
from the place of origin, and is not a trademark to distinguish one company to another. It
shall rest in the hands of all the producers who are producing the product according to
core techniques. And Mysore silk seems to have a broader geographical area and a
broader definition in terms of yarn denier than the one of the GI application which only
refers to the manufacture of KSIC. Another aspect is that the quality of the silk is partly
due to the quality of the cocoon. Therefore, it might be relevant to include the producers
of cocoon and yarn in the GI process as the uniqueness of the product is also coming
from the origin of the yarn in the former Mysore state.
Conclusion
The dynamic of protection of GIs in India is very active, with more than 100
applications for GI registration in less than 4 years and a sharp increase. The nature of
the goods is quite broad, from handicraft to agriculture, from North India to South India.
One of the main issues behind the GI Act is who are the stakeholders concerned.
First it is to be noted that it is sometimes doubtful whether the applicant represents the
interest of the producers. Second there has been up to now no registration of authorised
users as part B of the register is still empty. Therefore the applicant is the one using the
GI whereas the GI Act provides that this right of use belongs to the user. No challenge of
GI Act in front of the Court has came yet but see the number of growing opposition and
the new awareness of the concept of geographical indications, this point might probably
come one day. Because the main difference between a trade mark and a geographical
indication is that the right belongs to all the producers of the geographical area, being a
collective right.
317
To be successful, a GI should rest in the hands of the producers, located in the
area. Therefore, a GI should be drafted by considering the knowledge of the producers on
the cultural practices which should be embedded in the specification. In fact, GI is
claimed to be also a way to preserve cultural biodiversity. Then, this diversity has to be
maintained in the area, by their possessors. The fact of delimiting a geographical area
was not obvious for the applicant and shall be looked at more carefully according to the
human factors and environmental factors and not according to the administrative rules to
strengthen the link between the product and the territory.
If comparing to EU regulation and its application in France, very promising
aspect of the Indian GI Act is the protection of any type of good and not only agricultural
or agro food products, which might help artisans to maintain their rich knowledge in
handicraft, whereas it has mainly disappeared from Europe. Seeing the TRIPS
Agreement covering all the goods, EU might have one day to think of opening GI
protection for others goods, if not for its products for products from third countries,
knocking at the door of EU for protection of their handicrafts.
Concerning the involvement of stakeholders and the right holders, it seems that
the EU system, build particularly on the French experience where the specification of the
good is draft by the producers themselves and not by an authority representing their
interest, has maybe helped in making the producers benefiting from the advantage of the
GI protection such as higher income. The distinction in Indian GI Act between applicant
and users, might create situations where producers are not the one behind the application
for registration of a GI and therefore not optimally included in the benefit sharing.
Finally, for the scope of protection, it will be interesting to see whether Indian
government will notify goods that shall benefit from the additional protection in order to
get better protection trough infringement action and opposition to trademarks. It will be
also interesting to see how the Courts will interpret GI Act. For example, Indian GI Act
provides protection of GI against trademark registration only for the same class of
products and for the standard protection, if it is of such nature as to confuse or misleads
the persons as to the true place of origin. Even for the additional protection, it protects
318
geographical indications against uses on the same class of goods. The similar conditions
apply for infringement which is only for uses of the GI on the same class of goods, with
or without misleading of the public whether it is standard or additional protection. Act
of unfair competition including passing off are also prohibited. But what about the
protection of GI against use on other products if it exploits the reputation of the GI as it
was decided in the Darjeeling case in France and as it is provided in EU regulation? In
that case, likelihood of confusion is not required. And French doctrine even considers
that appellation of origin, are per nature well-known, thus being protected for all goods
and not only same goods.
But at least, thanks to GI Act, the registration of GI such as Darjeeling is a bundle
of rights upon the registered proprietor and the registered users, helping to protect the use
of Darjeeling only for tea coming for Darjeeling produced according to the GI
specification, thus guarantying a high standard of quality as prescribed in the
specification. Indeed, the specification is the core of the GI system, and its success
depends on the choice made by the producers about the definition of such specification,
describing the product, its method of production and the geographical area, specification
draft according to the traditional know-how shared by the producers located in the
geographical area.
Note: This chapter has been contributed by Ms Delphine MARIE-VIVIEN, CIRAD, UMR
Innovation, Montpellier, France. Visiting Researcher, NLSIU, Bangalore, India.
319
Chapter 14
Action Framework: Facts and Recommendations
1. Socio-economic profile of producers
Facts
-
Producers belong to several class categories, the highest are general category
followed by OBCs, SC and STs are less in number.
-
More than 90% of producers have only single main livelihood
-
Average age of producers is around 33 years and 53 – 60% producers are high
productive age i.e. between 17 to 45 years.
-
Gender wise distribution of family members reveal that males are more than
the females in the producers’ families
-
About half of the producers are educated up to primary level or below
-
About 37% of family members do not possess any skill. The women are more
skilled than the men. But both men and women acquire these skills
traditionally in the family.
-
Mostly producers are employed but the nature of employment i.e. seasonality,
earning and payments reveals the fact that there is lot of scope to improve the
employment conditions.
-
The housing and living conditions of producers are average.
-
The annual earning of most producers82 is low i.e. Rs 10000 - 50000. The
producers are, therefore, poor.
-
Main livelihood is the major source of income. This trend is stronger in
agricultural products83.
82
As per Indian GI Act even the labour force is also covered under the definition of GI. Their situation is
even worse. For example in Coorg coffee the labourers for plucking berries gets Rs 1.00- 1.25 per Kg and
earn around Rs 100/day. December 11, 2007, page 13.
320
-
The monthly expenditure on food is higher in case of poor producers and it is
reduced as they move next into the higher strata of the society
-
Land and buildings constitute the major portion of the assets of producers.
The share of consumer durable is very less, the share of consumer durables go
down as producers move towards the strata of higher income.
-
About 18% of producers have received any benefit from any of the welfare
schemes.
Recommendations
-
Taking the younger age of producers, it is recommended to initiate mass level
training programmes on various dimensions of product
-
The efforts are to be made to increase the share of income from other sources
also, which are regular. Therefore, income diversification.
-
The expenditure on education, health and consumer durables need to be
enhanced through various support programmes.
2. Producers associations
Producers association is the key concept in GI protection system. The following
observations are made:
Facts
-
Producers associations are the weakest link in the agricultural products, either
these are not existing or not properly organized for fruitful functioning.
-
In the case of grains and indigenous products, there are no associations at all. In
case of fruits, plantation crops and spices, the producers associations are available
but these are not operating well; which is reflected from the fact that none of the
83
GI product based diversification to be initiated, it can be rural tourism. Felix Addor, Deputy Director
General, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Bern, Switzerland shares several such example in
different countries at ‘Symposium on Geographical Indications’, December 11, 2007 held at Chennai by GI
Registry of India, Chennai
321
GI application in these products has come from such associations rather GI efforts
have been facilitated public organizations. In support of these facts, some best
examples are – Alphonso mango, Nagpur orange, Nasik grapes, Himachal apple
and Harshil apple. Despite being precious products there is no application since
four years of operation of GI registry.
-
For GI facilitation, the role of public organizations such as central government
boards and state government departments is of very high importance. Because of
their interventions, the producers’ associations could become active in GI
registration, the best examples are – Coorg orange, Mysore mallige and Kangra
tea etc.
-
The producers’ associations, who apply and get ownership, do they represent the
producers? Two examples can be seen critically i.e. basmati rice and navara rice.
For basmati rice, the most precious product of India, an unknown and untraceable
organization ‘Haryana Heritage’ at Karnal made the application. Does this organization
represent the producers’ interests? When we say producer we should not think of millers
and processing industry (though they are also producers as per Indian GI Act) rather we
should think of basmati farmers spread all over Haryana, Punjab, Western UP and
Uttarakhand. For a promising product like ‘navara rice’, in Kerala, the ownership has
been granted to a lesser known organization ‘Navara rice Farmers Society,
Karukamanikalam, Palakkad’. Does the organization was created for this specific
purpose? Does this organization represent the interests of navara producers in Kerala?
Differently named and specifically and recently created organization in Kerala
‘Palakkadan matta rice Farmers and Producers Company Limited, Karukamanikalam,
Palakkad’ probably constituted by the same patrons of navara rice farmers society made
the application for “Palakaddan matta” and got ownership for this rice also84. In Kerala,
there is a tradition of rice cultivators association known as “Padashekaram Committee’ at
every village panchayat, which are spread through out Kerala and these committees
could have been the true representative of interests of navara rice producers of concerned
districts in Kerala.
84
Application number 17 for navara rice and application number 36 for palakkaddan matta rice. GI Journal,
17, April 2007.
322
-
Proprietorship of a community property to the organization not representing the
interest of each and every producer is a very serious matter. This problem may
become acute, once the intensive commercialization take place. Because as per GI
Act, any prospective ‘Authorized User’ applying to GI registry, need to
compulsorily take NOC from proprietor of GI.
-
In case of non-agricultural products, the producers associations are mostly
available. These are strong in case of GI type VII and VIII but weak in GI type VI
i.e. handicraft, and informal in case of GI type I i.e. confectionary. Compare to
agricultural products, the associations have been more active in non-agricultural
products.
-
The GI registration of non-agricultural products are far more in number than
agricultural products. The reason is not that non-agricultural products have more
trade than agricultural products. Rather most obvious reason is that public
organizations such as textile committee, patent facilitation centers, state
corporations as SISI, KSIC had been more active. In agricultural products, there
were a few active organizations such as tea board, spices board of central
government and horticultural department and biotechnology center of Karnataka
government.
Therefore,
due
to
active
functioning
of
few
individuals/organizations, the products of less trade and virtually no serious
competition like ‘Mysore pan’ or ‘Mysore mallige’ were registered. While due to
lack of any initiation, the products of high importance like Banganpalli mango
and Alphonso mango, Nagpur orange, Sehori wheat etc were not even applied.
Recommendations
-
Creation of commodity based associations in agricultural products and taking up
of advantage of formal groups such as Self Help Groups (SHGs), Water Users
Assocations (WUAs), Van Sarankshan Samitees (VSS), or Biodiversity
Management Committees (BMCs) constituted by state biodiversity boards.
-
Strengthening of existing associations in non-agricultural products
-
Institutionalization of process of GI application. For establishing right of
ownership, the approach has to be little different than patents. Therefore, state
323
intervention must always be there. Instead of leaving complete authority with GI
registry, the government(s) of concerned state(s) must be involved to a greater
extent.
-
The associated bodies of state and central government must take part actively.
These organizations should have instruction to constitute, motivate and encourage
the truly representing associations/organizations for GI registration.
-
A mechanism can be created for channeling the GI registration through a
designated department/organization of state government. The main purpose of this
arrangement should be to evaluate and ensure true representation of all the
producers
-
GI registry should discourage application submitted without list of the producers.
The GI office should also ensure that all proper action and care has been taken in
identification and organization of producers. We must not forget that GI can be a
wonderful tool for creation and management of producers’ associations in the
country.
3. Uniqueness
Facts
Besides the geo-climatic features, the other factors to bring uniqueness are raw material
and production process. In non-agricultural products, the uniqueness is observed
morphologically85 and qualitatively but in agricultural products morphological traits are
also influenced by geographical origin86 but mostly it is qualitative trait87, which establish
85
For example in Kolhapuri chappal, 100% leather, decorative upper, charming contrast, intricate
embroidery are main features, even shoes on the same pattern are also made at Kolhapur. In Panjabi jooti
(also known as Rajasthani jooti in Rajasthan) all those features are available. But in later there is no
distinction between left and right footwear, which is not the case with kolhapuri chappals.
86
Börner et al. (2005) finds associations between geographical origin and morphological characters such as
glume, spike size etc in bread wheat. Can the same be done for several grains, vegetable and fruits in India
also?
87
Thomas et al. (2006) found that Indian cardamom is superior to that from Srilanka and Guatemala. It is
mostly based on biochemical parameters such as oil of Indian cardamom indicated high quantity of αterpinyl acetate and 1,8-cineole, which imparts aroma and flavour to the cardamom, thus reinforcing the
legendary belief of high intrinsic quality of the Indian cardamom.
324
the uniqueness from consumption point of view. Following are some important facts
regarding uniqueness:
-
In most of non-agricultural products, it is easy to establish uniqueness because of
controlled raw material supply and physical features of the product. The
production process is also standardized but mostly not monitored/controlled by
any effective agency.
-
In almost all agricultural products barring a few like Banganpalli mango,
Alphonso mango etc. it is a hard task to describe and confirm the uniqueness. For
example, in Himachal apple and Harshil apple neither the producer nor consumer
can easily differentiate between two at the time of purchase. Same is the case with
Bhaliya wheat, Sehori wheat and non-bhaliya and non-sehori wheat
-
In agricultural products, the production process is not standardized and supply of
raw material such as seed and other vegetative propagation material of a GI
material is not regularized and controlled.
-
The technical standards in agricultural products is the weakest area as the
producers follow their own technical standards and also monitor by themselves or
left open to the market to judge on the basis of final product available to them.
-
In most of the applied GIs in agriculture, the uniqueness has been defined in a
vague manner without least scientific justification and evidences.
Recommendations
-
Strengthen the production code in non-agricultural products and enforce them
through effective monitoring of technical standards. The producers associations in
consultation with government departments are capable to do it.
-
Develop the production codes in agricultural products; define, document and list
proper technical standards. A mechanism need to be created for effective
implementation, monitoring and follow-up of these technical standards and
production codes. Except in few cases like Alphonso mango, Nasik grape,
Banganpalli mango, Basmatic rice, etc., the responsibility mainly lies on
government departments or other public organizations.
325
-
The raw material used in producing agricultural products is purchased locally.
Most being a commodity of less commercial value, the effective and reliable seed
and propagating material system is not functioning. Therefore, big responsibility
lies with the research institutions to describe, evaluate, develop and provide
reliable raw material especially seed and propagating material.
-
As uniqueness among most of agricultural products depends on qualitative traits,
it is recommended that scientific institutions must take steps to develop
qualitative trait protocols on the basis of modern technologies such as DNA
fingerprinting and PCR etc. These protocols should strengthen the case of not
only GI protection but also to bring confidence among the consumers.
-
The ICAR, which is an agricultural research authority in the country, should
clearly list the varieties in each product, which constitute a particular GI.
4. Enterprise Operations
Facts
The functioning of agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises reflect little deviations
otherwise it is more or less same, the salient features are:
-
The ownership of most enterprises is sole proprietorship and family enterprises
with family members. In agricultural enterprises, the sole proprietorship is very
high, while in non-agricultural enterprises; both role proprietorship and family are
almost equal with sole proprietorship having a little edge over later.
-
In almost all cases in agriculture, the head of household is head of enterprises,
while in non-agricultural enterprises; other family members are also head of
enterprise.
-
The skill of running an enterprise and producing the product in both cases have
been mostly acquired by traditionally from family. The formal and informal
training has played a little greater role in non-agricultural enterprises.
-
The gender issues are very critical in both the enterprises. In agricultural
enterprises, the contribution of female workers is more than the men workers
326
because of more number of skilled workers are involved, of course the
involvement of non-skilled male are more than the non-skilled females. In nonagricultural enterprises, though female workers contribute significantly but their
involvement is lesser than males. Unlike agriculture, in non-agricultural
enterprises, the involvement of skilled men worker is more than the skilled
women worker except in one case i.e. GI type VIII (textile). The payments to
women workers are far less than the male workers.
-
The record keeping by the producers is unorganized in case of small producers of
non-agricultural products, and almost all sorts of producers in case of agricultural
products. Therefore, they are not able to provide the correct information about
input cost and also produce data of last two-three years.
Recommendations
-
The sector of formal training is very poor in agricultural products. Formal training
programmes to be organized, the traditional training from families had been the
strength, therefore, trainers from these families to be involved in such formal
programs. Women workers in agriculture contribute significantly. Therefore,
women should not only be imparted training but also to be utilized as trainers.
-
Women play significant role in non-agricultural enterprises and greater role in
agricultural enterprises but they are not represented in producers associations not
even in well established associations such as ‘Coimbatore Wet grinders and
Accessories Manufacturers Association’ i.e. COWMA, while several women are
running and supervising wet grinder enterprises at Coimbatore, because several of
enterprises are situated either as home unit or associated unit nearby to home.
-
The agricultural producers and small sector non-agricultural producers, are
especially to be trained in record keeping. In these sectors, it will be a good idea
to develop and strengthen community registers. It will help in taking appropriate
business decisions and also function as important instrument in taking
administrative decisions under the Agreement on Anti-dumping.
-
For better transparency, a mechanism to be developed for equal payments to
women for their work.
327
-
Wholesale or retail marketing activities and business decisions are to be taken on
the basis of ownership style of a product enterprise.
5. Marketing operations
Facts
Packing, grading, price settlement and market access are the major issues of strategic
policy. These are given below:
-
In non-agricultural products, only few producers store the products that too in a
kutcha style using polythene packs, jute bags, etc.
-
The packing of products is a weak area in both agricultural and non-agricultural
products. Not much technological advancement has been done. The most
interesting finding is that producers are satisfied with the existing method of
packing, probably they have not understood the value of packing a product.
-
Grading of a product is also a weak area. In agricultural products either grading is
not done, even if done it is mostly on the basis of physical traits. In nonagricultural products, grading is little better and mostly it is done on the basis of
qualitative traits.
-
Price decision is most important in market operation, the situation in agricultural
products is pity because mostly it is either individual bargain or purchaser offers a
price and producers are forced to sell without any other options left to them. The
situation in non-agricultural products is not much different except that collective
bargaining is little more improved and they usually agree to the price offered by
purchaser without forced sell. But still the price decision is of purchaser and not
of producer.
-
The mode of sale is dominated by the middlemen. In few non-agricultural
products, the intervention of middlemen is less in the domestic market but high in
case of exports.
-
Except few non-agricultural products, the consumption of the product is mostly
local. In some cases, it is only one or two districts or state. Few agricultural
328
products and little more non-agricultural products crosses the boundary of state
but exports are very little, only a few selected products are exported that too a
little extent. Uniqueness plays a significant role in sale of these products as
believed by around 90% of institutional stakeholders and traders. This holds true
for all products except GI type IV i.e. traditional health drinks.
Recommendations
-
Bringing the attitudinal changes among producers regarding importance of
packing and grading.
-
Introduction of product specific packing material
-
Introduction of qualitative grading parameters and protocols, for agricultural
products, the agricultural institutions should take up this challenge.
-
Development of mechanisms to enhance collective bargain and community
monopoly over price settlements and payment procedures. The financial
institutions need to play a greater role by providing credit facilities and also
strengthen the backward linkages for purchase of raw material on negotiated
prices and terms and conditions.
-
Minimization of middlemen had always been a challenge in Indian economy88. In
case of few products, as Coimbatore wet grinder89 and Solapur chader and terry
towel, it has been done successfully. The similar approach is recommended for
other non-agricultural products and modified approach on similar pattern for
agricultural products.
-
For many of the products, enough market is available in the country. Therefore,
popularizing them in domestic market should be taken at priority90. Few selected
products can be emphasized for export.
88
Can the farmers/producers through producers association become a share holders in large marketing
companies? Or can they be partners in profit/loss sharing through investment in commodity exchanges?
89
Direct purchases can be done through official website of producers: www.wetgrindercoimbatore.com
90
For example indigenous fruit drinks such as –nannari sherbat, kokam juice and buransh juice have fairly
good potential of commercialization in the domestic market but real challenge would lie in transferring the
fair amount of revenue generation to them.
329
6. Inspection, quality control and quality assurance
Inspection and quality control at various stages of production is a major issue of inquiry.
What is the intervention mechanism of government for quality assurance and
improvement? Are there any technical guidelines for production codes and how the
production practices maintain those production codes? Quality is the whole crux of
product development. No consumer will buy any product merely on the basis of GI
registration, therefore, this sector of product development is not only important from
point of mandatory requirement of GI registration but also from point of view of market
satisfaction. The most important existing facts are narrated below:
Facts
-
Most of the producers opine that either there is no inspection or quality control or
it is only at production level maintained by the producers during production
operations. Only a few admit that inspection by an authority is done.
-
On inspection and quality control, the views of institutional stakeholders widely
differ from the producers. They opine that quality control is done through various
measures such as extension, training and group communication, and on-site
advice and inspection. But following facts are also observed:
ƒ
15 –20% stakeholders opine that no formal method of inspection
and quality control available
ƒ
About 45% stakeholders opine that in non-agricultural products,
the inspection and quality control is done by producers at various
stages of production and raw material purchase. While for
agricultural products, only 3% opine that it is done at producers
level.
ƒ
The inspection on the basis of scientific evidences and voluntary
and mandatory standards exist only in GI type III and VII.
-
Very less number of producers opine that they produce on the basis of
technical guidance received from government, NGO or producers association.
330
Excepting a few products, the producers of almost all products opine that they
produce as per self-guidelines as learnt from forefathers.
-
What are government defined quality assurance methods? 16% institutional
stakeholders in agriculture and 19% in non-agricultural products opine that no
formal quality assurance is available. In agricultural products, regulated
production practices, input supply, post harvest practices and processes is
major strategy to ensure quality. In non-agricultural products, the intervention
at government level is less because 50% institutional stakeholders opine that
producers’ regulated raw material testing is the method of quality assurance.
Compliance to mandatory and voluntary standards and certification standards
has been of very low significance across most agricultural or non-agricultural
products.
-
Advice and training plays an important role in quality enhancement. About
40% institutional stakeholders in agriculture and 50% in non-agricultural
products opine that advice and training is given directly to producers on
production aspects. While 30% in non-agriculture and 44% in agriculture
opine that advice and training is facilitated through public organizations.
Other institutional stakeholders in both agriculture and non-agriculture opine
that no advice and training is given.
-
Production codes are self-learnt, self-guided and undocumented, then how are
these maintained and monitored. The quality check by purchaser is most
important method followed by technical guidelines from government
departments in agriculture, and inspection by government, NGO or
association in non-agriculture. Only 15% producers in agriculture and 33%
producers in non-agricultural products opine that quality control mechanism is
available which takes care of production codes.
Recommendations
-
Evolving inspection and quality control mechanism in agricultural products
and strengthening existing mechanisms in non-agricultural products
331
-
Encouraging and ensuring quality control on the basis of scientific evidences
and regulating standards
-
Development of technical guidelines, production protocols and production
codes in several products. Refining and documenting the production codes,
wherever available. Scientific organizations must take special initiative in this
matter91.
-
Encourage schemes and provide credit and facilitation for acquiring the
certification marks and standards such as ISO or India organic etc.
-
Development and enforcement of mandatory standards in certain GIs
especially food items and selected agricultural products92. This cannot be done
without involvement of scientific institutions93.
-
Facilitation of direct advice and training to the producers. To take the
advantage of rich knowledge of producers, some producer-to-producer
trainings can be organized.
-
Production code enforcement and compliance mechanism should be
developed. The responsibility can be entrusted to concerned public
organization, NGO or producers associations as per nature and type of
product.
7. Perceived post-GI registration changes
The producers and other stakeholders expect several changes after registration of a
product as GI. The expectations can be met out or not or can take several years to receive
the perceived changes. But as a matter of fact, several GIs have been registered because
leaving apart the expected benefits, the first and foremost priority must be to register and
91
There is question of technical standards of other countries notified as per Technical Barriers to Trade
(TBT) also. For example through a TBT notification (G/TBT/N/AUS/59, 10 December 2007) Australia has
put extraneous residue limit (ERL) of 0.1 mg/kg for paradichlorobenzene (1,4- dichlorobenzene) in honey
for five years. It means Coorg honey or Himachal honey producers must know it.
92
Indian food products are second highest import refusal in US because consignments appears to be out of
compliance with country’s food regulations (doubtful quality, unsafe color, filthy and no English nutritional
labels). Out of 94 consignments detained in November 2007, 70 items are processed and ready to eat items.
Business Standard, Chennai, December 11, 2007 page 02.
93
Malte Hartmann (2006) has made the complete reference of the food products as GI, which can give
several issues for quality development.
332
protect it. And this is the principle, which has been followed by stakeholders while
applying for registration of a product. Some of the facts of expectations are listed here:
Facts
-
Producers opine that non-registration has certain disadvantages; the important
disadvantages are low volume of sale because of sale of fake products and
difficulty in getting loans etc.
-
Producers and institutional stakeholders expect increase in sale and unit price,
enhanced premium to producers thus enhancing their profit, and reduction in
competition.
-
Most producers feel that they will leave other livelihoods and shift to
production of registered GI product, if the protection systems are followed to
ensure more benefit. They will not shift their livelihood merely after
registration of a product as GI because they have their own production and
marketing risk mitigation strategies. But significant number of producers and
institutional stakeholders believe that GI registration will improve the overall
socio-economic conditions of producers.
Recommendations
-
No producer or institutional stakeholder felt that non-registration may cause a
product ‘generic’; therefore, the registration process must continue without
bothering much about expected socio-economic changes. The registration
must be taken as a tool to protect the identity of product and producers,
strengthening of association among producers and to develop a comradeship
among producers. The registration should be used as a weapon, whenever it is
required to protect the interest of the producers. The weapons are not used in
day-today matters but these are procured and kept if any exigency or
emergency occurs.
333
-
The producers have great expectations from the new regime of protection. But
these expectations cannot be fulfilled without an integrated94 and institutional
approach such as ‘cluster development program’ has been done for
coimbatore wet grinder or solapur chader and terry towel. The producers are
worried about production and marketing risk mitigation strategies. The
mechanism needs to be developed for enhancing the risk taking capacity of
the producers.
8. Perceived impact on market
Facts
The perceived impact on market can be brought out after careful diagnosis of the
marketing problem. Following are some facts of diagnostic survey:
-
In most products the competition is either local producers or same product
produced in other areas of country or similar products as duplicates available
in the country. The import threat95. or competition in export market96 is a
form of competition only for few selected products The tough local
competition is faced by GI types VI and VIII, while almost all agricultural
products except GI type IV face such type of competition severely.
94
T.C. James, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi shares the experiences of Phu Quoc, a fish sauce in
Vietnam. About 90 enterprises produce 10 m. litres per annum but only 0.5 milliom reaches overseas.
Arrangement with Uniliver company (a contract with consortium of 17 local producers), producers process
it but company does works like marketing, distribution and label designing etc. Symposium on
Geographical Indications, December 11, 2007 held at Chennai by GI Registry of India, Chennai. In India
on similar approach a juice ‘Leh Berry’ from sea-buckthorn berries in Laddakh is developed by a private
company in collaboration with DRDO laboratory. The rural livelihoods did not get anything out of this
product development; rather they faced several other problems. Therefore any joint collaboration between a
research institution and private company sans producers of any GI product is not recommended under any
situation.
95
Cardamom: Import of 400 tonnes from Guatemala @ Rs 100/- ($2.50)/kg, even after 70% import duty,
while domestic rates are Rs 550/- per kg. During August 2006 rate was Rs 325/- per kg. Cheap Cardamom
is coming through informal channel from Nepal. India production 11,500 tonnes and domestic consumption
is around 80%. Honduras, Tanzania and Srilanka are other producers producing 1000 tonnes, Guatamala
produces 30,000 tonnes. Mint, Dec 11, 2007 page 17.
96
Pepper: Import of 3000 tonnes from Indonesia ($3300-3350/tonne) and 1000 tonnes from Brazil at
$3000/tonne. Indian pepper remains at $3550-3600 /tonne. Brazilian pepper are bold and past experience
that part of this is sold as ‘Wynadan pepper’. The pepper is being imported as value chain product for
sterilization, grinding and further export. Business Line, December 11, 2007, page 15.
334
-
At the time of purchase, about 87% consumers in agricultural product and
96% in non-agricultural products are sure that they are buying a genuine
product97. This is because about 54% consumer in agricultural product and
74% consumer in non-agricultural product make any special effort to purchase
a genuine product. But do the consumers prefer original products always?
Only 9- 10% traders believe so, here lies the competitiveness on product in
terms of quality and reasonable price. The consumers will not necessarily buy
the GI product only.
-
In search of genuine product, the consumers apply several efforts, the topmost
approach followed for each type of product is given below:
ƒ
For GI type I & VIII see label or trademark
ƒ
For GI type II go to authorized/ reliable/ reputed shop
ƒ
For
GI
type
III
get
authentic
receipt
or
go
to
authorized/reliable/reputed shop
ƒ
For GI type IV, V & VII go to authorized/reliable/reputed shop or
get authentic receipt or see label/trademark
ƒ
For GI type VI get authentic receipt or see lable/trademark
Recommendations
-
Focusing domestic market create a healthy competitive situation. Product
diversification can play a greater role e.g. in case of Pahari aloo, it can be a
Himachal vegetable potato or Himachal seed potato; in case of pokkali rice, it
can be naturally grown pokkali rice grains, pokkali paddy seeds, pokkali rice
bran natural oil etc.
-
Understand the attitude of customers, initiate customer orientation programs
within competitiveness framework. For example, tell the customers about
identity of the product, the GIs are highly localized and customers out of their
97
In credence goods, the consumers may be interested in specific attributes such as production process, pay
of the workers, gender or environmental rights or pesticide residues etc. (Rangnekar, 2004 as presented by
Kasturi Das, 2007)
335
niche area do not know about the products. The methods and types of
orientation program shall differ as per type of consumer.
-
Initiate forward and backward linkages and strengthen them. For example,
look for any possibility of sale of bhaliya wheat and bhaliya wheat flour
through retail supply chain mechanism of a reputed company.
-
Ensure mechanism of supply of genuine product to the customers. The most
suitable mechanism can be developed as per GI type or nature of product. One
such mechanism can be traceability of the origin of the product98. Scientific
institutions needs to take greater responsibility to ensure traceability on the
basis of ICT applications.
-
Government/ product associations should take up certain administrative
measures to face competition arising from duplicate or copy type products.
-
Branding/labeling coupled with high quality standards and IP protection
would help to face competition.
9. Post registration impacts
Facts
-
Most of the producers of registered products have not observed much changes
after registration of agricultural products because only nine respondents spoke
in favour of impact of registration.
-
In non-agricultural products, the producers have felt impact of registration on
various socio-economic parameters.
-
The impact observed in non-agricultural product is not due to GI registration
alone99. Rather it is the integrated approach which helped in positive effects.
For example, the efforts done by organizations like textile committee and
98
A Geographical Information System (GIS) based comprehensive traceability system for hot pepper is
developed in Jamaica; it is used as a global trade tool to identify the originating farm of the product and
also to track pests such as gall midge. CTA, issue no. 32, June 2006, for more details contact Dionne
Clarke-Harris (dclarkeharris@yahoo.com).
99
GI as a tool has played greater role in benefit accrual from Mysore silk. Because KSIC took several
initiatives to exclude others from using the name. Therefore in 2006, there was a 5-10% increase in sale
with turnover of Rs 45 crores. In 2007, KSIC expect turn over of Rs 50 crore with 5-7 crore of profit.
336
various organizations of central and state government has been done in a
mission mode manner, in which registration of GI is only one component. It
has been expressed by several stakeholders that observed changes are not the
effect of GI.
-
The GI as a marketing tool has been used in a few products only, which is
reflected by the infringement cases or other administrative actions taken by
the proprietors of GIs.
-
The GI registration has developed and strengthen the unity of producers, it has
opened the communication channel, changed the attitude of producers towards
community ownership and exclusion of others from taking advantage of their
property.
Recommendations
-
Mission mode approach on the principle of cluster development problem to be
taken for the identified agricultural products.
-
Even after registration of two to three years, the GI has not been used as a
marketing tool effectively. In case of few products only it has been used as an
effective tool.
-
Approaching other nations for bilateral agreement to protect GIs mutually
without formal registration in other countries. Because for producers it
become highly difficult to protect product in each and every country and it is
highly money consuming activity also.
-
Development of cross country producers networks
10. Willingness to pay
Facts
-
Most producers are willing to pay Rs. 500/- towards GI registration.
-
Most producers expect enhanced premium of 5 – 10% over the cost.
-
About 35 – 40% of traders also feel that as registered GI should provide
premium of 5 - 10%.
337
-
The enhanced premium to the consumers would, therefore be at least 10 –
15% over prevailing price.
-
About 60% of consumers are ready to pay enhanced premium and mostly
below 10% over prevailing price100.
-
Bankers are willing to pay for registration and also for the product
development activities.
Recommendations
-
The government and association make sure that there should not be a price
rise of more than 10 per cent as willingness of consumers.
-
The steps to be taken to build up the reputation, repayment capacity of the
producers so that bankers and financial institution have confidence about
effective recovery of loan and credit etc.
100
T.C. James, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi informs ‘as per a survey conducted by EU in 1999, 43%
people are willing to pay 10% premium’. Symposium on Geographical Indications, December 11, 2007
held at Chennai by GI Registry of India, Chennai. During the same symposium, Felix Addor, Deputy
Director General, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property expressed his views that consumers in
developed nations will be willing to pay higher with the intention of helping producers from developing
nations. The only requirement would be availability of genuine products and not for example the Ceylon
tea coming from Thailand.
338
Annexure-IV: Socio-economic profile of producers
Table-4.1: Main Livelihood of the surveyed producers
Livelihood
Agriculture Products
289 (91.74)
10 (3.17)
6 (1.90)
10 (3.17)
315 (45.58)
Agriculture
Non-agri enterprise
Wage/salary income
Others
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Non-Agriculture Products
18 (4.8)
344 (91.5)
13 (3.5)
1 (0.3)
376 (54.41)
All
309 (44.71)
354 (51.23)
19 (2.74)
11 (1.59)
691
Respondents – No. (%)
Non-Agriculture Products
47 (12.47)
17 (4.46)
146 (38.81)
166 (43.96)
376 (54.41)
All
66 (9.56)
48 (6.95)
260 (37.68)
317 (45.79)
691
Table-4.2: Social groups of surveyed producers
Social group
Agriculture Products
19 (6.0)
31 (9.8)
114 (36.2)
151 (47.9)
315 (45.58)
SC
ST
OBC
Others
Total
Table-4.3: Gender-wise family members of surveyed producers
Family
members
Male
Female
Agriculture Products
Average
Average
%
No.
yrs
3.13
57.01
32.62
2.36
42.99
33.12
Non-Agri products
Average
Average
%
No.
yrs
2.48
58.71
33.12
1.74
41.28
31.52
All
Average
No.
2.78
2.02
%
58.07
41.92
Average
yrs
32.86
32.37
Table-4.4: Gender and age-wise group pattern of family members of surveyed producers
Age group
Agriculture Products
Female
145 (39.61)
221
(19.43)
Male
1-16
(60.38)
17-45
46-55
>55
Total
(24.66)
452 (51.83)
(50.44)
90 (47.61)
(10.04)
133 (61.86)
(14.84)
896 (54.56)
420 (48.16)
(56.30)
99 (52.38)
(13.27)
82 (38.13)
(10.99)
746 (45.46)
Total
366
(22.28)
872
(53.10)
189
(11.51)
215
(13.09)
1642
Non-Agriculture Products
Male
Female
Total
150 (53.9)
128 (46.04)
278
(16.16)
(19.51)
(17.55)
551 (58.0)
(59.37)
143 (64.70)
(15.40)
84 (62.2)
(9.05)
928 (58.58)
399 (42.0)
(60.82)
78 (35.29)
(11.89)
51 (37.7)
(7.78)
656 (41.41)
950
(59.97)
221
(13.95)
135
(8.52)
1584
339
Table-4.5: Education level of family members of surveyed producers
Education
level
1
Agriculture Products
Male
Female
Total
65 (28.76) 161(71.24) 226
(6.67)
(22.29)
(13.31)
2
97 (59.88)
(9.95)
65 (40.12)
(9.00)
162
(9.54)
Non-Agriculture Products
Male
Female
Total
69 (34.33) 132
201
(7.5)
(65.67)
(12.90)
(20.72)
73 (51.09) 70 (48.95) 143
(7.93)
(10.98)
(9.18)
Male
134(31.38)
(7.07)
All
Female
293(68.62)
(21.56)
Total
427
(13.12)
170(55.74)
(8.97)
135(44.26)
(9.94)
305
(9.37)
3
182(53.53)
(18.67)
158(46.47)
(21.88)
340
(20.03)
152(61.29)
(16.52)
96 (38.71)
(15.07)
248
(15.92)
334(56.80)
(17.62)
254(43.20)
(18.69)
588
(18.07)
4
264(61.54)
(27.07)
165(38.46)
(22.85)
429
(25.27)
157(58.15)
(17.06)
113(41.85)
(17.73)
270
(17.34)
421(60.23)
(22.21)
278(39.77)
(20.45)
699
(21.48)
5
184(65.95)
(18.87)
95 (34.05)
(13.15)
279
(16.44)
153(58.17)
(16.63)
110(41.83)
(17.26)
263
(16.84)
337(62.18)
(17.78)
205(37.82)
(15.08)
542
(16.65)
6
183(70.11)
(18.77)
78 (29.89)
(10.80)
261
(15.38)
316(73.15)
(34.34)
116(26.85)
(18.21)
432
(27.74)
499(72.01)
(26.33)
194(27.99)
(14.27)
693
(21.29)
Total
975
722
920
537
1557
1895
1359
3254
(57.45)
(42.54)
1697 (57.45)
(42.54)
(58.2)
(41.7)
Note: Codes of education level [Not literate - 1, Literate but below primary –2, Primary - 3, Secondary – 4, Higher
Secondary – 5, Graduate & above – 6]
Table-4.6: Skill level of family members of surveyed producers
Skill
level
1
2
3
4
Total
Agriculture Products
Male
Female
Total
274(45.06) 334(54.93) 608
(28.84)
(46.91) (36.58)
588 63.02) 345(36.97) 933
(61.89)
(48.45) (56.13)
40 (62.5)
24 (37.5)
64
(4.21)
(3.37)
(3.85)
48(84.21)
9 (15.78)
57
(5.05)
(1.26)
(3.42)
950(57.16) 712(42.83) 1662
Non-Agriculture Products
Male
Female
Total
213(41.84) 296(58.15) 509
(24.39)
(56.59) (36.46)
543(74.89) 182(25.10) 725
(62.19)
(34.79) 51.93)
54 (65.06) 29 (34.93) 83
(6.18)
(5.54)
(5.94)
63 (79.74) 16 (20.25) 79
(7.21)
(3.05)
(5.65)
873(62.53) 523(37.46) 1386
Male
487 (43.59)
(26.71)
1131(68.21)
(62.0)
94 (63.94)
(5.15)
111 (81.61)
(6.08)
1823(59.61)
All
Female
630 (56.40)
(51.01)
527 (31.78)
(42.67)
53 (36.05)
(4.29)
25 (18.38)
(2.02)
1235(40.38)
Total
1117
(36.52)
1658
(54.21)
147
(4.8)
136
(4.44)
3058
Note: Codes of skill level [No skill –1, Traditionally acquired in the family –2, Skill acquired through training –3, Skill
acquired traditionally and by training – 4]
340
Table-4.7: Usual activity of family members of surveyed producers
Usual
Activity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
Agriculture Products
Male
Female
Total
299(78.68) 81 (21.32) 380
(31.4)
(11.25)
(22.72)
256(64.65) 140(35.35) 396
(26.89)
(19.45)
(23.68)
39 (88.64) 5 (11.36)
44
(4.09)
(0.69)
(2.63)
25(71.43)
10 (28.57) 35
(2.62)
(1.38)
(2.09)
24 (7.61)
291(92.38) 315
(2.52)
(40.41)
(18.83)
225(61.31) 142(38.69) 367
(23.63)
(19.73)
(21.94)
6 (85.71)
1 (14.29)
7
(0.63)
(0.14)
(0.41)
58 (58.59) 41 (41.41) 99
(6.09)
(5.69)
(5.92)
20 (68.97) 9 (31.03)
29
(2.10)
(1.25)
(1.73)
952(56.93) 720(43.06) 1672
Non-Agriculture Products
Male
Female
Total
430(82.69) 90(17.31)
520
(47.56)
(13.97)
(33.59)
178(59.14) 123(40.86) 301
(19.69)
(19.09)
(19.45)
41(71.93)
16(28.07)
57
(4.53)
(2.48)
(3.68)
31(62)
19(38)
50
(3.42)
(2.95)
(3.22)
10(4.08)
235(95.92) 245
(1.10)
(36.49)
15.82)
166(59.71) 112(40.29) 278
(18.36)
(17.39)
(17.95)
1(100)
0 (0.0)
2
(0.22)
(0.0)
(0.12)
42 (51.22) 40 (48.78) 82
(4.64)
(6.21)
(5.29)
4(30.77)
9(69.23)
13
(0.44)
(1.39)
(0.83)
904(58.39) 644(41.60) 1548
Male
729 (81)
(39.27)
434(72.70)
(23.38)
80(79.21)
(4.31)
56 (65.88)
(3.01)
34 (6.07)
(1.83)
391(60.62)
(21.06)
8 (88.89)
(0.43)
100(55.25)
(5.38)
24(57.14)
(1.29)
1856(59.4)
All
Female
171(19)
(13.52)
163(27.30)
(12.89)
21(20.79)
(1.66)
29(34.12)
(2.29)
526(93.93)
(41.61)
254(39.38)
(20.09)
1(11.11)
(0.07)
81(44.75)
(6.40)
18(42.86)
(1.42)
1264(40.5)
Total
900
(28.84)
597
(19.13)
101
(3.23)
85
(2.72)
560
(17.94)
645
(20.67)
9
(0.28)
181
(5.80)
42
(1.36)
3120
Note: Codes for usual activity [Self-employed – 1, Unpaid family enterprise worker- 2, Wage/salary worker – 3,
Unemployed (seeking and/or available for work –4, Household duties – 5, Student –6, Pensioners, social workers not in
labour force etc- 7, Too young or old to be active –8, Others – 9]
Table-4.8: Ownership details of the dwelling unit of surveyed producers
Ownership of the dwelling unit
No dwelling
Owned
Hired
Total
Respondents – No, (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
35 (68.62)
16 (31.37)
(11.2)
(4.3)
271 (46.08)
317 (53.91)
(86.9)
(85.2)
3 (7.14)
39 (92.85)
(1.9)
(10.5)
309 (45.57)
372 (54.62)
All
51
(7.48)
588
(86.34)
42
(6.16)
681
Table-4.9: Covered area particulars of dwelling units of surveyed producers
Covered Area (m2)
<50
50-100
100-150
>150
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
35 (12.42)
61 (16.62)
58 (20.56)
81 (22.07)
115 (40.78)
51 (13.89)
74 (26.24)
174 (47.41)
367 (56.54)
282 (43.45)
All
96 (14.79)
139 (21.41)
166 (25.57)
248 (38.21)
649
Table-4.10: Type of dwelling used for residing by surveyed producers
Type of dwelling
Independent house
Flat
Chawl / bustee
Others
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
297 (95.2)
310 (83.3)
6 (1.9)
31 (8.3)
9 (2.9)
30 (8.1)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.3)
312 (45.61)
372 (54.38)
All
607 (88.74)
37 (5.40)
39 (5.70)
1 (0.14)
684 (100)
341
Table-4.11: Structure of respondent’s dwelling units surveyed producers
Type of structure
Pucca
Semi-pucca
Katcha
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
175 (55.9)
307 (82.5)
114 (36.4)
54 (14.5)
24 (7.7)
11 (3.0)
313 (45.69)
372 (54.62)
All
482 (70.36)
168 (24.52)
35 (5.10)
685
Table-4.12: Lighting facilities availability to surveyed producers
Lighting
None
Electricity
Kerosene lamp
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
13 (4.2)
14 (3.8)
294 (94.5)
350 (94.3)
4 (1.3)
7 (1.9)
311 (45.60)
371 (54.39)
All
27 (3.95)
644 (94.42)
11 (1.61)
682
Table-4.13: Cooking fuel utilization of surveyed producers
Cooking fuel
LPG/Piped gas
Local/Gobar gas
Electricity
Kerosene
Coal
Firewood
Other
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
198 (63.3)
290 (78.0)
28 (8.9)
11 (3.0)
4 (1.3)
1 (0.3)
2 (0.6)
12 (3.2)
-----3 (0.8)
81 (25.9)
54 (14.5)
--------1 (0.3)
313 (45.69)
372 (54.30)
All
488 (71.24)
39 (5.69)
5 (0.72)
14 (2.04)
3 (0.43)
135 (19.70)
1 (0.14)
685
Table-4.14: Sources of drinking water availability to surveyed producers
Source of drinking water
Tap
Tube-well
Well
Tank/pond
River/canal/lake/spring
Others
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
121 (38.7)
301 (80.7)
62 (19.8)
40 (10.7)
102 (32.6)
14 (3.8)
16 (5.1)
4 (1.1)
5 (1.6)
10 (2.7)
7 (2.2)
4 (1.1)
313 (45.62)
373 (54.73)
All
422 (61.51)
102 (14.86)
116 (16.90)
20 (2.91)
15 (2.18)
11 (1.60)
686
Table-4.15: Spectrum of Income range of producers
Income range
Upto Rs.10000/10000-50000
50000 – 1 lakh
More than 1 lakh
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
1 (33.34)
2 (66.67)
(1.51)
(5.0)
36 (58.06)
26 (41.93)
(54.54)
(65.0)
7 (63.63)
4 (36.36)
(10.60)
(10.0)
22 (73.33)
8 (26.67)
(33.34)
(20.0)
66 (62.26)
40 (37.37)
All
3
(2.83)
62
(58.49)
11
(10.37)
30
(28.30)
106
342
Table-4.16: Contribution of different sources in net annual income of producers earning
upto Rs.50,000 annually
Average in Rs
Agriculture Non-Agriculture
Products
Products
Annual income
All
% Income of total Producers
Agriculture
NonProducts
Agriculture
Products
67.13
27.76
All
Agriculture, horticulture,
plantation, forestry
Livestock, poultry, fishing
Manufacturing
23813
9681
16747
47.61
1513
6500
842
19838
1178
13169
4.27
18.32
2.41
56.89
3.35
37.44
Trading
1866
1175
1520
5.26
3.37
4.32
Other enterprises
277
329
303
0.78
0.94
0.86
Wage/Salary income
754
2393
1574
2.13
6.86
4.48
Other income (pensions,
property, remittance received)
Total
750
614
682
2.11
1.76
1.94
35473
34872
35173
100.00
100.00
100.00
Table-4.17: Contribution of different sources in net annual income of producers earning Rs.
>50000/- to 2 lakhs annually
Annual income
Average in Rs
Agriculture
Products
Agriculture, horticulture,
plantation, forestry
Livestock, poultry,
fishing
Manufacturing
90118
NonAgriculture
Products
6000
7896
All
% Income of total Producers
Agriculture
Non-Agriculture
Products
Products
All
48059
78.50
4.68
39.56
1866
4881
6.88
1.46
4.02
1200
102658
51929
1.05
80.11
42.75
Trading
3347
4364
3856
2.92
3.41
3.17
Other enterprises
3430
2400
2915
2.99
1.87
2.40
Wage/Salary income
6664
7030
6847
5.81
5.49
5.64
Other income (pensions,
property, remittance
received)
Total
2140
3833
2987
1.86
2.99
2.46
114795
128151
121473
100.00
100.00
100.00
343
Table-4.18: Contribution of different sources in net annual income of producers earning
more than 2 lakhs
Annual income
Agriculture, horticulture,
plantation, forestry
Livestock, poultry, fishing
Manufacturing
Average in Rs
Agriculture
NonProducts
Agriculture
Products
525987
19181
All
272584
% Income of total Producers
Agriculture
NonProducts
Agriculture
Products
83.45
1.77
All
31.76
8247
50000
2285
1010805
5266
530403
1.31
7.93
0.21
93.07
0.61
61.81
Trading
13000
21748
17374
2.06
2.00
2.02
Other enterprises
13054
16913
14984
2.07
1.56
1.75
Wage/Salary income
12885
11527
12206
2.04
1.06
1.42
Other income (pensions,
property, remittance received)
Total
7200
3573
5387
1.14
0.33
0.63
630333
1086032
858183
100.00
100.00
100.00
Table-4.19: Monthly expenditure pattern of producers earning upto Rs.50, 000 annually
Expenditure
items
Food Expenses
Health
Education
Others
Total
Average in Rs
Agriculture
Products
2008
444
747
679
3880
Non-Agriculture
Products
2044
366
839
737
3988
All
2026
405
793
708
3934
% Expenditure of total Producers
Agriculture
Non-Agriculture
Products
Products
51.77
51.26
11.46
9.17
19.26
21.05
17.49
18.49
100
100
All
51.51
10.30
20.17
18.00
100
Table-4.20: Monthly expenditure pattern of producers earning Rs. >50,000 to 2 lakhs
annually
Expenditure
items
Food Expenses
Health
Education
Others
Total
Average in Rs
Agriculture
Products
3043
640
2315
1528
6764
NonAgriculture
Products
3395
749
1363
1166
6675
All
3219
695
1839
1347
6720
% Expenditure of total Producers
Agriculture
NonAll
Products
Agriculture
Products
40
50.86
47.91
8.50
11.22
10.34
30.75
20.42
27.37
20.30
17.47
20.55
100
100
100
Table-4.21: Monthly expenditure pattern of producers earning more than 2 lakhs annually
Expenditure
items
Food Expenses
Health
Education
Others
Total
Average in Rs
Agriculture
Products
3795
980
3489
3702
11073
Non-Agriculture
Products
6129
1806
4056
4239
16231
All
4962
1393
3772
3970
13652
% Expenditure of total Producers
Agriculture
Non-Agriculture
Products
Products
31.71
37.76
8.19
11.12
29.15
24.99
30.93
26.11
100
100
All
36.35
10.20
27.63
29.08
100
344
Table-4.22: Pattern of household value of assets of producers earning upto Rs.50, 000
annually
Value of Assets
Average in Rs.
NonAgriculture
Products
426967
125125
276046
126500
9490
175000
11234
12857
17453
145914
35775
33705
10329
13923.07
9114.28
136207
22632
104352
10782
13390
13283
16.22
1.21
22.45
1.44
1.64
2.23
39.02
9.56
9.01
2.76
3.72
2.43
23.61
3.92
18.09
1.86
2.32
2.30
779502
373888
576695
100
100
100
Agriculture
Products
Land (including water tanks,
ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock
Resources
(Cow,
Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Total
All
% Value of assets of total Producers
Agriculture
NonAll
Products
Agriculture
Products
54.7
33.46
47.86
Table-4.23: Pattern of household value of assets of producers earning Rs.>50,000 to 2 lakhs
annually
Value of Assets
Agriculture
Products
Land (including water
tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable
goods
(TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock
Resources
(Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat,
Poultry)
Total
1939389
Average in Rs.
NonAgriculture
Products
323444
All
1131417
% Value of assets of total Producers
Agriculture
NonAll
Products
Agriculture
Products
74.14
30.84
61.75
348173
81540
176390
18095
441304
90507
108386
41328
394739
86023
142388
29711
13.31
3.11
6.74
0.69
42.08
8.63
10.33
3.94
21.54
4.69
7.77
1.62
27638
24354
31177
12571
29408
18462
1.05
0.93
2.97
1.19
1.60
1.00
2615582
1048719
1832151
100
100
100
Table-4.24: Pattern of household value of assets of producers’ earning more than Rs.2 lakhs
Value of Assets
Land (including water tanks,
ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow,
Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Total
Agriculture
Products
3929025
Average in Rs.
Non-Agriculture
Products
3734216
All
3831621
% Value of assets of total Producers
Agriculture
Non-Agriculture
All
Products
Products
72.56
50.74
59.99
597025
286610
450194
33597
50250
67916
1541828
1483326
370926
69859
115053
43800
1069427
884968
410560
51728
82651
55858
11.02
5.29
8.31
0.62
0.92
1.25
20.95
20.15
5.04
0.94
1.56
0.59
16.74
13.85
6.42
0.80
1.29
0.87
541461
7359012
6386816
100
100
100
345
Table – 4.25: Welfare indicators of household members of surveyed producers
Welfare indicators
Get enough food every day (during last 30 days)
Have at least a pair of footwear (during last 30 days)
Have at least two sets of clothes (during last 30 days)
Fell sick or get injured (during last 30 days)
Total family members
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
1592 (96.95)
1510 (95.32)
1592 (96.95)
1510 (95.32)
1589 (96.77)
1511 (95.39)
238 (14.49)
339 (21.4)
1642
1584
All
3102 (96.15)
3102 (96.15)
3100 (96.09)
577 (17.88)
3226
Table – 4.26: Mode of treatment obtained by household members of producers during their
illness in last 30 days
Mode of treatment
No treatment
Treated at Hospital, Clinic or Dispensary
Treated by qualified medical doctor
(Allopathy, Homeopathy, Ayurveda)
Treated by unqualified doctors/ persons
Home treatment
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products
68
(28.57)
124
(52.10)
29
(12.18)
11
(4.62)
6
(2.52)
238 (41.25)
Non-Agriculture Products
105
(30.97)
141
(41.59)
73
(21.53)
3
(0.88)
17
(5.01)
339 (58.75)
All
173 (29.98)
265 (45.92)
102 (17.67)
14
(2.42)
23
(3.98)
577
Table – 4.27: Range of amount spent on medical treatment by producers in last 30 days
Total amount spent on
treatment (Rs.)
<50
50-100
100-200
200- 500
500- 1000
>1000
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products
3 (1.74)
10 (5.78)
36 (20.80)
46 (26.59)
34 (19.65)
44 (25.44)
173 (41.38)
Non-Agriculture Products
0 (0.0)
5 (2.04)
35 (14.28)
70 (28.57)
61 (24.89)
74 (30.20)
245 (58.61)
All
3 (0.71)
15 (3.59)
71 (16.98)
116 (27.75)
95 (22.72)
118 (28.23)
418
Table – 4.28: Reasons for not taking treatment during illness by producers’ family
Reasons for not taking treatment
Minor, not considered necessary
Facility not available near by
Not able to afford financially
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
45 (35.71)
81 (64.28)
(66.17)
(77.14)
13 (48.14)
14 (51.85)
(19.12)
(13.34)
10 (50.0)
10 (50.0)
(14.70)
(9.52)
68 (39.30)
105 (60.69)
All
126
(72.83)
27
(15.60)
20
(11.56)
173
Table – 4.29: Benefits received from any of the welfare schemes by the producers
Observation
Total (no. & %) of respondents receiving benefits
Total (no & %) respondents with nil response
Total respondents interviewed
Total money received by the respondents (Rs) during last 12 months
Per respondent amount of assistance (Rs) available to respondents
during last 12 months
Agriculture
Products
81 (65.85)
(25.71)
234 (34.14)
(74.28)
315
7387844
91207
Non-Agriculture
Products
42 (41.19)
(11.17)
334 (58.80)
(88.82)
376
2485350
59175
All
123
(17.80)
568
(82.19)
691
9873194
80269
346
Annexure-V: Analytical profile of agricultural products and producers
Table-5.1: Response of the producers about geographical association of the agricultural
products
Geographical association of the product
Geo-climatic (soil-type, terrain, climate etc.)
Historically developed under the patronization of
Rajas/Nawabs/Landlords and others
Traditional special skill of local tribe/population
Special raw material’s (Seeds / Seedlings/ Plants/
Cuttings) availability in the region
Total
I
78(29.77)
(78.78)
13 (100)
(13.13)
5 (38.46)
(5.05)
3 (11.1)
(3.07)
99(31.42)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
72(27.48) 93 (35.49) 19 (7.25)
(93.50)
(84.54)
(65.51)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (61.53)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
(7.27)
(0.0)
5 (18.51)
9 (33.34)
10(37.03)
(6.50)
(8.18)
(34.48)
77(24.44) 110(34.92)
29 (9.2)
All
262
(83.17)
13
(4.12)
13
(4.12)
27
(8.57)
315
Table-5.2: Producers enterprise activities carried out relating to the agriculture products
under study
Enterprise Activity
Production
Trading
Training
Total
Enterprises – No. (%)
205 (65.07)
95 (30.15)
15 (4.76)
315
Table-5.3: Ownership type of the enterprise of the producers belonging to different GI
types of agricultural products
Ownership type
Sole proprietorship
Family enterprise with family members participating as
partners or otherwise
Partnership with other households/individuals
Total
I
38(17.27)
(41.18)
43(50.58)
(50.0)
5 (50.0)
(5.81)
86(27.30)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
69(31.36) 90 (40.90) 23(10.45)
(76.67)
(81.81)
(79.31)
21(24.70) 15 (17.64)
6 (7.05)
(23.34)
(13.63)
(20.69)
0 (0.0)
5 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
(4.54)
(0.0)
90(28.57) 110(34.92) 29 (9.20)
All
220
(69.84)
85
(26.98)
10
(3.17)
315
Table-5.4: Analysis of the head of the agricultural enterprise
Head of the enterprise
Head of the household
Other member of the household
Non-member of the household but the principal operator
Total
I
84 (27.63)
(97.67)
2 (18.18)
(2.32)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
86 (27.30)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
88 (28.94) 104 (34.21) 28 (9.21)
(97.7)
(94.54)
(96.55)
2 (18.18)
6 (54.54)
1 (9.09)
(2.23)
(5.45)
(3.44)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
90 (28.57) 110 (34.92) 29 (9.20)
All
304
(96.5)
11
(3.5)
0
(0.0)
315
347
Table-5.5: Acquisition of skill/qualification by the head of agriculture product’s enterprises
Source of skill acquisition
Traditionally acquired skill as well as formal training/technical qualification
Traditionally acquired skill only
Formal training/technical qualification but not traditional skill
Informal learning only but no traditional skill or formal training
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
69 (21.90)
222 (70.47)
8 (2.53)
16 (5.07)
315
Table-5.6: Average years of production of the agriculture product in respondent’s area
Sl. No.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
Product Code
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
Name of the Product
Average year
Fruits
Banganpally mango
32.7
Coorg orange
89.2
Alphonso mango
110
Nagpur orange
32.9
58.1
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
99
Himachal apple
75.6
Harshil apple
73.5
Ramnagar litchi
60
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
67.5
Pokkali rice
232
Bhaliya wheat
74
Basmati rice
72.5
Sehori genhu
71.1
Kurnool rice
18.25
Malwa potato
54.1
Pahari aloo
40.5
Hill rajma
56.8
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
53.3
Coorg coffee
79.4
Wayanadan tea
69.5
Telichery black pepper
49.2
Alleppy cardamom
57.4
Nilgiri tea
79
Dungarpur zinger
30
Amleta & Mahadev garlic 42
Kumbhraj dhania
24.9
Fenugreek
83.5
Mahoba paan
121
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
113
Kokum fruit juice
58
Buraansh juice
52.1
Table-5.7: Month wise production activity of agriculture products as mentioned by
producers
S. N
I
1
2
3
4
5
P.C.
3
11
29
30
31
Product
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
2
2
Month wise production activity
May June July Aug. Sept.
4
2
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
2
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
348
S. N
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
P.C.
Product
Jan.
2
2
2
2
Feb.
2
2
2
3
March
4
3
3
3
April
4
3
3
4
Month wise production activity
May June July Aug. Sept.
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
13
Navara rice
2
2
1
1
3
4
2
17
Pokkali rice
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
24
Bhaliya wheat
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
37
Basmati rice
2
2
2
4
3
4
4
48
Sehori genhu
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
Kurnool rice
4
2
2
4
1
2
4
49
Malwa potato
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
Pahari aloo
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
69
Hill rajma
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
Plantation crops & spices
4
Guntur chilli
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
10
Coorg coffee
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
14
Wayanadan tea
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
15
Telichery black pepper
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
16
Alleppy cardamom
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
19
Nilgiri tea
3
2
2
2
1
4
4
46
Dungarpur zinger
3
2
3
3
4
4
2
50
Amleta & Mahadev
3
4
4
4
2
2
1
garlic
27
51
Kumbhraj dhania
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
28
52
Fenugreek
2
3
4
4
4
3
1
29
54
Mahoba paan
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
Unexploited indigenous products
IV
30
6
Nannari sharbat
1
2
4
4
4
3
2
31
12
Kokum fruit juice
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
32
67
Buraansh juice
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
Note: [codes: no activity-1, lean activity-2, normal activity-3, peak activity-4] obtained
frequency of respondents
62
63
66
68
Oct.
2
3
3
1
Nov.
1
2
2
2
Dec.
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
0
4
0
4
3
4
4
1
2
0
3
0
3
2
2
4
4
4
0
2
0
3
1
3
1
4
4
0
2
0
2
2
4
1
3
2
0
4
0
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
3
2
1
4
2
3
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
on the
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
basis of highest
1
1
2
Table-5.8: Monthly average number of persons engaged in the agricultural enterprise
Family Workers
Female
Skilled
Others
Skilled
Others
5.27
II
1.84
3.34
1.13
1.23
2.97
4.57
III
2.86
1.43
2.29
1.63
5.15
IV
1.62
1.33
1.32
2
Total
2.53
2.46
1.83
1.59
Products
Others
6.40
Total
Skilled
1.53
Family + Paid workers
Female
Others
Others
2.59
Male
Skilled
Skilled
3.74
Total
Others
Others
3.81
Paid workers
Female
Skilled
Skilled
I
Male
Others
Others
Total
Skilled
Male
16.65
38.5
6.86
55.51
23.51
20.0
20.39
41.09
8.39
61.89
28.78
15
32.61
29.13
1.79
44.13
34.40
16.84
35.95
30.26
3.02
47.10
38.97
3.06
16.64
14.75
61.49
17.29
78.13
32.04
19.50
16.18
63.78
18.92
83.28
35.10
2.95
2.65
2.4
2
1.44
1.25
3.84
3.25
4.04
3.33
2.78
3.25
6.82
6.58
4.36
3.88
12.76
16.50
32.64
6.75
45.4
23.30
15.09
18.96
34.47
7.58
49.77
27.35
Skilled
GI Type
17
349
Table-5.9: Percent of irrigated and unirrigated land possessed by producers belonging to
different GI types of the agriculture products
GI Type
Total and (%) land possessed (acres)
Un-irrigated
Total
Average Land possessed (acres)
650.5 (41.23)
1578.01
18.34
I
Irrigated
927.51 (58.77)
II
753.25 (72.17)
290.4 (27.82)
1043.65
11.58
III
1251.02 (83.28)
251.16 (16.71)
1502.18
13.65
IV
109.25 (42.01)
150.8 (57.98)
260.05
8.96
1342.86 (30.63)
4383.89
13.91
Total Products
3041.03 (69.36)
Table-5.10: Average cultivable land possessed and percent of land put under cultivation of
the individual product under study
S.N.
P.C.
I
1
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
Product
Fruits
Banganpally
mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Land Characteristics
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Average area in acres
Irrigated Unirrigated Total
25.12
5.4
30.52
47.25
0.0
38.89
6.4
4.4
10.8
40.63
31.81
37.03
20.85
5.6
26.45
69.54
80.36
71.83
21.55
12.3
33.85
92.57
88.62
91.14
10.32
3.5
13.82
93.02
5.71
70.91
2.80
2.00
4.8
63.57
0.0
37.08
6.0
5.0
11
56.67
100
76.36
4.03
2.86
6.89
66.99
91.96
77.36
3.67
0.0
3.67
71.93
0.0
71.93
0.54
0.0
0.54
42.59
0.0
42.59
350
S.N.
P.C.
11
17
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
Product
Pokkali rice
Land Characteristics
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Bhaliya wheat
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Basmati rice
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Sehori genhu
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Kurnool rice
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Malwa potato
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Pahari aloo
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Hill rajma
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Coorg coffee
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Wayanadan tea
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
Land put under cultivation of the product
under study
Telichery black
Total cultivable land possessed
pepper
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Alleppy cardamom
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Nilgiri tea
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Dungarpur zinger
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
Average area in acres
Irrigated Unirrigated Total
12.96
0.0
12.96
100
0.0
100
4.5
12.0
16.5
0.0
80
58.18
21.5
0.0
21.5
41.86
0.0
41.86
10.5
9.9
20.4
72.38
75.15
73.73
10.78
0.0
10.78
100
0.0
100
18.1
8.0
26.1
84.53
0.0
15.3
6.5
5.6
12.1
61.54
35.71
49.58
7.2
3.85
11.05
90.28
100
95.14
18.14
0.0
18.14
42.45
0.0
42.45
16.1
7.0
23.1
62.11
100
73.59
0.0
4.25
4.25
0.0
97.65
97.65
4.0
2.44
6.44
100
79.51
92.24
3.17
0.0
3.17
88.01
0.0
88.01
0.96
5.5
6.46
52.08
90.91
85.14
30.1
0.0
30.1
351
S.N.
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
P.C.
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
Product
Land Characteristics
Average area in acres
Irrigated Unirrigated Total
28.90
0.0
28.90
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Amleta & Mahadev
Total cultivable land possessed
garlic
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Kumbhraj dhania
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Fenugreek
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Mahoba paan
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Kokum fruit juice
Total cultivable land possessed
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
Total cultivable land possessed
Buraansh juice
(Owned/Patta/Lease)
% Land put under cultivation of the
product under study
12.57
10.8
23.37
13.37
0.0
7.19
16.8
8.5
25.3
85.12
58.82
76.28
15.4
8.09
23.49
19.48
0.0
12.77
1.74
3.8
5.54
93.68
0.0
29.42
1.62
2.9
4.52
0.0
0.0
0
17.5
16.1
33.6
11.43
20.37
15.71
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0
Table-5.11: Analysis of average area per producer, production, produce value per acre and
total input cost per quintal of agriculture products over past three years
Product
Average
2005
3
30
4
31
5
62
6
9896
331
8.67
7.25
4510
614
8.87
19.05
10113
350
2.70
8.52
16667
1022
2.70
8.53
15037
1121
2.70
9.07
19074
1163
19.30
28.81
58197
916
19.30
31.59
63612
827
19.30
33.82
73377
880
16.00
32.81
39131
517
15.80
24.46
45253
706
16.10
25.90
45373
598
14.93
50.70
82246
435
15.00
46.52
76913
591
14.56
50.12
85288
626
2.00
73.00
79175
1142
2.00
86.41
90325
1080
2.00
94.50
135525
1074
Total input
cost/Quintal
18.19
Produce
Value/Acre
8.67
Produce
Value/Acre
Area/ Producer
(Acres)
29
Total input
cost/Quintal
2
Production
(Q/Acre)
11
Area/ Producer
(Acres)
1
Fruits
Banganapalli
Mango
Coorg
Orange
Alphonso
Mango
Nagpur
Orange
Nasik
Grapes
Malihabadi
Dussaheri
Mango
Total input
cost/Quintal
3
Production
(Q/Acre)
I
2006
Area/ Producer
(Acres)
2004
Production
(Q/Acre)
P.C.
Produce
Value/Acre
S.N
352
Average
2005
63
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
Himachal
Apple
3.80 16.71
26447
1583
3.60
9.72
16111
1657
3.80
35.00
31711
66
Harshil
Apple
5.65
5.96
5080
2500
5.65
5.57
5080
3750
5.65
6.51
6619
68
Ramnagar
Litchi
1.97 38.52
53892
5120
1.92 42.16
61393
5150
1.92
47.13
73718
Grains & Potato
13
Navara Rice
0.23
7.74
17961
667
0.23
8.60
21478
610
0.23
8.70
24497
17
Pokkali Rice
12.96
8.38
6008
489 12.96
8.46
6274
484 12.96
8.46
6155
24
Bhaliya
Wheat
8.85
6.04
8356
101
9.75
6.08
8969
132 10.60
6.00
10558
37
Kurnool
Rice
10.78 26.84
16937
354 10.78 26.43
19355
370 10.78
21.87
17467
48
Basmati
Rice
14.10 14.44
13519
1300 11.80 14.16
16088
1700 11.40
21.79
13614
25
Sehori
Wheat
10.80
7.94
11204
252 10.70
7.63
11584
288 13.40
7.99
10381
49
Malwa
Potato
15.30 99.22
29883
3300 15.25 92.77
32857
3700 15.30 103.35
39526
65
Pahari Aloo
2.55 19.73
9745
4940
2.50 18.20
9840
5410
2.85
20.88
12807
69
Hill Rajma
5.79
2.23
3031
898
5.92
2.34
3518
940
6.12
2.60
4534
Plantation crops & spices
4
Guntur chilli
7.70 25.68
34941
623
7.70 26.10
37417
766
7.70
25.37
35870
10
Coorg coffee
9.30
5.94
21511
978
9.30
5.62
22694
1066
9.30
6.09
23860
14
Wayanadan
tea
4.05 12.78
4376
242
4.15 12.74
5804
237
4.15
30.04
24135
15
Telichery
black pepper
2.00
0.80
4742
2000
2.00
0.48
2877
3077
2.00
0.41
4433
16
Alleppy
cardamom
3.19
1.6
3907 16990
2.62
2.39
74597 21797
2.80
3.28
98264
19
Nilgiri tea
4.60 92.20 174348
7280
4.80 64.99 162521
1104
4.95
92.05 159556
Dungarpur
46 zinger
4.00
1.03
4063
3441
3.70
1.08
3730
3395
3.45
1.00
2877
50
Amleta
&
Mahadev
garlic
1.93 35.39 101684
847
1.68 34.52 129135
1117
1.88
33.99 129548
51
Kumbhraj
dhania
13.30
5.09
7192
792 13.30
5.18
6208
794 13.80
2.71
11688
52
Fenugreek
1.25 11.26
21867
385
1.58
7.11
14944
304
2.90
9.90
20772
54
Mahoba
paan
1.41 12.06
40355
1659
1.47 10.85
41769
2028
1.32
11.02
42462
Unexploited indigenous products
6
Nannari
sharbat
0.00
2621
0.00
2892
0.00
12
Kokum fruit
juice
2283
2497
67
Buraansh
juice
1455
2242
Note: The information in table is purely collected by data enumerators from the producers. It need to be verified from
experts of the subject and also to be analyzed further using scientific methodology as explained for grapes and
Alphonso mango
Total input
cost/Quintal
Produce
Value/Acre
Production
(Q/Acre)
2006
Area/ Producer
(Acres)
Area/ Producer
(Acres)
Total input
cost/Quintal
Produce
Value/Acre
Production
(Q/Acre)
Area/ Producer
(Acres)
2004
Total input
cost/Quintal
Product
Produce
Value/Acre
P.C.
Production
(Q/Acre)
S.N
906
4830
5040
608
484
168
454
1200
301
3500
6130
924
709
1098
106
6943
15755
8160
2964
1274
1728
474
2177
3096
2462
2920
353
Table-5.12: Different sources of loan obtained by agriculture enterprises
Source of loan
Enterprises – No. (%)
Government
Co-operative Society
Bank
Traders/Exporters/Intermediaries
Moneylenders
Others
3 (2.65)
31 (27.4)
73 (64.60)
1 (0.88)
5 (4.42)
1 (0.88)
Table-5.13: Analysis of purpose of loan taken by agricultural producers
Purpose of loan
Enterprises – No. (%)
Purchase of land
Construction/maintenance of building
Purchase of machinery/equipments
Purchase of other assets
Purchase of seeds/raw materials and other materials (fertilizers, packing materials)
Legal expenses
Others
7 (6.25)
5 (4.46)
11 (8.82)
16 (14.28)
69 (61.6)
1 (0.98)
3 (2.67)
Table-5.14: Average interest percentage paid to different sources of loan obtained by
agricultural producers
Source of loan
Average interest paid in %
Government
Co-operative Society
Bank
Traders/Exporters/Intermediaries
Moneylenders
9.5
10.23
8.57
14.5
17.0
Table-5.15: Average amount outstanding by different GI type of agricultural enterprises
GI Type
I
Total amount outstanding (Rs)
2080000
Average amount outstanding
24,186
II
747000
8,300
III
1845000
16,772
IV
Nil
Nil
Table-5.16: Range of loan amount taken by agricultural enterprises
Loan amount
< 50,000
50000- 1 lakh
1-2 lakh
> 2 lakh
% of enterprises
18 (52.94)
8 (23.52)
2 (5.88)
6 (17.64)
Table-5.17: Types of packaging used by agricultural enterprises
Nature of Packaging
Enterprises – No. (%)
No packing
Basket/bamboo packing
Gunny /Jute bags
Glass bottles & containers
Plastic or polythene bags/ plastic cans
Corrugated card board boxes/paper boxes/cartons
Wooden boxes
25 (6.09)
22 (5.36)
166 (40.48)
19 (4.63)
60 (14.63)
45 (10.98)
73 (17.80)
354
Table-5.18: Problems faced in packing by agricultural enterprises
Problems faced in packing
Enterprises – No. (%)
No problems
Scarcity of skilled labour
High cost of packing material
Storage of packing material
Deterioration of packing material
Limited knowledge of packing technology
134 (48.37)
17 (6.14)
10 (3.61)
28 (10.11)
86 (31.05)
2 (0.72)
Table – 5.19: Methods of inspection and quality control used at various stages of production
in agricultural enterprises
Inspection and quality control
Enterprises – No. (%)
No inspection & quality control
Production level on field
Harvesting level on field
Processing & grading level
Inspection by an authority
57 (18.15)
150 (47.77)
30 (9.56)
66 (21.01)
11 (3.50)
Table-5.20: Type of grading of agricultural finished products
Type of grading
No grading
Grading on physical traits
Grading on qualitative traits
Enterprises – No. (%)
92 (28.30)
175 (53.84)
58 (17.84)
Table- 5.21: Whether supply of seeds/raw materials during the last 12 months in
agricultural products is adequate and regular: Opinion of producers?
S. N.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
P.C.
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
Product
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Sehori genhu
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes - 1
No - 2
Can’t Say - 3
59 (72.8)
10 (100.0)
8 (80.0)
10 (100.0)
5 (50.0)
3 (30.0)
3 (30.0)
5 (50.0)
10 (100.0)
5 (100)
78 (100)
4 (100)
10 (100.0)
4 (100.0)
10 (100.0)
10 (100.0)
10 (100.0)
10 (100.0)
10 (100.0)
10 (100.0)
73 (76.04)
9 (90.0)
5 (62.5)
1 (50.0)
16 (19.75)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
5 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
21(21.87)
1 (10.0)
3 (37.5)
1 (50.0)
6 (7.40)
0 (0.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (2.08)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
355
S. N.
P.C.
Product
Respondents – No. (%)
22
15
Telichery black pepper
23
16
Alleppy cardamom
24
19
Nilgiri tea
25
46
Dungarpur zinger
26
50
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
27
51
Kumbhraj dhania
28
52
Fenugreek
29
54
Mahoba paan
IV
Unexploited indigenous products
30
6
Nannari sharbat
31
12
Kokum fruit juice
32
67
Buraansh juice
Total Agricultural Products
Yes - 1
No - 2
Can’t Say - 3
0 (0.0)
8 (88.9)
7 (70.0)
9 (90.0)
9 (90.0)
8 (80.0)
9 (90.0)
8 (100.0)
20 (80.0)
7 (70.0)
7 (77.8)
6 (100.0)
230 (82.1)
8 (88.9)
1 (11.1)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
2 (20.0)
1(10.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (8.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
39 (13.9)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (12.0)
1 (10.0)
2 (22.8)
0 (0.0)
11 (3.9)
Table-5.22: Whether production can be increased if nationalized banks and other
institutions provide adequate finance: Respondents’ opinion?
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Total
71 (83.5)
(29.0)
60 (71.4)
(24.5)
97 (88.2)
(39.6)
17 (65.4)
(6.9)
245 (80.3)
14 (16.5)
(23.3)
24 (28.6)
(40.0)
13 (11.8)
(21.7)
9 (34.6)
(15.0)
60 (19.7)
85
(27.9)
84
(27.5)
110
(36.1)
26
(8.5)
305
Table-5.23: Did agricultural producers approach to any financial agency for financial
support to increase production?
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Total
44(62.0)
(38.6)
25 (41.7)
(21.9)
45 (46.4)
(39.5)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
114 (46.5)
27 (38.0)
(20.6)
35 (58.3)
(26.7)
52 (53.6)
(39.7)
17 (100)
(13.0)
131 (53.5)
71
(29.0)
60
(24.5)
97
(39.6)
17
(6.9)
245
Table-5.24: Nature of response by financial agency to the agricultural producers’ approach
for help
Agricultural Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Good
Not so good and with many formalities
No response
46 (40.35)
57 (50.00)
11 (9.65)
356
Table-5.25: Respondent’s view on increase in production and income if better marketing
infrastructure and improved marketing outlets are made available for agricultural
products
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
(A) Respondents–No. (%)
Yes
No
78 (90.7)
8 (9.3)
(29.0)
(22.2)
74 (88.1)
10 (11.9)
(27.5)
(27.8)
92 (83.6)
(34.2)
25 (100)
(9.30)
269 (88.2)
(B) Respondents-No. (%)
Yes
No
84 (100)
0 (0.0)
(32.3)
(0.0)
72 (88.9)
9 (11.1)
(27.7)
(31.0)
18 (6.4)
(50.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
36 (11.8)
81 (81.0)
(31.2)
23 (95.8)
(8.8)
260 (90.0)
(C) Respondents-No. (%)
Yes
No
81 (97.6)
2 (2.4)
(32.9)
(6.3)
71 (94.7)
3 (5.3)
(28.9)
(12.5)
19 (19.0)
(65.5)
1 (4.2)
(3.4)
29 (10.0)
67 (73.6)
(27.2)
27 (93.1)
(11.0)
246 (88.5)
24 (26.4)
(75.0)
2 (6.9)
(6.3)
32 (11.5)
Total Products
Note:
(A) Can production be increased if better market infrastructure is available
(B) Do they have capacity to improve production if better marketing outlets are available
(C) Is there any scope to increase income from enterprise
Table-5.26: Type of marketing facilities required for increasing the agricultural production
Marketing facilities
Enterprises – No. (%)
Regulated market
Facilitation from producer’s union/ association
Cold storage/warehouse
Online information of market trends
Minimum support price
Transportation of produce
Export of produce
Processing units
129 (46.23)
11 (3.94)
11 (3.94)
26 (9.32)
47 (16.85)
22 (7.88)
25 (8.96)
8 (2.87)
Table-5.27: If capacity to improve the production is available - type of assistance required
for increasing the agricultural production
Type of assistance
Respondents – No. (%)
Financial assistance
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
Marketing assistance
184 (70.77)
114 (43.85)
135 (51.92)
216 (83.07)
Table-5.28: Respondent’s opinion on the earning from the agricultural enterprise
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Products
Good
32 (38.6)
(38.6)
22 (29.3)
(26.5)
22 (25.3)
(26.5)
7 (25.0)
(8.4)
83 (30.4)
Respondents – No. (%)
Average
Poor
49 (59.0)
2 (2.4)
(30.8)
(6.5)
41 (54.7)
12 (16.0)
(25.8)
(38.7)
51 (58.6)
14 (16.1)
(32.1)
(45.2)
18 (64.3)
3 (10.7)
(11.3)
(9.7)
159(58.2)
31 (11.4)
Total
83
(30.40)
75
(27.47)
87
(31.86)
28
(10.25)
273
357
Table-5.29: If earning is average or poor - type of assistance required for increasing income
from the agricultural enterprise
Type of assistance
Respondents – No. (%)
Financial assistance
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
161 (65.4)
91 (36.9)
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
123 (50.0)
Marketing assistance
173 (70.32)
Table-5.30: Respondent’s view on existence of similar but not genuine agricultural product
sold in the market with the same name as of their product
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Products
Respondents’ opinion – No. (%)
Yes
No
Don’t know
36 (41.9)
29 (33.7) 21 (24.4)
(31.9)
(29.0)
(21.6)
36 (40.9) 19 (21.6)
33 (37.5)
(31.9)
(19.0)
(34.0)
35 (32.4) 34 (31.5)
39 (36.1)
(31.0)
(34.0)
(40.2)
6 (21.4)
18 (64.3) 4 (14.3)
(5.3)
(18.0)
(4.1)
113 (36.5) 100(32.3) 97 (31.3)
Total
86
(27.74)
88
(28.38)
108
(34.83)
28
(9.03)
310
Table-5.31: Type of competition faced by agriculture products under study
Code
Total number of responses and percent for various GI Types
I
II
III
IV
All
N %
N %
N %
N %
N
%
39 45.34 23 46.0 29 34.93 5
50.0 96
41.92
Same product produced in other areas of the
country
Similar duplicates in the country
Similar products imported into the country
Competition in the export market from other
countries producing similar products
Total
26
9
12
30.23
10.46
13.95
26
1
0
52.0
2.0
0.0
16
17
21
19.27
20.48
25.30
5
0
0
50.0
0.0
0.0
73
27
33
31.87
11.79
14.41
86
100
50
100
83
100
10
100
229
100
Table-5.32: Respondent’s view on aspects of difference between imported and domestically
produced agriculture product
Aspect of difference
Non-awareness of producers
Total number of responses and percent for various GI Types
I
II
III
IV
All
N %
N %
N %
N %
N
%
9
25.71 21 39.62 1
1.63
31
18.56
No imports
1
2.85
0
-
-
-
18
100
19
11.37
Imported product quality inferior
15
42.85
32
60.37
42
68.85
-
-
89
53.29
Imported product quality better
10
28.57
-
-
6
9.83
-
-
16
9.58
Imported product price cheaper
0
-
-
-
12
19.67
-
-
12
7.18
Total
35
100
53
100
61
100
18
100
167
100
358
Table-5.33: Whether product’s unique quality, reputation and other characteristics
attributing to geographical origin of opinion of agricultural producers?
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Total
77 (98.7)
41 (1.3) 78
(25.8)
(100)
(26.0)
89 (100)
0 (0.0)
89
(29.8)
(0.0)
(29.7)
104 (100)
0 (0.0)
104
(34.8)
(0.0)
(34.7)
29 (100)
0 (0.0)
29
(9.7)
(0.0)
(9.7)
299 (99.7) 1 (0.3)
300
Table-5.34: Average years of production of the agriculture product by respondents
S. N.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
Product code
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
Name of the Product
Average year
Fruits
Banganpally mango
33.8
Coorg orange
68
Alphonso mango
49.8
Nagpur orange
24
34.7
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
24.2
Himachal apple
36
Harshil apple
39.7
Ramnagar litchi
21.8
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
12.9
Pokkali rice
45.9
Bhaliya wheat
15
Basmati rice
45.5
Sehori genhu
29
Kurnool rice
12.2
Malwa potato
25.1
Pahari aloo
9.9
Hill rajma
47.5
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
14.8
Coorg coffee
33.5
Wayanadan tea
11.9
Telichery black pepper
56.9
Alleppy cardamom
19.4
Nilgiri tea
21.4
Dungarpur zinger
26.5
Amleta & Mahadev garlic 25.7
Kumbhraj dhania
23
Fenugreek
28.1
Mahoba paan
31.3
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
23.3
Kokum fruit juice
53.5
Buraansh juice
14.7
359
Table-5.35: Whether product can be protected as community patent known as
Geographical Indication: awareness of agricultural producers?
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Total
19 (23.8) 61 (76.3)
80
(19.8)
(28.8)
(26.0)
17 (19.1) 72 (80.9) 89
(17.7)
(34.0)
(28.9)
45 (40.9) 65 (59.1) 110
(46.9)
(30.7)
(35.7)
15 (51.7) 14 (48.3) 29
(15.6)
(6.6)
(9.4)
96 (31.2) 212 (68.8) 308
Table-5.36: Need, protection and maintenance of product as GI: awareness, knowledge and
system of interest of agricultural producers
Observation
Yes-1
N
Similar product sold with the same name*
Significant competition to product
Uniqueness due to geographical origin
Knowledge that product can be protected as GI
Knowledge of post registration effects- authority to use
product name by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction to
produce within registered geographical area
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction on
trader to sell product produced by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- traders can be
sued in court of law
Knowledge of post registration effects- higher market
value as a community monopoly
Status of registration of product as GI#
Availability of producers association/ marketing group
Membership of producers association/ marketing group
Production as per technical guidelines- of govt. dept
Production as per technical guidelines- of NGO
Production as per technical guidelines- producers
association
Production as per self guidelines learnt from forefathers
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- follow
technical guidelines of govt
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- quality
control mechanism available
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- inspection
by govt., NGO, association
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- quality
check by purchaser
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- self
control without any formal mechanism
* can’t say N (97 ), % (31.3)
# can’t say N (172), % (54.6)
Respondents
Yes-1
No-2
%
N
No-2
%
113
162
299
96
137
36.5
53.1
99.7
31.2
43.5
100
143
1
212
178
32.3
46.9
0.3
68.8
56.5
139
44.1
176
55.9
137
43.6
177
56.4
148
47.3
165
52.7
169
54.3
142
45.7
30
124
84
82
25
64
9.5
39.5
26.8
26.1
7.9
20.3
113
190
299
232
390
251
35.9
60.5
73.2s
73.9
92.1
73.7
286
136
92.3
43.2
24
179
7.7
56.8
46
14.6
268
85.4
57
18.1
258
81.9
156
49.5
159
50.5
280
88.9
35
11.1
360
Table-5.37: Opinion of producers about trend of the production of agricultural products in
last three years
S. N.
P.C.
Product
I
Fruits
1
3
Banganpally mango
2
11
Coorg orange
3
29
Alphonso mango
4
30
Nagpur orange
5
31
Nasik grapes
6
Malihabadi Dussheri
62
7
63
Himachal apple
8
66
Harshil apple
9
68
Ramnagar litchi
II
Grains & Potato
10
13
Navara rice
11
17
Pokkali rice
12
24
Bhaliya wheat
13
37
Basmati rice
14
48
Sehori genhu
15
25
Kurnool rice
16
49
Malwa potato
17
65
Pahari aloo
18
69
Hill rajma
III
Plantation crops & spices
19
4
Guntur chilli
20
10
Coorg coffee
21
14
Wayanadan tea
22
15
Telichery black pepper
23
16
Alleppy cardamom
24
19
Nilgiri tea
25
46
Dungarpur zinger
26
50
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
27
51
Kumbhraj dhania
28
52
Fenugreek
29
54
Mahoba paan
IV
Unexploited indigenous products
30
6
Nannari sharbat
31
12
Kokum fruit juice
32
67
Buraansh juice
Total Agricultural Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Increasing Stationary Declining
26 (30.58) 48 (56.47) 11 (12.94)
6 (60.0)
1 (10.0)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (60.0)
4 (40.0)
4 (40.0)
5 (50.0)
1 (10.0)
4 (40.0)
5 (50.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (100.0)
0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
4 (40.0)
2 (20.0)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
33 (37.5)
31 (35.22) 24 (27.27)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
1 (10.0)
8 (80.0)
4 (50.0)
4 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
6 (60.0)
7 (70.0)
1 (10.0)
2 (20.0))
0 (0.0)
5 (50.0))
5 (50.0))
5 (50.0))
2 (20.0))
3 (30.0))
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (60.0))
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
55 (51.40) 26 (24.29) 26 (24.29)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
9 (90.0)
7 (70.0)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
5 (50.0)
5 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (20.0)
1 (10.0)
7 (70.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
17 (56.67) 12 (40.0)
1 (3.34)
8 (80.0)
1 (10.0)
1 (10.0)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
131 (42.3) 117 (37.7) 62 (20.0)
Table-5.38: Assessment of producers’ associate ship with the enterprise: opinion of
agricultural producers
S.
N.
P.C.
I
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
11
29
30
31
62
Product
Fruits
Banganpally
mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso
mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi
Respondents agree (marked correct) – No. (%)
No
one
has Many
have Few
more
discontinued the discontinued the have started
production of GI
production of GI
producing
Several more
have
started
producing
38 (22.48)
6 (60.0)
9 (4.73)
0 (0.0)
61 (36.09)
8 (80.0)
39 (23.07)
3 (30.0)
The situation is
sameno
addition,
no
deletion
23 (13.60)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (88.9)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
1 (12.5)
0 (0.0)
8 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (42.9)
8 (100)
4 (44.4)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
5 (55.6)
6 (85.7)
8 (100)
6 (66.7)
4 (57.1)
2 (25.0)
6 (66.7)
6 (85.7)
3 (75.0)
4 (44.4)
361
S.
N.
P.C.
Product
Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains
&
II
Potato
10
13
Navara rice
11
17
Pokkali rice
12
24
Bhaliya wheat
13
37
Basmati rice
14
48
Sehori genhu
15
25
Kurnool rice
16
49
Malwa potato
17
65
Pahari aloo
18
69
Hill rajma
III
Plantation
crops & spices
19
4
Guntur chilli
20
10
Coorg coffee
21
14
Wayanadan tea
15
Telichery black
pepper
22
16
Alleppy
23
cardamom
24
19
Nilgiri tea
46
Dungarpur
25
zinger
50
Amleta
&
Mahadev garlic
26
51
Kumbhraj
dhania
27
28
52
Fenugreek
29
54
Mahoba paan
IV
Unexploited
indigenous
products
30
6
Nannari sharbat
31
12
Kokum
fruit
juice
32
67
Buraansh juice
Total agricultural products
7
8
9
63
66
68
Respondents agree (marked correct) – No. (%)
No
one
has Many
have Few
more
discontinued the discontinued the have started
production of GI
production of GI
producing
Several more
have
started
producing
The situation is
sameno
addition,
no
deletion
5 (50.0)
4 (36.4)
0 (0.0)
35 (22.29)
0 (0.0)
4 (36.4)
0 (0.0)
20 (12.73)
8 (80.0)
7 (63.6)
7 (100)
36 (22.9)
5 (50.0)
4 (36.4)
7 (100)
1 (0.63)
6 (60.0)
4 (36.4)
0 (0.0)
65 (41.40)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
2 (20.0)
6 (60.0)
5 (100)
3 (30.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
46 (29.48)
10 (100)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
15 (9.61)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
9 (90.0)
10 (100)
51 (32.69)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
19 (12.17)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
7 (100)
9 (90.0)
9 (190.0)
0 (0.0)
25 (16.02)
10 (100)
4 (40.0)
10 (100)
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
6 (66.7)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (22.2)
1 (10.0)
6 (60.0)
2 (20.0)
8 (80.0)
1 (10.0)
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
5 (50.0)
1 (10.0)
5 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
1 (100)
0 (0.0)
1 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (12.5)
0 (0.0)
4 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (75.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (100)
16 (48.48)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (3.03)
1 (100)
6 (66.7)
8 (24.24)
0 (0.0)
9 (100)
0 (0.0)
1 (100)
0 (0.0)
8 (24.24)
8 (80.0)
8 (88.9)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
7 (77.8)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
135 (26.21)
0 (0.0)
45 (8.54)
0 (0.0)
156 (30.29)
0 (0.0)
59 (11.45)
0 (0.0)
121(23.49)
Table-5.39: Mode of sale of agricultural products by producers
Mode of Sale
Mahajan
Middlemen
Govt. agency
Cooperative society
I
3 (13.6)
(1.42)
63(44.37)
29.86)
13 (32.5)
(6.16)
15 (37.5)
(7.10)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
18 (81.8) 1 (4.5)
0 (0.0)
(10.59)
(0.65)
(0.0)
38(26.76) 31(21.83) 10(7.04)
22.35)
20.39)
(25.6)
9 (22.5)
18 (45.0) 0 (0.0)
(5.29)
(11.84)
(0.0)
10 (25.0) 15 (37.5) 0 (0.0)
(5.88)
(9.86)
(0.0)
All
22
(3.84)
142
(24.82)
40
(6.99)
40
(6.99)
362
Exporters
Wholesalers
Selling to local shops; local consumers or in the local
market
Processing agency
Total
11 (73.3)
(5.21)
60 (42.6)
(28.44)
26 (26.5)
(12.32)
20 (27.0)
(9.47)
211(36.89)
1 (6.7)
(0.58)
39 (27.7)
(22.9)
30 (30.6)
(17.6)
25 (33.8)
(14.7)
170(29.7)
3 (20.0)
(1.97)
37 (26.2)
(24.34)
26 (26.5)
(17.1)
21 (28.4)
(13.8)
152(26.5)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
5 (3.5)
12.82)
16(16.3)
(41.03)
8 (10.8)
(20.51)
39(6.81)
15
(2.62)
141
(24.65)
98
(17.13)
74
(12.93)
572
Table-5.40: Whether producers’ are satisfied with mode of sale of product: opinion of
agricultural producers
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total agricultural products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Total
40 (49.38)
41 (50.61)
81
(27.21)
(29.71)
(28.82)
41 (49.39)
42 (50.60)
83
(27.89)
(30.43)
(29.53)
48 (48.48)
51 (51.51)
99
(32.65)
(36.95)
(35.23)
18 (81.81)
3 (18.18) 22
(12.24)
(2.89)
(7.82)
147 (51.57) 138 (48.42) 285
Table-5.41: Reasons for producer’s unsatisfaction over the mode of sale of agricultural
produce
Reasons
Respondents for each GI Type – No. (%)
Low profit from venture
Intervention/ control of middle men
Insufficient institutional support
High input cost
Limited supply chain facilities
Producers’ dilemma
Total
I
19 (19.19)
(35.85)
8 (61.53)
(15.09)
9 (39.13)
(16.98)
5 (45.45)
(9.43)
5 (1.00)
(9.43)
7 (41.17)
(13.21)
53 (31.55)
II
39 (39.39)
(79.59)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
5 (21.73)
(10.2)
5 (45.45)
(10.2)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
49 (29.17)
III
34 (34.34)
(66.67)
4 (30.76)
(7.84)
9 (39.13)
(17.65)
1 (9.09)
(1.96)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
3 (17.64)
(5.88)
51 (30.36)
IV
7 (7.07)
(46.6)
1 (7.69)
(6.67)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
7 (41.17)
(46.6)
15 (8.92)
All
99
(58.9)
13
(7.73)
23
(13.69)
11
(6.54)
5
(2.97)
17
(10.11)
168
Table-5.42: Opinion of producers about trend of the average unit price of agricultural
produce in last three years
S. N.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
P.C.
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
Product
Unit
Average unit price (Rs)
2004
2005
2006
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
4.7
24.6
28.7
5.5
12.3
15.9
14.35
8.4
5.19
29.2
33.0
6.18
13.5
14.7
14.7
9.1
4.3
33.8
27.3
7.5
14.5
12.95
14.4
9.4
363
S. N.
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
P.C.
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
Product
Unit
Ramnagar litchi
Kg
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Kg
Pokkali rice
Kg
Bhaliya wheat
Kg
Basmati rice
Kg
Sehori genhu
Kg
Kurnool rice
Kg
Malwa potato
Kg
Pahari aloo
Kg
Hill rajma
Kg
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Kg
Coorg coffee
Kg
Wayanadan tea
Kg
Telichery black pepper
Kg
Alleppy cardamom
Kg
Nilgiri tea
Kg
Dungarpur zinger
Kg
Amleta & Mahadev garlic Kg
Kumbhraj dhania
Kg
Fenugreek
Kg
Mahoba paan
Kg
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Liters
Kokum fruit juice
Liters
Buraansh juice
Liters
Average unit price (Rs)
2004
2005
2006
10.15 10.15 10.15
23.6
6.92
11.5
11.2
16
7.07
4.07
6.6
17.6
27.2
6.97
14.4
11.2
17.2
7.14
6.25
6.2
19.1
28.6
7.3
17.3
12.57
15.5
7.05
4.8
6.35
21
34.2
102
41.7
66
193
7.97
35.75
26.0
31.2
18.55
30.5
58.3
106.4
31.9
70.2
236
7.82
31
34.3
29.5
21.55
34.3
48.5
114
38.1
60.10
299
7.99
26.6
42.7
36
23.2
38.1
44.0
20.2
31.8
51.3
22.7
45.9
55.8
24.7
46
Table-5.43: Price decision of producers over the sale of agricultural produce
Price Decision
Bargain collectively
Bargain individually
Sale on minimum agreed price between our
association and purchasers
The purchaser offers us a price to which we usually
agree
Purchaser offers us a price to which we have to sell;
there is no other choice for us
Total
I
31 (50.0)
(22.14)
38 (33.6)
(27.14)
39 (56.5)
(27.85)
20 (27.0)
(14.28)
12 (11.3)
(8.57)
140(33.01)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
1 (1.6)
26 (41.9)
4 (6.5)
(1.01)
(17.21)
(11.76)
39 (34.5) 16 (14.2)
20(17.7)
(39.39)
(10.59)
(58.8)
9 (13.0)
20 (29.0)
1 (1.4)
(9.09)
(13.24)
(2.94)
21 (28.4) 24 (32.4)
9 (12.2)
21.21)
15.89)
26.47)
29 (27.4) 65 (61.3)
0 (0.0)
(29.29)
(43.04)
(0.0)
99(23.34) 151(35.61) 34(8.01)
All
62
(14.62)
113
(26.65)
69
(16.27)
74
(17.45)
106
(25.0)
424
Table-5.44: Respondent’s constraints in production and marketing of agricultural produce
Constraints
Financial difficulties
Limited availability of technical knowledge
No organized producers’ association
Respondents for each GI Type – No. (%)
I
1 (4.34)
(1.22)
4 (38.46)
(6.09)
1 (33.34)
(1.22)
II
1 (4.34)
(0.78)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
III
15(65.21)
(7.32)
8 (61.53)
(3.90)
2 (66.67)
(0.98)
IV
6 (26.08)
(13.64)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
All
23
(5.01)
13
(2.83)
3
(0.65)
364
Constraints
Hindrances from agronomic/ natural factors
Low marketing infrastructure
Lack of proper government policy & assistance
No constraints
Labour scarcity
High competition
Difficulty in getting quality inputs
Product specific concerns
Improper transportation arrangements
Market insecurity leading to low profitability
Improper marketing services
Electricity shortage
Total
Respondents for each GI Type – No. (%)
I
22 (23.91)
(26.83)
17 (34.69)
(20.73)
1 (16.67)
(1.22)
1 (7.69)
(1.22)
9 (17.30)
(10.98)
1 (25.0)
(1.22)
1 (4.76)
(1.22)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
5 (13.88)
(7.32)
8 (11.26)
(9.76)
8 (21.05)
(9.76)
2 (11.12)
(2.44)
82 (17.86)
II
26 (28.26)
(20.31)
13 (26.53)
(10.16)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
8 (61.53)
(6.25)
9 (17.30)
(7.03)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
7 (33.34)
(5.47)
10 (50.0)
(7.81)
6 (16.67)
(4.69)
21 (29.57)
(16.41)
19 (50.0)
(14.84)
8 (44.45)
(6.25)
128 (27.88)
III
43 (46.73)
(20.98)
14 (28.57)
(6.83)
4 (66.67)
(1.95)
1 (7.69)
(0.49)
32 (61.53)
(15.61)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
4 (19.04)
(1.95)
6 (30.0)
(2.93)
25 (69.45)
(12.20)
37 (52.11)
(18.05)
6 (15.78)
(2.93)
8 (44.45)
(3.90)
205 (44.67)
IV
1 (1.08)
(2.27)
5 (10.20)
(11.36)
1 (16.67)
(2.27)
3 (23.07)
(6.81)
2 (3.84)
(4.55)
3 (75.0)
(6.81)
9 (42.85)
(20.45)
4 (20.0)
(9.09)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
5 (7.04)
(11.36)
5 (13.15)
(11.36)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
44 (9.58)
All
92
(20.04)
49
(10.67)
6
(1.30)
13
(2.83)
52
(11.32)
4
(0.87)
21
(4.57)
20
(4.35)
36
(7.84)
71
(15.46)
38
(8.27)
18
(3.92)
459
Table-5.45: Responses of agricultural producers about willingness and expectations from
G.I. registration
Observation
Willingness for registration of product
Willingness for payment for registration
Non-registration leads to- low volume of sale
Non-registration leads to- low wages to labour
Non-registration leads to- low profit to producers
Non-registration leads to- difficulty in getting loans
Non-registration leads to- sale of fake product with same name
Post registration expectations- increase in sale*
Post registration expectations- increase in unit price
Post registration expectations- increase in net profit
Post registration expectations- less competition
Post registration expectations- market expansion
Post registration expectations- enhanced premium to producers
Post registration expectations- Shift from other livelihoods to RGI
Post registration expectations- improvement in overall socioeconomic conditions of producers
* Significant-1, Marginal-2, No increase-3
YesN
Yes%
Respondents
No- No- Can’t
N
%
sayN
241
200
192
129
229
170
194
142
224
232
170
210
207
111
194
83.7
72.7
68.6
46.1
81.8
60.7
69.3
51.1
77.5
80.3
61.6
73.9
72.4
38.9
67.4
19
75
88
151
51
110
86
106
4
2
25
5
9
73
20
6.6
27.3
31.4
53.9
18.2
39.3
30.7
38.8
1.4
0.7
9.1
1.8
3.1
25.6
6.9
28
------28
61
55
81
69
70
101
74
Can’t
say%
9.7
------10.1
21.1
19.0
29.3
24.3
24.5
35.4
25.7
365
Table-5.46: Willingness of respondents to pay for GI registration of agricultural produce
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Agric. Products
Respondents agreed for paying money for registration of GI (Rs) – No. (%)
500
1000
2000
3000
Total
34 (62.96)
17 (31.48)
1 (1.85)
2 (3.70)
54
(31.77)
(36.95)
(4.76)
(12.5)
(28.42)
30 (54.54)
15 (27.27)
7(12.72)
3 (5.45)
55
(28.03)
(32.60)
(33.3)
(18.75)
(28.94)
32 (55.17)
8 (13.79)
9 (15.51)
9 (15.51)
58
(29.90)
(17.39)
(42.85)
(56.25)
(30.52)
11 (47.82)
6 (26.08)
4 (17.39)
2 (8.69)
23
(10.28)
(13.04)
(19.04)
(12.5)
(12.10)
107 (56.31)
46 (24.21)
21 (11.05)
16 (8.42)
190
Table-5.47: Willingness of producers to shift from other livelihood activities, if their
agricultural product gets registered for GI and other protection systems are followed so
that they can get more benefit
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Agricultural
Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Total
52 (71.2)
21 (28.8) 73
(25.4)
(28.8)
(26.25)
62 (76.5)
19 (23.5) 81
(30.2)
(26.0)
(29.13)
68 (71.6)
27 (28.4) 95
(33.2)
(37.0)
(34.17)
23 (79.3)
6 (20.7)
29
(11.2)
(8.2)
(10.43)
205 (73.7) 73 (26.3) 278
Table-5.48: Reasons for un willingness of the producers to shift from other livelihood
activities, if their agricultural product gets registered for GI and other protection systems
are followed
Reasons
No knowledge of GI and its implications
Production risk mitigation
Marketing risk mitigation
Risk avoidance arising due to climatic vagaries
Present option as safer and profitable enterprise
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
10 (23.26)
6 (13.95)
14 (32.56)
5 (11.63)
8 (18.60)
43
Table-5.49: Producers opinion about expected shift from other livelihood activities to
production of product as a result of GI registration
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Agricultural Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
26 (35.6)
23 (31.5)
(23.4)
(31.5)
29(34.9)
9 (10.8)
(26.1)
(12.3)
46 (46.0)
29 (29.0)
(41.4)
(39.&)
10 (34.5)
12 (41.4)
(9.0)
(16.4)
111 (38.9) 73 (25.6)
Cant say
24 (32.9)
(23.8)
45 (54.2)
(44.6)
25 (25.0)
(24.8)
7 (24.1)
(6.9)
101 (35.4)
Total
73
(25.61)
83
(29.12)
100
(35.08)
29
(10.17)
285
366
Table-5.50: Producers opinion about expected enhanced premium to the producers over
prevailing cost after GI registration of agricultural produce
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
Total Agric. Products
Respondents – No. (%) in favor of % increase
0-5%
5-10%
10-15%
>15%
9 (15.0)
17 (28.34) 18 (30.0)
16 (26.67)
(32.14)
(20.23)
(41.86)
(35.56)
6 (9.37)
28 (43.75) 16 (25.0)
14 (21.87)
(21.42)
(33.34)
(31.20)
(31.12)
10 (20.0)
30 (60.0)
2 (4.0)
8 (16.0)
(35.71)
(35.71)
(4.65)
(17.76)
3 (11.53)
9 (34.61)
7 (26.92)
7 (26.92)
(10.71)
(10.71)
(16.27)
(15.56)
28 (14.0)
84 (42.0)
43 (21.5)
45 (22.5)
Total
60
(30.0)
64
(32.0)
50
(25.0)
26
(13.0)
200
Table-5.51: Responses of agricultural producers about post-registration observation
regarding impact and changes recurred
Observation
Post registration changes observed
Observed post registration changes- increase in annual
production*
Observed post registration changes- increase in unit price
Observed post registration changes- increase in net profit
Observed post registration changes- less competition
Observed post registration changes- market expansion
Observed post registration changes- enhanced premium to
producers
Observed post registration changes- Shift from other
livelihoods to RGI
Observed post registration changes- improvement in overall
socio-economic conditions of producers
Did they contribute money for registration
* Significant-1, Marginal-2, No increase-3
Respondents
No- NoCan’t
N
%
say-N
0
0.0
0
2
22.22
0
YesN
2
7
Yes%
100
77.78
Can’t
say-%
0.0
0.0
9
9
8
8
9
100
100
88.89
88.89
100
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
1
1
0
0.0
0.0
11.11
11.11
0.0
0
0.00
6
66.67
3
3.33
8
88.89
0
0.0
1
11.1
8
88.89
1
11.11
--
--
Table-5.52: Enhanced premium to the producers over the prevailing cost after GI
registration of the agricultural produce
Increase (%)
0
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
1 (11.11)
8 (88.89)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9
Table-5.53: Contribution of money for agricultural product GI registration by producers
Rupees
<250
250-500
>500
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
0 (0.0)
7 (100.0)
0 (0.0)
7
367
Annexure-VI: Analytical profile of non-agricultural products and producers
Table-6.1: Response of the producers about geographical association of the non-agricultural
products
Geographical association of the product
Geo-climatic (soil-type, terrain, climate etc.)
Historically developed under the patronization of
Rajas/Nawabs/Landlords and others
Traditional special skill of local tribe/population
Special raw material’s (Seeds / Seedlings/ Plants/
Cuttings) availability in the region
Total
V
2 (3.44)
(3.33)
48(16.78)
(80.0)
10(32.25)
(16.7)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
60(15.95)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
20(34.48) 16(27.58) 20 (34.48)
(25.0)
(18.60)
(13.33)
60(20.97) 54(18.88) 124(43.35)
(75.0)
(62.79)
(82.66)
0 (0.0) 16(51.61)
5 (16.12)
(0.0)
(18.60)
(3.33)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (100)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.66)
80(21.27) 86(22.87) 150(39.89)
All
58
(15.42)
286
(76.06)
31
(8.24)
1
(0.26)
376
Table-6.2: Producers’ enterprise activities carried out relating to the non-agriculture
product under study
Enterprise Activity
Production
Trading
Training
Total
Enterprises – No. (%)
204 (54.25)
143 (38.03)
29 (7.71)
376
Table-6.3: Ownership type of the enterprise of the producers belonging to different GI
types of non-agricultural products
Ownership type
Sole proprietorship
Family enterprise with family members participating
as partners or otherwise
Partnership with other households/individuals
Others
Total
V
50(28.57)
(83.33)
10 (5.58)
(16.67)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
60(15.95)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
25(14.28) 48(27.42) 52 (29.71)
(31.25)
(55.81)
(34.67)
53(29.60) 24(13.40) 92 (51.39)
(66.25)
27.90)
(61.33)
2 (13.33) 8 (53.33) 5 (33.33)
(2.5)
(9.30)
(3.33)
0(0.0)
6 (85.71) 1 (14.28)
(0.0)
(6.97)
(0.66)
80(21.27) 86(22.87) 150(39.89)
All
175
(46.54)
179
(47.60)
15
(3.98)
7
(1.86)
376
Table – 6.4: Analysis of the head of the non-agricultural enterprise
Head of the enterprise
Head of the household
Other member of the household
Non-member of the household but the principal
operator
Others
Total
V
57(17.02)
(95.0)
2 (6.67)
(3.33)
1 (14.3)
(1.7)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
60(15.95)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
78(23.28) 72 (21.49)
128 (38.2)
(97.5)
(83.72)
(85.33)
2 (6.67)
5 (16.67)
21 (70.0)
(2.5)
(5.81)
(14.0)
0 (0.0)
5 (71.4)
1 (14.3)
(0.0)
(5.81)
(0.66)
0 (0.0)
3 (100)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
(4.65)
(0.0)
80(21.27) 86 (22.87
150(39.89)
All
335
(89.09)
30
(7.97)
7
(1.86)
4
(1.06)
376
368
Table-6.5: Acquisition of skill/qualification by the head of non-agriculture product’s
enterprises
Sources of skill acquisition
Traditionally acquired skill as well as formal training/technical qualification
Traditionally acquired skill only
Formal training/technical qualification but not traditional skill
Informal learning only but no traditional skill or formal training
Others
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
154 (41.1)
188 (50.1)
11 (2.9)
20 (5.3)
2 (0.5)
375
Table-6.6: Average years of production of the non-agriculture product in respondent’s area
S. N.
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
P. C.
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
61
2
7
18
26
27
28
34
36
40
41
43
53
56
59
64
Name of the Product
Average year
Confectionary
Tirunelveli halwa
37.3
Dodha
59.38
Bikaneri bhujia
30.8
Bikaneri rasgolla
33.5
Agra petha
99
Bal mithai
31
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
72.9
Chennapatana toys
80
Thanjaur art plate
86.5
Kolhapuri chappal
20.7
Warli paintings
94.1
Punjabi jooti
59.5
Moradabad brass material
40.71
Saharanpur furniture
99
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
74.5
Mysore sandal soap
81.6
Nilgiri oil
23.7
Sivakasi patakha
35
Harambha thresher
26.9
Makrana marble
81.1
Jaipur blue pottery
24.2
Ferozabad chundia and glassware 99
Khurja pottery
99
Textiles
Gadwal saree
99
Srikalahasti kalamkari
58.2
Kancheepuram silk
99
Bandhani saree
70.1
Patola saree
30
Kutch embroidery
99
Paithani saree
27.4
Phulkari
29.3
Ludhiana hosiery
33.7
Jaipuri rajai
62.2
Sanganeri print
41.2
Banarasi saree
99
Lucknavi chikan
99
Bhadoi carpet
99
Kullu shawl
99
369
Table-6.7: Percent of producers owing more than one non-agricultural unit
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total
% of producers owing more than one unit
52 (21.8)
36 (15.1)
48 (20.1)
103 (43.1)
239
Table-6.8: Month wise production activity of non-agriculture products as mentioned by
producers
S.N
P.
C.
Product
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
Month wise production activity
May June July Aug. Sept.
Confectionary
1 22 Tirunelveli halwa
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
2 38 Dodha
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
3 44 Bikaneri bhujia
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4 45 Bikaneri rasgolla
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
5 58 Agra petha
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
6 70 Bal mithai
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
VI
Handicrafts
7
5
Kondapalli bommalu
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
(toys)
8
8
Chennapatana toys
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9 23 Thanjaur art plate
4
4
3
2
2
4
3
10 32 Kolhapuri chappal
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
11 33 Warli paintings
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
12 35 Punjabi jooti
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
13 57 Moradabad brass material
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
14 60 Saharanpur furniture
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
VII
Manufactured products with organized trade
15
1
Hyderabad pearls
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
16
(
Mysore sandal soap
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
17 20 Nilgiri oil
2
2
4
4
4
2
1
18 21 Sivakasi patakha
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
19 39 Harambha thresher
3
3
4
4
4
2
1
20 42 Makrana marble
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
21 47 Jaipur blue pottery
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
22 55 Ferozabad chundia and
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
glassware
23 61 Khurja pottery
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
VIII
Textiles
24
2
Gadwal saree
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
25 & Srikalahasti kalamkari
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
26 18 Kancheepuram silk
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
27 26 Bandhani saree
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
28 27 Patola saree
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
29 28 Kutch embroidery
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
30 34 Paithani saree
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
31 36 Phulkari
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
32 40 Ludhiana hosiery
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
33 41 Jaipuri rajai
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
34 43 Sanganeri print
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
35 53 Banarasi saree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
36 56 Lucknavi chikan
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
37 59 Bhadoi carpet
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
38 64 Kullu shawl
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
Note: [codes: no activity-1, lean activity-2, normal activity-3, peak activity-4] obtained on
frequency of respondents
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
V
3
2
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
3
4
2
4
4
2
1
3
4
3
4
3
3
2
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
1
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
1
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
3
4
2
2
4
3
4
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
2
4
4
4
3
2
4
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
3
4
2
the basis of highest
4
370
Table-6.9: Monthly average number of persons engaged in the non-agricultural enterprise
GI Type
Family Workers
Female
Paid workers
Female
Skilled
Others
Skilled
Others
Skilled
Others
Skilled
Others
Skilled
Others
Skilled
Others
Total
Others
Family + Paid workers
Female
Skilled
Male
Others
Total
Skilled
Male
Others
Total
Skilled
Male
V
2.12
1.73
1.6
3.14
3.72
4.87
10.0
6.41
4
5
14.41
11.41
12.12
8.14
5.6
8.14
17.72
16.28
VI
2.20
2.14
1.64
2.0
3.84
4.14
6.72
10.89
3.67
5
10.39
15.89
8.92
13.03
5.3
7
14.22
20.03
VII
1.67
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.67
3.0
39.6
44.7
15.47
49.5
55.07
94.20
41.27
45.70
16.4
51.5
57.60
97.20
VIII
2.08
0.41
1.65
2.4
3.73
2.81
19.0
19.30
28.84
15.6
47.84
34.9
21.08
19.73
30.5
18
51.58
37.73
Total
2.01
1.32
1.47
2.38
3.49
3.70
18.83
20.32
12.99
18.7
31.82
39.10
20.84
21.65
14.45
21.16
35.28
42.81
Products
Table-6.10: Inventory of fixed assets owned and of those hired during the last 12 months
with total rent paid during the period by non-agricultural enterprises
Product 1: Tirunelveli halwa
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
Owned
Value
Qty
Hired
Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
1 acre
0
200000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
7
4250000
8
1687500
13950
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
2
16
155000
0
0
0
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 2: Dodha
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
1.
Land
2.
Building/structure
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
Owned
Value
1
150000
0
0
0
No.
6
111111.1
0
0
0
No.
13
583888.8
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 3: Bikaneri bhujia
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Qty
Product 4: Bikaneri rasgolla
Sl.
Item
Hired
Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
4
475000
3
350251.25
3000
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
371
Product 5: Agra petha
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 6: Bal mithai
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Product 7: Kondapalli bommalu (Toys)
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
0
0
300000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
0
60000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
Product 8: Chennapatatana toys
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1
84000
0
0
0
1.
Land
2.
Building/structure
No.
1
23500
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
1
1250
0
0
0
Product 9: Thanjaur art plate
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
Owned
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
acre
28
1265000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
50
990000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Product 10: Kolhapuri chappal
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
372
Product 11: warli painting
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
Owned
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
6
10000000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
5
138000
0
0
0
Product 12: Punjabi jooti
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
1.
Land
2.
Building/structure
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
Owned
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
9
800000
1
3500
42000
10
866666.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Product 13: Moradabad brass material
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Product 14: Saharanpur furniture
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
7
500000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
10
88000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
Product 15: Hyderabad pearls
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
Owned
Value
Qty
Hired
Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
3
17000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
298
41111.12
21
22862.85
4928.5
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
118
4125
0
0
0
Qty
Owned
Value
Product 16: Mysore sandal soap
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
13
48125
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
456
19444.45
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
1
45000
0
0
0
373
Product 17: Nilgiri oil
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Value
Qty
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
4005
831250
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
10
525714.2
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
170
70000
1
3000
0
Qty
Owned
Value
Qty
Hired
Value
Product 18: Sivakasi patakha
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Sq.meters
0
340
100
1300000
200000
2.
Building/structure
No.
1300
595000
100
150000
1000
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
11
7200
0
0
0
Product 19: Harambha thresher
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Value
Qty
Qty
Hired
Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Sq. mts
2860
12488888.9
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
2500
1611111.12
400
950000
15500
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
20
81250
0
0
0
Qty
Owned
Value
Product 20: Makrana marble
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Sq.ft
850
2466666.67
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
4
2400000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
21
433333.34
0
0
0
Product 21: Jaipur blue pottery
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Sq. ft
2
4500
0
0
0
1.
Land
2.
Building/structure
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
Qty
Owned
Value
Product 22: Ferozabad chundia & glassware
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Sq. yards
11027
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
2
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
600
14000000
0
0
0
374
Product 23: Khurja pottery
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Qty
Hired
Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
10
470000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
17
281000
4
33333.34
2500
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
60
20700
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 24: Gadwal saree
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
Acre
10
364000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
13
336000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
21
337000
0
0
0
Product 25: Srikalahasti kalamkari
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
10
275000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
51
230000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
51
42700
0
0
0
Product 26: Kancheepuram silk
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
----
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
0
0
0
0
0
1.
Land
2.
Building/structure
No.
11
740000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
75
300000
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
0
0
0
0
0
Product 27: Bandhani saree
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
----
2.
Building/structure
No.
10
760000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
19
250000
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 28: Patola saree
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
Acre
9
400000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
50
275000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
49
41000
0
0
0
375
Product 29: Kutch embroidery
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
----
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
----
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
----
0
0
0
0
0
Qty
Owned
Value
Product 30: Paithani saree
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
20310
23000000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
2275
1246250
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
275
3616666.67
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 31: Phulkari
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
----
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
----
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
5
6000
0
0
0
Qty
Owned
Value
No.
Product 32: Ludhiana hosiery
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
10928
788857.14
370
2575
66750
2.
Building/structure
No.
1164
1087285.7
100
25075
37000
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
------
276666.67
0
0
0
Product 33: Jaipuri rajai
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
Owned
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
1
10000000
1
10000
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
1
2000000
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
1
200000
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 34: Sanganeri print
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
Sq. mts
4
425000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
0
0
0
0
0
376
Product 35: Banarasi saree
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
----
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
----
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
----
0
0
0
0
0
Product 36: Lucknavi chikan
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
0
0
490
0
20000
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
0
0
0
0
0
----
Product 37: Bhadoi carpet
Sl.
Item
Unit of quantity
Qty
Owned
Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
1.
Land
Acre
2
150000
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
No.
0
338333.34
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
No.
0
20000
0
0
0
Unit of quantity
Owned
Qty Value
Hired
Qty Value
Rent
(Rs.)
Product 38: Kullu shawl
Sl.
Item
1.
Land
----
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Building/structure
----
0
0
0
0
0
3.
Machinery, equipments etc.
----
0
0
0
0
0
Table-6.11: Average value of products, by-products manufactured (including products
consumed at home) in a month and total input cost of non-agricultural products for the last
3 years
Kg
Kg
Kg
No.
Total input
cost
Total input
cost
Total input
cost
Value (Rs)
Kg
Kg
Quantity
Kg
2006
Value (Rs)
5
6
VI
7
Unit
of the
Product
2005
Quantity
1
2
3
4
Confectionary
Tirunelveli
halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri
rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli
bommalu (toys)
2004
Value (Rs)
V
Product
Quantity
SN
1235
73650
1270
76200
1482
93810
14140
18500
34500
1763600
895000
1350000
17322.5
19200
35200
2295575
955000
1422000
21470
20800
38800
3059100
914000
1046000
6715
2088
328985
126480
342215
9917
2290.2
398643
159220
10720
2487.3
478270
174185
481330
51.5
4632.5
-----
61
5945
75.8
7677.5
----
401138
377
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VII
I
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Gadwal saree
Per
Saree
44.5
Value (Rs)
50200
Total input
cost
16
Value (Rs)
VII
15
Quantity
14
Total input
cost
11
12
13
Chennapatana
2070
68000
toys
Thanjaur art
84.5
12400
No.
plate
Kolhapuri
43.3
5225.2
No.
chappal
Warli paintings
No.
141.5
28500
Punjabi jooti
No.
36
54000
Moradabad
614.2
19085000
No.
brass material
Saharanpur
21.5
71000
Piece
furniture
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad
50991.5
118200
1 line
pearls
Mysore sandal
600
3950000
Ton
soap
Nilgiri oil
Liter
38
6330
Sivakasi
34.5
70000
Case
patakha
Harambha
293
77720
No.
thresher
Makrana marble Sq. ft
14300
2080000
Jaipur blue
11800
223300
No.
pottery
Ferozabad
2671.7
1990000
chundia and
Bunch
glassware
Khurja pottery
No.
3.91
130000
Textiles
2006
Value (Rs)
10
Unit
of the
Product
No.
2005
Quantity
9
2004
Total input
cost
8
Product
Quantity
SN
91800
2070
68000
91800
2700
50000
91800
102.5
15800
102
16950
5355
46.5
5870.5
50.1
6555
20735000
161.5
41.8
580.19
33200
63760
20380555.6
180
66
569.85
38200
105565
17730800
656200
19.2
65300
203805
55.6
855100
22.8
76000
1845500
0
939200
----
54630
125200
----
61453
116400
----
3500000
600
4000000
350000
0
----
600
4000000
3500000
-------
79.5
38
20030
76000
138
40.5
69150
81000
-----
347
78950
424
94300
217300
15000
12351
2380000
282100
283500
17100
13745
2700000
322700
329800
53112.4
2714.4
2130000
52842.6
2525.3
2100000
58689.8
508000
4.70
144000
654200
4.75
159000
755000
----
40.3
55900
-----
47.2
69600
-----
215900
----
15180
----
6040.5
Srikalahasti
170.6
50750
--257.1
124800
---369.8
No.
kalamkari
Kancheepuram
25
14400
--25.8
15480
---25.7
Mt.
silk
Bandhani saree
Piece
3100
667750
3700
1106000
4160
Patola saree
Piece
67
125150
79.2
159595
75.3
Kutch
244.3
57830
249.3
74346
258.3
Piece
embroidery
Paithani saree
No.
22
1091500
28.5
1402250
38.1
Phulkari
No.
1736
1121150
1118.&
365850
1144.5
Ludhiana
179315 42122050
180350
40398000
187000
Piece
hosiery
Jaipuri rajai
Piece
3450
1280000
1920000
4220
1600000
2400000
5400
Sanganeri print
No.
7410
715000
476650
13280
826500
571155
19040
Banarasi saree
Piece
6.5
6700
46600
7.9
8200
66600
9.1
Lucknavi
1735
325850
325850
1318.5
348262.5
348262.5
1395.5
Piece
chikan
Bhadoi carpet
Sq. ft
182.5
1849000
1993000
194.5
1567500
2242500
210
Kullu shawl
Piece
13.3
4166.67
12.8
4020
15.4
*Note: The information in the table is purely collected by data enumerators from the producers. It need to
from experts of the subject and also to be analyzed further using scientific methodology
6835
1579950
158585
89005
373800
482780
42971500
1920000
970500
10000
375730
2780000
692155
89400
375730
2416500
4900
be verified
2205000
378
Table-6.12: Different sources of loan obtained by non-agriculture enterprises
Source of loan
Enterprises – No. (%)
Government
Co-operative Society
Bank
Traders/Exporters/Intermediaries
Moneylenders
Total
8 (11.12)
5 (6.95)
56 (77.78)
0 (0.0)
3 (4.17)
72
Table-6.13: Analysis of purpose of loan taken by non-agricultural producers
Purpose of loan
Enterprises – No. (%)
Purchase of land
Construction/maintenance of building
Purchase of machinery/equipment
Purchase of other assets
Purchase of seeds/raw materials and other materials (fertilizers, packing materials)
Legal expenses
Repayment of debt
Others
Total
No information
3 (4.17)
11 (15.28)
4 (5.56)
49 (68.05)
No information
3 (4.17)
2 (2.78)
68
Table-6.14: Average interest percentage paid to different sources of loan obtained by nonagricultural producers
Source of loan
Average interest paid in %
Government
Co-operative Society
Bank
Traders/Exporters/Intermediaries
Moneylenders
7.0
8.06
12.05
-22.83
Table-6.15: Average amount outstanding by a different GI type of non-agricultural
enterprises
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Average Amount outstanding (Rs)
-----28888
141588
90588
Table-6.16: Range of loan amount taken by non-agricultural enterprises
Loan amount
< 50,000
50000- 1 lakh
1-2 lakh
> 2 lakh
Total
Enterprises – No. (%)
35 (51.4)
1 (16.1)
5 (7.35)
19 (27.94)
68
Table-6.17: Skill acquired by non-agricultural producers to carry out production and
related activities
Skill acquiring method
Knowledge gained traditionally
Training
Self interest and observations
Total
V
48 (69.5)
6 (8.69)
15 (21.73)
69
Respondents – No. (%)
VI
VII
68 (67.32) 37 (43.02)
32 (31.68) 34 (39.53)
1 (1.44)
15 (17.45)
101
86
VIII
121 (69.14)
39 (22.28)
15 (8.57)
175
379
Table-6.18: Respondent’s view on the need of training to their workers
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total
Respondents said yes – No. (%)
29 (13.6)
57 (26.6)
42 (19.6)
86 (40.2)
214
Table-6.19: Availability of training facilities in locality
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total
Respondents said yes – No. (%)
13 (9.5)
30 (21.9)
47 (34.3)
47 (34.3)
137
Table-6.20: Respondent’s view on increase in production and income if better marketing
infrastructure and improved marketing outlets are made available for non-agricultural
products
GI Type
(A) Respondents – No. (%) (B) Respondents – No. (%) (C) Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
V
43 (79.6)
11 (20.4)
57 (96.6)
2 (3.4)
57 (96.6)
2 (3.4)
(16.0)
(12.4)
(17.3)
(7.4)
(17.5)
(5.4)
VI
75 (93.8)
4(6.3)
80 (100)
0 (0.0)
72 (93.5)
5(6.5)
(27.9)
(5.5)
(24.2)
(0.0)
(22.2)
(13.5)
VII
56 (70.0)
24 (30.0)
75 (97.4)
2 (2.6)
82 (96.5)
3 (3.5)
(20.8)
(26.4)
(22.7)
(&.4)
(25.2)
(8.1)
VIII
95 (65.1)
51 (34.9)
118 (83.7)
23 (16.3)
114 (80.9)
27 (19.1)
(35.3)
(56.0)
(35.8)
(85.2)
(35.1)
(73.0)
Total Products 269 (74.7)
91 (25.3)
330 (92.4)
27 (7.6)
325 (89.8)
37 (10.2)
Note: (A) Can production be increased if better marketing facilities are available?, (B) Do they have capacity to
improve production if marketing outlets are improved ?, (C)Any scope to increase income from enterprise ?
Table-6.21: Type of marketing facilities required for increasing the non-agricultural
production
Marketing facilities
Regulated market
Facilitation from producer’s union/ association
Online information of market trends
Minimum support price
Transportation of produce
Export of produce
Publicity of produce
Total
* Percent of persons who said Yes in Q8.11
Enterprises – No. (%)
141 (39.71)
14 (3.94)
23 (6.47)
25 (7.04)
7 (1.97)
38 (10.70)
107 (30.14)
355
Table-6.22: If capacity to improve production is available - type of assistance required for
increasing the non-agricultural production
Type of assistance
Respondents – No. (%)
Financial assistance
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
Assistance in Training
Total
230 (35.71)
145 (22.51)
156 (24.23)
113 (17.54)
644
380
Table-6.23: Type of storage utilized for non-agricultural products
Type of storage
No storage
Plastic/ polythene
Bulk storage
Gunny/ jute bags
Glass containers
Wooden boxes
Wrap in cloth/paper
Total
Enterprises – No. (%)
157 (39.84)
53 (13.45)
103 (26.14)
7 (1.77)
4 (1.01)
10 (2.53)
60 (15.22)
394
Table-6.24: Problems faced in storage of non-agricultural products
Problems in storage
No problem
Seasonal damage
Insufficient storage space, facilities & capacity
Infestation of pests & diseases
Miscellaneous problems
Total
Enterprises – No. (%)
221(62.96)
36 (10.25)
62 (17.66)
18 (5.12)
14 (3.99)
351
Table-6.25: Types of packaging used by non-agricultural enterprises
Nature of Packaging
Enterprises – No. (%)
No packing
Basket & bamboo packing
Gunny/Jute bags
Glass bottles & containersCategory 4
Plastic or polythene bags/ plastic cans
Corrugated card board boxes/paper boxes/cartons
Wooden boxes
Metal/Machine packing
Total
54 (11.53)
0 (0.0)
55 (11.75)
9 (1.92)
165 (35.25)
133 (28.41)
26 (5.56)
26 (5.56)
468
Table-6.26: Problems faced in packing by non-agricultural enterprises
Problems faced in packing
No problems
Scarcity of skilled labour
High cost of packing material
Storage of packing material
Deterioration of packing material
Limited knowledge of packing technology
Total
Enterprises – No. (%)
263 (80.18)
10 (3.04)
16 (4.87)
8 (2.43)
10 (3.04)
21 (6.40)
328
Table-6.27: Methods of inspection and quality control used at various stages of production
in non-agricultural enterprises
Inspection and quality control
No inspection & quality control
Production level at establishment/workshop
Processing & grading level
Inspection by an authority
Total
Enterprises - No. (%)
140 (35.98)
185 (47.55)
50 (12.85)
14 (3.59)
389
381
Table-6.28: Type of grading of non-agricultural finished products
Type of grading
Enterprises – No. (%)
No grading
Grading on physical traits
Grading on qualitative traits
Grading based on consumer/ market demand
Total
89 (21.24)
108 (25.77)
201 (47.97)
21 (5.01)
419
Table-6.29: Whether supply of raw materials is adequate and regular during the last 12
months in non-agricultural products: opinion of producers?
S. N.
P.C.
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
22
38
44
45
58
70
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
VI
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
61
2
7
18
26
27
28
34
36
40
41
43
53
56
59
64
Product
Confectionary
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass material
Saharanpur furniture
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Mysore sandal soap
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
Khurja pottery
Textiles
Gadwal saree
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Kancheepuram silk
Bandhani saree
Patola saree
Kutch embroidery
Paithani saree
Phulkari
Ludhiana hosiery
Jaipuri rajai
Sanganeri print
Banarasi saree
Lucknavi chikan
Bhadoi carpet
Kullu shawl
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes-1
No-2
Cant-3
53 (96.36) 1 (1.81)
1 (1.81)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
1(10.0)
9 (90.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
114 (82.0) 8 (5.75)
17 (12.2)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
1 (10.0)
1 (10.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
5 (50.0)
5 (60.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
55(85.93) 1(1.56)
8(12.5)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
1 (10.0)
5 (50.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
5 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (20.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
120 (88.2) 11 (8.08) 5 (3.67)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
1 (10.0)
1 (10.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (80.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
382
Table-6.30: Respondent’s view of increase in production if nationalized banks and other
institutions provide adequate finance and their approach
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Products
Adequate finance increases
production, respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
42 (82.4)
(13.9)
64 (80.0)
(21.2)
74 (87.1)
(24.5)
122 (81.3)
(40.4)
302 (82.5)
8 (17.6)
(14.1)
16 (20.0)
(25.0)
11 (12.9)
(17.2)
28 (18.7)
(43.8)
64 (17.5)
Did they approach any agency,
respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
17 (35.4)
(13.4)
24 (34.8)
(18.9)
31 (41.9)
(24.4)
55 (44.7)
(43.3)
127 (40.4)
31 (64.6)
(16.6)
45 (65.2)
(24.1)
43 (58.1)
(23.0)
68 (55.3)
(36.4)
187 (59.6)
Note:
Table-6.31: Nature of response by financial agency to the non-agricultural producers’
approach for help
Non – Agricultural Products
Good
Respondents – No. (%)
Not so good and with many formalities
No response
45 (29.8)
98 (64.9)
8 (5.3)
Table-6.32: Respondent’s opinion on the earning from the non-agricultural enterprise
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Products
Good
36 (60.0)
(19.1)
46 (57.5)
(24.5)
49 (57.6)
(26.1)
57 (38.0)
(30.3)
188 (50.1)
Respondents – No. (%)
Average
Poor
23 (38.3)
1 (1.7)
(15.8)
(2.4)
28 (35.0)
5
(7.5)
(19.2)
(14.6)
27 (31.8)
9 (10.6)
(18.5)
(22.0)
68 (45.3)
25 (16.7)
(46.6)
(61.0)
146 (38.9)
41 (10.9)
Total
60
80
85
150
375
Table-6.33: If earning is average or poor - type of assistance required for increasing income
from the non-agricultural enterprise
Type of assistance
Respondents – No. (%)
Financial assistance
216 (33.85)
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
152 (23.82)
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
158 (24.76)
Assistance in Training
112 (17.55)
Others
638
383
Table-6.34 : Respondents views on enhancment of marketing potentiality of nonagricultural products
Sl.
No.
P.
C.
V
Product
Confectionary
1
2
3
4
5
6
22
38
44
45
58
70
7
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
8
23
32
33
35
57
14
VII
60
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
031
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Note :
(A)
61
VI
(B)
(C)
2
7
18
26
27
28
34
36
40
41
43
53
56
59
64
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu
(toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass
material
Saharanpur furniture
Manufactured
products with
organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Mysore sandal soap
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and
glassware
Khurja pottery
Textiles
Gadwal saree
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Kancheepuram silk
Bandhani saree
Patola saree
Kutch embroidery
Paithani saree
Phulkari
Ludhiana hosiery
Jaipuri rajai
Sanganeri print
Banarasi saree
Lucknavi chikan
Bhadoi carpet
Kullu shawl
Respondents said yes – No. (%)
Through changing
larger market
technology (A)
protentiality of product
(B)
14 (10.68)
59 (45.03)
7 (70.0)
10 (100)
1 (10.0)
9 (90.0)
2 (20.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.00
10 (100)
4 (40.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
73 (32.45)
76 (33.78)
10 (100)
10 (100)
Increasing number of
varieties of products
(C)
58 (44.27)
10 (100)
8 (80.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
76 (33.78)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
9 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
6 (66.7)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
6 (60.0)
5 (50.0)
25 (16.12)
10 (100)
72 (46.45)
10 (100)
58 (37.41)
0 (0.0)
6 (75.0)
1 (11.1)
10 (100)
4 (40.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
8 (100)
6 (60.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
8 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
2 (20.0)
6 (60.0)
10 (100)
9 (100)
10 (100)
3 (30.0)
10 (100)
8 (100)
5 (50.0)
73 (21.66)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
9 (100)
7 (100)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (100)
10 (100)
3 (30.0)
6 (60.0)
10 (100)
131 (38.87)
9 (90.0)
10 (100)
6 (60.0)
9 (100)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
7 (70.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
133 (39.46)
6 (60.0)
10 (100)
9 (100)
9 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
8 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
9 (100)
9 (90.0)
4 (50.0)
9 (90.0)
Do you have any programme to change your technology of your products so as to satisfy the changing needs
of the consumers ?
Do you think that there is larger market protentialityof your product ?
Do you think that increasing number of varieties of your products would enlarge the existing market ?
384
Table-6.35: Respondent’s view on existence of similar but not genuine non-agricultural
product sold in the market with the same name as of their product
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Products
Opinion of Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Don’t know
41 (68.3)
5 (8.3)
14 (23.3)
(21.5)
(6.8)
(12.8)
51 (63.8)
20 (25.0) 9 (11.3)
(26.7)
(27.4)
(8.3)
28 (33.3)
24 (28.6) 32 (38.1)
(14.7)
(32.9)
(29.4)
71 (47.7)
24 (16.1) 54 (36.2)
(37.2)
(32.9)
(49.5)
191 (51.2) 73 (19.6) 109 (29.2)
Table-6.36 : Nature of competition faced in selling of non agricultural products
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Products
Opinion of respondents – No. (%)
Tough-1
Somewhat-2 Not Much-3
12 (20.0) 35 (58.3)
13 (21.7)
(10.0)
(21.7)
(14.3)
33 (41.3)
20 (25.0)
27 (33.8)
(27.5)
(12.4)
(29.&)
9(10.7)
56 (66.7)
19 (22.6)
(7.5)
(34.5)
(20.9)
66 (44.6)
50 (33.8)
32 (21.6)
(55.0)
(31.1)
(35.2)
120 (32.3) 161 (43.3)
91 (24.5)
Table-6.37: Type of competition faced by non-agriculture products under study
Code
Same product produced in other
areas of the country
Similar duplicates in the country
Similar products imported into the
country
Competition in the export market
from other countries producing
similar products
Total
N
27
Total number of responses and percent for various GI Types
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
51.92
22
23.91
20
32.25 77
55.39 146 42.31
25
0
48.07
0.0
42
19
45.65
20.65
24
12
38.70
19.35
46
9
33.09
6.47
137
40
39.71
11.59
0
0.0
9
9.78
6
9.67
7
5.03
22
6.37
52
100
92
100
62
100
139
100
345
100
Table-6.38: Respondent’s view on aspects of difference between imported and domestically
produced non-agriculture product
Aspect of difference
Non-awareness of producers
No imports
Quality difference
Imported product price cheaper
Traditional nature of indigenous products
highly valued
Imported product quality inferior
Processing of imported product
Total
Total number of responses and percent for various GI Types
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
N %
N %
N %
N
%
N
%
23 33.33 28
25
51
18.02
23 82.14 20 27.02 12
10.71 55
19.43
29 39.18 27 40.29 49
43.75 105 37.10
10 13.51 9
13.04 12
10.71 31
10.95
15 20.27 11
9.82
26
9.18
5
28
17.85
100
74
100
10
69
100
112
100
05
10
283
1.76
3.53
100
385
Table-6.39: Average years of production of the non-agriculture product by respondents
Sl. No.
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
P.C.
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
61
2
7
18
26
27
28
34
36
40
41
43
53
56
59
64
Name of the Product
Average year
Confectionary
Tirunelveli halwa
21.4
Dodha
40.3
Bikaneri bhujia
27.8
Bikaneri rasgolla
29.5
Agra petha
50.2
Bal mithai
32.5
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
83.3
Chennapatana toys
33
Thanjaur art plate
28.2
Kolhapuri chappal
20.7
Warli paintings
27.2
Punjabi jooti
57
Moradabad brass material
31
Saharanpur furniture
22.5
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
74.5
Mysore sandal soap
70.83
Nilgiri oil
23.6
Sivakasi patakha
35
Harambha thresher
27.6
Makrana marble
60.5
Jaipur blue pottery
21.6
Ferozabad chundia and glassware 23.4
Khurja pottery
20.2
Textiles
Gadwal saree
25.2
Srikalahasti kalamkari
41.5
Kancheepuram silk
30.3
Bandhani saree
67.2
Patola saree
32
Kutch embroidery
99
Paithani saree
14.7
Phulkari
27.3
Ludhiana hosiery
30.4
Jaipuri rajai
73.5
Sanganeri print
51.8
Banarasi saree
57.6
Lucknavi chikan
44.4
Bhadoi carpet
51.5
Kullu shawl
10.6
Table-6.40: Whether product can be protected as community patent known as
geographical indication: awareness of non-agricultural producers.
GI type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total products
Opinion of respondents – No. (%)
Yes
5 (8.3)
(5.2)
43 (53.8)
(44.8)
16 (19.5)
(16.7)
32 (21.5)
(33.3)
96 (25.9)
No
55 (91.7)
(20.0)
37 (46.3)
(13.5)
66 (80.5)
(24.0)
117 (78.5)
(42.5)
275 (74.1)
Total
60
(16.2)
80
(21.6)
82
(22.1)
149
(40.2)
371
386
Table-6.41: Need, protection and maintenance of product as GI: awareness, knowledge and
system of interest of non-agricultural producers
Observation
Yes1
N
191
120
304
95
122
Similar product sold with the same name*
Significant competition to product**
Uniqueness due to geographical origin
Knowledge that product can be protected as GI
Knowledge of post registration effects- authority to use product name by registered
producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction to produce within registered
119
geographical area
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction on trader to sell product produced
122
by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- traders can be sued in court of law
132
Knowledge of post registration effects- higher market value as a community
149
monopoly
Status of registration of product as GI#
76
Availability of producers association/ marketing group
201
Membership of producers association/ marketing group
160
Production as per technical guidelines- of govt. dept
79
Production as per technical guidelines- of NGO
36
Production as per technical guidelines- producers association
73
Production as per self guidelines learnt from forefathers
333
Maintenance & monitoring of prodduction code- follow technical guidelines of govt
105
Maintenance & monitoring of prodduction code- quality control mechanism available
122
Maintenance & monitoring of prodduction code- inspection by govt., NGO,
125
association
Maintenance & monitoring of prodduction code- quality check by purchaser
220
Maintenance & monitoring of prodduction code- self control without any formal
351
mechanism
* can’t say N (109 ), % (29.2); ** [Tough – 1, Somewhat – 2] 91 (24.5%) respondents say not
can’t say N (162), % (43.7)
Respondents
YesNo1
2
%
N
51.2
73
32.3
16
82.4
65
25.6
275
34.9
228
No2
%
19.6
43.3
17.6
74.1
65.1
34.2
229
65.8
35.0
227
65.0
38.3
42.6
213
201
61.7
57.4
20.8
53.8
43.7
21.3
9.6
19.7
90.7
28.2
32.9
33.6
133
175
206
292
338
297
34
267
249
247
35.8
46.5
56.3
78.7
90.4
80.3
9.3
71.8
67.1
66.4
58.8
95.6
154
16
41.2
4.4
much competition; #
Table-6.42: Opinion of producers about trend of the production of non-agricultural
products in last three years
S. N.
P.C.
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
Product
Confectionary
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass material
Saharanpur furniture
Manufactured products with organized trade
Respondents – No. (%)
Increasing Stationary Declining
35 (49.64) 19 (40.92) 3 ((.92)
1 (10.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (75.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (25.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
8 (88.9)
0 (0.0)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
51 (65.38) 13 (16.67) 14 (17.94)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (60.0)
4 (40.0)
8 (88.9)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
2 (20.0)
5 (50.0)
2 (22.2)
4 (44.4)
3 (33.3)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (20.0)
54 (64.28) 28 (33.34)
2 (2.38)
387
S. N.
P.C.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
61
Product
Respondents – No. (%)
Increasing Stationary Declining
5 (50.0)
4 (40.0)
1 (10.0)
5 (100)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
5 (50.0)
1 (10.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
6 (60.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (77.8)
2 (22.2)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
70 (61.40) 57 (33.34) 14 (5.26)
1 (10.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
6 (60.0)
1 (10.0)
7 (70.0)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (60.0)
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
10 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
3 (30.00
0 (0.0)
4 (50.0)
4 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
5 (55.6)
3 (33.3)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
2 (50.0)
2 (50.0)
5 (50.0)
5 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
210 (58.3) 117 (32.5) 33 (9.2)
Hyderabad pearls
Mysore sandal soap
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
Khurja pottery
Textiles
2
Gadwal saree
7
Srikalahasti kalamkari
18
Kancheepuram silk
26
Bandhani saree
27
Patola saree
28
Kutch embroidery
34
Paithani saree
36
Phulkari
40
Ludhiana hosiery
41
Jaipuri rajai
43
Sanganeri print
53
Banarasi saree
56
Lucknavi chikan
59
Bhadoi carpet
64
Kullu shawl
Total non-agricultural products
Table-6.43: Assessment of producers’ associateship with the enterprise: opinion of nonagricultural producers
S. N
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
P.C.
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
8
23
32
33
35
57
14
60
VII
15
1
Product
Confectionary
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli
bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass
material
Saharanpur
furniture
Manufactured
products with
organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Agreement of respondents – No. (%)
No
one
has Many
have
discontinued the discontinued the
production of GI
production of GI
Few
more
have started
producing
Several more
have started
producing
32 (25.39)
0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
46 (28.04)
10 (100)
5 (3.96)
0 (0.0)
3 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
2 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
24 (14.63)
1 (10.0)
48 (38.09)
5 (50.0)
3 (30.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
70 (42.68)
10 (100)
32 (25.39)
5 (50.0)
6 (60.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
13 (7.92)
2 (50.0)
The situation
is same- no
addition, no
deletion
9 (7.14)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (60.0)
0 (0.0)
11 (6.70)
10 (100)
10 (100)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
& (70.0)
8 (80.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
1 (10.0)
1 (10.0)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
7 (70.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
7 (77.8)
7 (77.8)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
7 (70.0)
2 (22.2)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (11.1)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
9 (90.0)
2 (20.0)
0 (0.0)
38 (21.34)
33 (18.53)
79 (44.38)
22 (12.35)
6 (3.37)
0 (0.0)
2 (50.0)
10 (100)
4 (100)
0 (0.0)
388
S. N
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
P.C.
Product
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
Mysore sandal soap
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia
and glassware
61
Khurja pottery
Textiles
2
Gadwal saree
7
Srikalahasti
kalamkari
18
Kancheepuram silk
26
Bandhani saree
27
Patola saree
28
Kutch embroidery
34
Paithani saree
36
Phulkari
40
Ludhiana hosiery
41
Jaipuri rajai
43
Sanganeri print
53
Banarasi saree
56
Lucknavi chikan
59
Bhadoi carpet
64
Kullu shawl
Total non-agricultural
products
Agreement of respondents – No. (%)
No
one
has Many
have
discontinued the discontinued the
production of GI
production of GI
Few
more
have started
producing
Several more
have started
producing
6 (66.8)
8 (100)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
& (77.8)
4 (40.0)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
6 (60.0)
2 (50.0)
6 (60.0)
9 (90.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
7 (70.0)
7 (70.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
6 (60.0)
0 (0.0)
4 (40.0)
7 (70.0)
The situation
is same- no
addition, no
deletion
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.00
4 (40.0)
0 (0.0)
72 (21.11)
10 (100)
10 (100)
10 (100)
54 (15.83)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
96 (28.15)
1 (10.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
74 (21.70)
1 (10.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
45 (13.19)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
1 (10.0)
( (90.0)
5 (50.0)
0 (0.0)
( (90.0)
1 (10.0)
2 (50.0)
4 (40.0)
8 (100)
188 (23.26)
5 (50.0)
9 (90.0)
10 (100)
0 (0.0)
9 (90.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
6 (60.0)
3 (30.0)
0 (0.0)
116(14.35)
3 (30.0)
10 (100)
10 (100)
9 (100)
10 (100)
4 (40.0)
5 (50.0)
10 (100)
1 (10.0)
1 (10.0)
6 (60.0)
5 (50.0)
10 (100)
292 (36.13)
7 (70.0)
10 (100)
6 (60.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
4 (50.0)
9 (90.0)
3 (30.0)
9 (90.0)
1 (10.0)
4 (44.5)
6 (60.0)
1 (10.0)
141 (17.45)
1 (11.1)
1 (10.0)
1 (10.0)
6 (60.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (30.0)
5 (50.0)
1 (10.0)
0 (0.0)
1 (10.0)
6 (66.7)
0 (0.0)
10 (100)
71 (8.78)
Table-6.44: Mode of sale of non-agricultural products by producers
Mode of Sale
Mahajan
Middlemen
Govt. agency
Cooperative society
Exporters
Wholesalers
Selling to local shops; local consumers or in the local
market
Processing agency
Total
V
10 (58.8)
(12.34)
2 (2.35)
(2.46)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
1 (1.19)
(1.23)
15(8.92)
(18.51)
52 (24.4)
(64.19)
1 (5.56)
(1.23)
81(12.23)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
1 (5.8)
3 (17.6)
3 (17.6)
(0.55)
(1.71)
(1.33)
21 (24.70) 32 (37.64) 30 (35.29)
(11.60)
(18.28)
(13.33)
22 (57.89) 8 (21.05)
8 (21.05)
(12.15)
(4.57)
(3.56)
12 (30.76) 12 (30.76) 15 (38.46)
(6.62)
(6.85)
(6.66)
27 (32.14) 25 (29.76) 31 (36.90)
(14.91)
(14.28)
(13.77)
37 (22.02) 50 (29.76) 66 (39.28)
(20.44)
(28.57)
(29.33)
60 (28.16) 39 (18.30) 62 (29.10)
(33.14)
(22.28)
(27.5)
1 (5.56)
6 (33.3)
10 (55.56)
(0.55)
(3.42)
(4.45)
181(27.34) 175(26.43) 225(33.98)
All
17
(2.56)
85
(12.83)
38
(5.74)
39
(5.89)
84
(12.68)
168
(25.37)
213
(32.17)
18
(2.71)
662
389
Table-6.45: Whether producers are satisfied with mode of sale of product: opinion of nonagricultural producers.
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Non-agricultural products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
44 (78.6)
(18.3)
58 (79.5)
(24.1)
64 (95.5)
(26.6)
75 (61.0)
(31.1)
241 (75.5)
12 (21.4)
(15.4)
15 (20.5)
(19.2)
3 (4.5)
(3.8)
48 (39.0)
(61.8)
78 (24.5)
Table-6.46: Reasons for producer’s unsatisfaction over the mode of sale of non-agricultural
produce
Reasons
Respondents for each GI Type - No. (%)
Low profit from venture
Intervention/ control of middle men
Insufficient institutional support
High input cost
High competition
Total
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
9 (20.45)
(69.23)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
2 (8.00)
(15.38)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
2 (22.23)
(15.38)
13 (14.94)
3 (6.81)
(21.42)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
9 (36.00)
(64.28)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
2 (22.23)
(14.28)
14 (16.09)
3 (6.81)
(75.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
1 (4.00)
(25.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
4 (4.59)
29 (65.90)
(51.78)
9 (1.00)
(16.07)
13 (52.00)
(23.21)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
5 (55.56)
(8.92)
56 (64.36)
44
(50.57)
9
(10.34)
25
(28.73)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
9
(10.34)
87
Table-6.47: Opinion of producers about trend of the average unit price of non-agricultural
produce in last three years
S. N.
P. C.
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
22
38
44
45
58
70
8
8
9
23
10
11
12
32
33
35
5
Product
Confectionary
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)-Small
Kondapalli bommalu – Medium
Kondapalli bommalu – Large
Chennapatana toys – Small
Chennapatana toys – Medium
Chennapatana toys – Large
Thanjaur art plate – 6 inches
Thanjaur art plate – 12 inches
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Unit
Average unit price (Rs)
2006
2005
2004
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
Kg
67.5
169
47.5
36.6
32.3
70
55
157
43.9
36.5
30.8
70
54
147.5
40.2
37.8
29.6
60
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Per pair
Number
Number
45
171.6
675
12.5
68.3
38.5
147.5
635
10.75
60
30
127.5
575
9
48.3
69
161
183
177
1812.5
69.8
162.6
177
148
1538.5
67.9
162.2
166.7
125
1216
390
S. N.
P. C.
13
14
VII
15
57
60
16
17
18
9
20
21
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
39
42
47
55
61
27
28
29
30
31
26
27
28
34
36
32
33
34
35
36
37
40
41
43
53
56
59
38
64
1
2
7
18
Product
Unit
Average unit price (Rs)
Moradabad brass material
Kg
Saharanpur furniture
Piece
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls-Processing -Kg
Kg
Hyderabad pearls-String
Mysore sandal soap
Piece
Nilgiri oil
Liter
Sivakasi patakha-Flower pot
Flower Pots/Box(10pieces)
Sivakasi patakha-Sparkler
12cm Sparklers/pack (10box)
Harambha thresher
Number
Makrana marble
Sq ft
Jaipur blue pottery
Number
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
Bunch
Khurja pottery
Number
Textiles
Gadwal saree
Piece
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Saree
Kancheepuram silk-Saree
Saree
Kancheepuram silk-meter/weaving metre
Bandhani saree
Saree
Patola saree
Saree
Kutch embroidery
Piece
Paithani saree
Saree
Phulkari - Dupatta
Piece
Phulkari – Cover sheet
Piece
Ludhiana hosiery
Piece
Jaipuri rajai
Piece
Sanganeri print
Number
Banarasi saree
Saree
Lucknavi chikan
Piece
Bhadoi carpet -Small
Piece
Bhadoi carpet-Medium
Piece
Bhadoi carpet-Large
Piece
Kullu shawl
Piece
2006
2005
2004
218.3
22500
205
23500
186.6
28000
129
1.04
31.05
458
37.3
23.3
145000
185.5
95.5
23
81.5
126.75
1.05
29.5
260
21.7
22.3
130800
165.5
80.3
20.9
71.3
124.5
1
27.15
160
32.9
20.4
118500
151
60.4
17.9
59.7
1330
1840
16914.2
108.6
336.5
2025
290
9375
797
359
507.5
332
169.5
10000
337
4866.6
19000
48000
37000
1300
4750
17285.7
108.3
260.5
1910
322
7762.5
767
339
482.5
360.5
158
8200
278
4000
16000
40166.6
32000
1110
4150
19128.5
106
202.5
1790
398
5875
676
339
432
342.5
131.5
6700
246.5
2216.6
9375
26166.6
32650
Table-6.48: Price decision of producers over the sale of non-agricultural produce
Price Decision
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
Bargain collectively
Bargain individually
Sale on minimum agreed price between our
association and purchasers
The purchaser offers us a price to which we usually
agree
Purchaser offers us a price to which we have to sell;
there is no other choice for us
Total
V
VI
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
23(19.82)
(62.16)
8 (19.04)
(21.62)
6 (6.89)
(16.21)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
37(10.72)
40 (51.94)
(30.76)
24 (20.68)
(18.46)
16 (38.09)
(12.30)
38 (43.67)
(29.23)
12 (52.17)
(9.23)
130(37.68)
VII
13(16.88)
(17.56)
21(18.10)
(28.57)
9 (21.42)
(12.16)
28(32.18)
(37.83)
3 (13.04)
(4.05)
74(21.44)
VIII
All
24 (31.16)
(23.07)
48 (41.37)
(46.15)
9 (21.42)
(8.65)
15 (17.24)
(14.42)
8 (34.78)
(7.69)
104(30.14)
77
(22.31)
116
(33.62)
42
(12.17)
87
(25.21)
23
(6.67)
345
391
Table-6.49: Respondent’s constraints in production and marketing of non-agricultural
produce
Constraints
V
11(28.94)
(19.64)
17(29.82)
(30.35)
Respondents - No. (%)
VI
VII
VIII
2 (5.26)
12(31.57) 13 (34.21)
(1.83)
(13.3)
(7.92)
8 (14.03)
16(28.07) 16 (28.07)
(7.33)
(17.7)
(9.75)
All
38
(9.06)
57
(13.60)
14(17.07)
(25.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
2 (3.17)
(3.57)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
16 (19.51)
(14.67)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
13 (20.63)
(11.92)
12 (32.43)
(11.0)
22(26.82)
(24.4)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
15(23.80)
(16.6)
10(27.02)
(11.11)
30 (36.58)
(18.29)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
33 (52.38)
(20.12)
15 (40.54)
(9.14)
82
(19.57)
0
(0.0)
63
(15.03)
37
(8.83)
Manufacturing process is tedious, time & labor
intensive
1 (6.25)
(1.78)
3 (9.37)
(5.35)
1 (2.56)
(1.78)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
7 (15.21)
(12.5)
4 (25.0)
(3.66)
10 (31.25)
((.17)
27 (69.23)
(24.77)
9 (100)
(8.25)
8 (17.39)
(7.33)
1 (6.25)
(1.1)
2 (6.25)
(2.2)
1 (2.56)
(2.2)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
11(23.91)
(11.1)
10 (62.5)
(6.09)
17 (53.12)
(10.36)
10 (25.64)
(6.09)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
20 (43.47)
(12.19)
16
(3.81)
32
(7.63)
39
(9.30)
9
(2.14)
46
(10.97)
Total
56(13.36)
109(26.01)
90(21.47)
164(39.14)
419
No problem
Scarcity of skilled workers
High competition
Insufficient publicity
Financial difficulties
Lack of proper government policy & assistance
Improper transportation arrangements
Market insecurity leading to low profitability
Difficulty in getting quality inputs
Packing of produce
Table-6.50: Responses of non-agricultural producers about willingness and expectations
from GI registration
Observation
Willingness for registration of product
Willingness for payment for registration
Non-registration leads to- low volume of sale
Non-registration leads to- low wages to labour
Non-registration leads to- low profit to producers
Non-registration leads to- difficulty in getting loans
Non-registration leads to- sale of fake product with same name
Post registration expectations- increase in sale*
Post registration expectations- increase in unit price
Post registration expectations- increase in net profit
Post registration expectations- less competition
Post registration expectations- market expansion
Post registration expectations- enhanced premium to producers
Post registration expectations- Shift from other livelihoods to RGI
Post registration expectations- improvement in overall socioeconomic conditions of producers
* Significant-1, Marginal-2, No increase-3
YesN
Yes%
266
264
166
162
203
159
273
145
218
252
136
194
190
126
195
76.7
77.4
48.1
46.8
58.7
46.0
80.3
43.2
63.4
73.3
39.5
57.1
55.7
37.4
60.6
Respondents
No- No- Can’t
N
%
sayN
27
7.8
54
77 22.6
-179 51.9
-184 53.2
-143 41.3
-187 54.0
-67 19.7
-160 47.6
31
28
8.1
98
10
2.9
82
57 16.6
151
13
3.8
133
7
2.1
144
84 24.9
127
15
4.7
112
Can’t
say%
15.6
------9.2
28.5
23.8
43.9
39.1
42.2
37.7
34.8
392
Table-6.51: Willingness of respondents to pay range of amount for GI registration of nonagricultural produce
Rupees
500
1000
2000
3000
Total
Respondents – No. (%) as per GI type
V
VI
VII
VIII
37 (23.3) 46 (28.9) 18 (11.3) 58 (36.5)
(69.8)
(80.7)
(34.6)
(58.0)
9 (15.0)
7 (11.7)
23 (38.3) 21 (35.0)
(17.0)
(12.3)
(44.2)
(21.0)
4 (19.0)
1 (4.8)
4 (19.0)
12 (57.1)
(7.5)
(1.8)
(7.7)
(12.0)
3 (13.6)
3 (13.6)
7 (31.8)
9 (40.9)
(5.7)
(5.3)
(13.5)
(9.0)
53 (20.2) 57 (21.8) 52 (19.8) 100 (38.2)
All
159
(60.7)
60
(22.9)
21
(8.0)
22
(8.4)
262
Table-6.52: Willingness of producers to shift from other livelihood activities, if their nonagricultural product gets registered for GI and other protection systems are followed so
that they can get more benefit
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Non-Agricultural Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
Total
30 (50.0)
30 (50.0)
60
(12.8)
(29.4)
(17.8)
35 (53.8)
30 (46.2)
65
(14.9)
(29.4)
(19.3)
59 (73.8)
21 (26.3)
80
(25.1)
(20.6)
(23.7)
111 (84.1) 21 (15.9)
132
(47.2)
(20.6)
(39.2)
235 (69.7) 102 (30.3) 337
Table-6.53: Reasons for un willingness of the producers to shift from other livelihood
activities, if their non-agricultural product gets registered for GI and other protection
systems are followed
Reasons
No knowledge of GI and its implications
Production risk mitigation
Marketing risk mitigation
Risk avoidance arising due to climatic vagaries
Present option as safer and profitable enterprise
Total
% Respondents – No. (%)
75 (78.12)
4 (4.16)
5 (5.20)
2 (2.08)
10 (10.41)
96
Table-6.54: Producer’s opinion about expected shift from other livelihood activities to
production of GI product as a result of GI registration
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Non - Agricultural Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
10 (16.9)
37 (62.7)
(7.9)
(44.0)
29 (43.9)
30 (45.5)
(23.0)
(35.7)
25 (32.5)
5 (6.5)
(19.8)
(6.0)
62 (45.9)
12 (8.9)
(49.2)
(14.3)
126 (37.4) 84 (24.9)
Can’t say
12 (20.3)
(9.4)
7 (10.6)
(5.5)
47 (45.2)
(48.0)
61 (45.2)
(48.0)
127 (37.7)
Total
59
(17.5)
66
(19.6)
135
(40.1)
135
(40.1)
337
393
Table-6.55: Producer’s opinion about expected enhanced premium to the producers over
prevailing cost after GI registration of non-agricultural produce
GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Non-Agric. Products
Respondents – No. (%) in favor of % increase
0-5%
5-10%
10-15%
>15%
13 (37.14) 13 (37.14) 9 (25.71)
0 (0.0)
(20.96)
(16.88)
(14.51)
(0.0)
15 (35.71) 27 (64.28) 0 (0.0)
0 (0.0)
(24.19)
(35.06)
(0.0)
(0.0)
13 (26.0)
23 (46.0)
14 (28.0)
0 (0.0)
(20.96)
(29.87)
(22.58)
(0.0)
21 (28.37) 14 (18.91) 39 (52.70) 0 (0.0)
(33.87)
(18.18)
(62.90)
(0.0)
62 (30.84) 77 (38.30) 62 (30.84) 0 (0.0)
Total
35
(17.41)
42
(20.89)
50
(24.87)
74
(36.81)
201
Table-6.56: Responses of non-agricultural producers about post-registration observation
regarding impact and change occurred
Observation
Post registration changes observed
Observed post registration changes- increase in annual
production*
Observed post registration changes- increase in unit price
Observed post registration changes- increase in net profit
Observed post registration changes- less competition
Observed post registration changes- market expansion
Observed post registration changes- enhanced premium to
producers
Observed post registration changes- Shift from other livelihoods
to RGI
Observed post registration changes- improvement in overall socioeconomic conditions of producers
Did they contribute money for registration
* Significant-1, Marginal-2, No increase-3
Respondents
NoNoCan’t
2
2
say-3
N
%
N
1
13.3
-10
21.7
1
Yes1
N
24
35
Yes1
%
86.7
76.1
Can’t
say-3
%
-2.2
44
39
30
44
37
95.7
84.8
65.2
100
82.2
1
6
10
-8
2.2
13.0
21.7
-17.8
1
1
6
---
2.2
2.2
13.0
---
23
50.0
23
50.0
--
--
41
91.1
--
--
4
8.9
9
30.4
22
69.6
--
--
Table – 6.57: Enhanced premium to the producers over the prevailing cost after GI
registration of the non-agricultural produce
Increase (%)
0
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
18 (51.42)
8 (22.85)
9 (25.71)
0 (0.0)
35
Table-6.58: Contribution of money for agricultural product GI registration by producers
Rupees
<250
250-500
>500
Respondents – No. (%)
0 (0.0)
5 (100)
0 (0.0)
394
Annexure-VII: Analytical Profile of Products Involving Indigenous Knowledgeopinion of stakeholders
Socio economic profile of producers
Table-7.1: Education level of family members of surveyed producers of ITK products
Respondents
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
Total
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
1
19
1
2
3
0
4
4
(33.33)
(5.45)
(7.84)
2
2
0
2
3
4
7
0
0
0
(3.51)
(12.73)
(0.00)
3
3
4
7
3
6
9
2
4
6
(12.28)
(16.36)
(11.77)
4
12
2
14
7
8
15
4
13
17
(24.56)
(27.27)
(33.33)
5
7
2
9
5
2
7
6
9
15
(15.79)
(12.73)
(29.41)
6
3
3
6
9
5
14
8
1
9
(10.53)
(25.46)
(17.65)
Total
34
23
57
28
27
55
20
31
51
(100)
(100)
(100)
Not literate- 1, Literate but below primary –2, Primary- 3, Secondary – 4, Higher Secondary – 5, Graduate & above -6
Educational level
Nannari sharbat
Male Female
N
N
7
12
Table-7.2: Skill level of family members of surveyed producers of ITK products
Respondents
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
Skill level
Total
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
1
26
10
13
23
7
13
20
(46.43)
(41.82)
(39.22)
2
14
5
19
18
13
31
19
11
30
(33.93)
(56.36)
(58.82)
3
2
9
11
0
1
1
1
0
1
(19.64)
(1.82)
(1.96)
Total
34
22
56
28
27
55
27
24
51
(100)
(100)
(100)
No skill –1, Traditionally acquired in the family –2, Skill acquired through training –3, Skill acquired traditionally and
by training - 4
Nannari sharbat
Male Female
N
N
18
8
Table-7.3: Usual activity of family members of surveyed producers of ITK products
Usual Activity level
1
Nannari sharbat
Male Female
N
N
11
0
2
7
14
3
0
2
4
3
1
5
0
2
Total
N (%)
11
(19.64)
21
(37.50)
2
(3.57)
4
(7.14)
2
(3.57)
Respondents
Kokum Fruit Juice
Male Female Total
N
N
N (%)
10
6
16
(29.63)
10
5
15
(27.78)
3
0
3
(5.55)
0
1
1
(1.85)
0
9
9
(16.67)
Buraansh Juice
Male Female
N
N
1
0
0
1
15
0
1
0
0
12
Total
N (%)
1
(1.96)
1
(1.96)
15
(29.41)
1
(1.96)
12
(23.53)
395
Respondents
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
Usual Activity level
Total
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
6
11
5
4
9
8
10
18
(19.64)
(16.67)
(35.30)
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
(0.00)
(0.00)
(1.96)
8
2
2
4
0
1
1
1
1
2
(7.14)
(1.85)
(3.92)
9
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1.80)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Total
33
23
56
28
26
54
27
24
51
(100)
(100)
(100)
Self-employed – 1, Unpaid family enterprise worker- 2, Wage/salary worker – 3, Unemployed (seeking and/or
available for work –4, Household duties – 5, Student –6, Pensioners, social workers not in labour force etc- 7, Too
young or old to be active –8, Others - 9
Nannari sharbat
Male Female
N
N
10
1
Table-7.4: Monthly expenditure pattern of producers of ITK products
Expenditure items
Food Expenses
Health
Education
Others
Total
Average expenditure Rs (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
4300
2660
(53.49)
(24.04)
670
410
(8.34)
(3.71)
978.5
5944.4
(12.17)
(53.72)
2090
2050
(26.00)
(18.53)
8038.5
11064.4
(100)
(100)
Buraansh Juice
2333.33
(39.72)
425
(7.23)
2283.33
(38.87)
833.33
(14.18)
5874.99
(100)
Table-7.5: Contribution of different sources in net annual income of producers of ITK
products
Annual income
Agriculture, horticulture, plantation, forestry
Livestock, poultry, fishing
Trading
Other enterprises
Wage/Salary income
Other income (pensions, property, remittance received)
Total
Average Income Rs (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice Buraansh Juice
24000
(11.86)
7000
(3.46)
98400
(48.61)
58000
(28.66)
0
(0.00)
15000
(7.41)
202400
(100)
255000
(73.38)
10000
(2.88)
50000
(14.39)
32500
(9.35)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
347500
(100)
14000
(9.62)
4000
(2.75)
0
(0.00)
12500
(8.58)
79750
(54.78)
35333.33
(24.27)
145583.33
(100)
396
Table-7.6: Pattern of household value of assets of producers of ITK products
Value of Assets
Land (including water tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat, Poultry)
Total
Average Income Rs (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
77000
2200000
(9.28)
(82.96)
542222.2
230000
(65.36)
(8.67)
72800
50000
(8.78)
(1.89)
19666.6
97125
(2.37)
(3.66)
11620
28000
(1.40)
(1.06)
96250
11666.67
(11.60)
(0.44)
10000
35000
(1.21)
(1.32)
829558.8
2651791.67
(100)
(100)
Buraansh Juice
87222.22
(17.21)
352777.78
(69.59)
18000
(3.55)
0
(0.00)
14800
(2.92)
28125
(5.55)
6000
(1.18)
506925
(100)
Table–7.7: Welfare indicators of household members of surveyed producers of ITK
products
Welfare indicators
Get enough food every day (during last 30 days)
Have at least a pair of footwear (during last 30 days)
Have at least two sets of clothes (during last 30 days)
Fell sick or get injured (during last 30 days)
Total family members
Nannari sharbat
37
(62.71)
37
(62.71)
37
(62.71)
12
(20.3)
59
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
56
(86.15)
56
(86.15)
56
(86.15)
10
(15.4)
65
Buraansh Juice
42
(82.35)
42
(82.35)
42
(82.35)
05
(9.8)
51
Table – 7.8: Mode of treatment obtained by household members of producers of ITK
products during their illness in last 30 days
Mode of treatment
No treatment
Treated at Hospital, Clinic or Dispensary
Home treatment
Total
Respondents- N (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
2
2
(16.7)
(20.0)
7
4
(58.3)
(40.0)
3
4
(25.0)
(40.0)
12
10
(100)
(100)
Buraansh Juice
1
(20.0)
2
(40.0)
2
(40.0)
05
(100)
Table – 7.9: Range of amount spent on medical treatment by producers in last 30 days
Total amount spent on treatment (Rs.)
100-200
200- 500
500- 1000
>1000
Total
Respondents N (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
1
0
(14.28)
(0.00)
2
2
(28.57)
(50.00)
2
2
(28.57)
(50.00)
2
0
(28.57)
(0.00)
07
4
(100)
(100)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(100)
397
Opinion of producers regarding product scenario
Table-7.10: Types of packaging used by ITK products enterprises
Nature of Packaging
Glass bottles & containers
Plastic or polythene bags/ plastic cans
Total
Respondents N (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
10
9
(100)
(64.29)
0
5
(0.00)
(35.71)
10
14
(100.00)
(100.00)
Buraansh Juice
10
(50.00)
10
(50.00)
20
(100.00)
Table-7.11: Problems faced in packing by ITK products enterprises
Problems faced in packing
No problems
Deterioration of packing material
Total
Nannari sharbat
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
3
(30.00)
7
(70.00)
10
(100.00)
7
(58.33)
5
(41.67)
12
(100.00)
7
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
7
(100.00)
Table – 7.12: Methods of inspection and quality control used at various stages of production
in ITK products enterprises
Inspection and quality control
No inspection & quality control
Production level on field
Harvesting level on field
Processing & grading level
Total
Nannari sharbat
2
(22.22)
0
(0.00)
2
(22.22)
5
(55.56)
9
(100.00)
Respondent- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
9
(81.82)
1
(9.09)
1
(9.09)
0
(0.00)
11
(100.00)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
4
(66.66)
1
(16.67)
1
(16.67)
6
(100.00)
Table-7.13: Type of grading of finished ITK products
Type of grading
No grading
Grading on physical traits
Grading on qualitative traits
Total
Respondent- N (%)
Nannari sharbat
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
1
(11.11)
6
(66.67)
2
(22.22)
9
(100.00)
2
(18.18)
8
(72.73)
1
(9.09)
11
(100.00)
-
398
Table-7.14: Financial and infrastructure needs of producers of ITK products
Observation
Adequate finance from financial institutions can increase the
production
Better marketing can increase the production
Producers have the capacity to improve production if marketing
outlets are improved
Scope for increasing production
Respondents Agree – N (%)
Nannari
Kokum Fruit Buraansh
sharbat
Juice
Juice
9
2
6
(90.00)
(20.00)
(60.00)
10
9
6
(100.00)
(90.00)
(60.00)
9
9
5
(90.00)
(90.00)
(50.00)
9
9
10
(90.00)
(90.00)
(100.00)
Table-7.15: If capacity to improve the production is available - type of assistance required
for increasing the production of ITK products
Type of assistance
Financial assistance
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
Marketing assistance
Total
Nannari sharbat
9
(47.36)
5
(26.32)
0
(0.00)
5
(26.32)
19
(100)
Respondents- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
1
(4.76)
1
(4.76)
9
(42.86)
10
(47.62)
21
(100)
Buraansh Juice
2
(25.00)
3
(37.50)
0
(0.00)
3
(37.50)
8
(100)
Table 7.16: Producer’s opinion about earnings from ITK product’s enterprise
Earning
Good
Average
Poor
Total
Respondents N (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
5
2
(55.56)
(20.00)
4
7
(44.44)
(70.00)
0
1
(0.00)
(10.00)
9
10
(100)
(100)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
9
(90.00)
1
(10.00)
10
(100)
Table-7.17: If earning is average or poor - type of assistance required for increasing income
from the ITK products enterprise
Type of assistance
Financial assistance
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
Marketing assistance
Total
Nannari sharbat
10
(45.45)
5
(22.73)
0
(0.00)
7
(31.82)
22
(100)
Respondents – N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice Buraansh Juice
2
3
(9.52)
(30.00)
1
3
(4.76)
(30.00)
9
1
(42.86)
(10.00)
9
3
(42.86)
(30.00)
21
10
(100)
(100)
399
Table-7.18: Need, protection and maintenance of product as GI: awareness, knowledge and
system of interest of producers of ITK products
Observation
Similar product sold with the same name*
Significant competition to product
Uniqueness due to geographical origin
Knowledge that product can be protected as GI#
Knowledge of post registration effects- authority to use product name
by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction to produce within
registered geographical area
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction on trader to sell
product produced by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- traders can be sued in court of
law
Knowledge of post registration effects- higher market value as a
community monopoly
Production as per self guidelines learnt from forefathers
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- follow technical
guidelines of govt
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- inspection by govt.,
NGO, association
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- quality check by
purchaser
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- self control without
any formal mechanism
* can’t say- N (04 ), % (40)
# can’t say- N (08 ), % (80)
Respondents Agree- N (%)
Nannari
Kokum Fruit Buraansh
sharbat
Juice
Juice
6
0
1
(60.00)
(0.00)
(10.00)
4
1
1
(40.00)
(11.11)
(10.00)
10
9
10
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
8
7
0
(80.00)
(77.78)
(0.00)
8
8
0
(80.00)
(80.00)
(0.00)
5
9
0
(50.00)
(90.00)
(0.00)
9
7
0
(90.00)
(77.78)
(0.00)
3
8
0
(30.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
10
8
0
(100.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
10
9
10
(100.00
(90.00)
(100.00)
2
0
0
20.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
2
0
0
20.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
8
6
10
80.00)
(60.00)
(100.00)
10
9
10
100.00)
(90.00)
(100.00)
Table-7.19: Mode of sale of ITK products by producers
Mode of sale
Mahajan
Middlemen
Govt. agency
Cooperative society
Exporters
Wholesalers
Selling to local shops; local consumers or in the local market
Processing agency
Others
Total
Nannari sharbat
0
(0.00)
8
(40.00)
0
90.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(10.00)
10
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
20
(100)
Respondents- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
0
(0.00)
9
(40.91)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
5
(22.73)
8
(36.36)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
22
(100.00)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
1
(12.50)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(12.50)
6
(75.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
8
(100.00)
400
Table-7.20: Whether producers’ are satisfied with mode of sale of ITK product: opinion of
producers
Satisfaction
Yes
No
Total
Nannari sharbat
9
90.00)
1
10.00)
10
100.00)
Respondents- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
9
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
9
(100.00)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
7
(100.00)
7
(100.00)
Table-7.21: Reasons for producer’s unsatisfaction over the mode of sale of ITK products
Reason
Nannari sharbat
-
Respondents- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
-
High input cost
-
-
Producers’ dilemma
-
-
Total
-
-
Low profit from venture
Buraansh Juice
7
(46.67)
1
(6.66)
7
(46.67)
15
(100.00)
Table-7.22: Price decision of producers over the sale of ITK products
Method
Bargain collectively
Bargain individually
Sale on minimum agreed price between our association
and purchasers
The purchaser offers us a price to which we usually agree
Total
Nannari sharbat
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
4
(26.66)
1
(6.67)
1
(6.67)
9
(60.00)
15
(100.00)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
10
(90.91)
1
(9.09)
0
(0.00)
11
(100.00)
Table-7.23: Producers’ constraints in production and marketing of ITK products
Constraints
Hindrances from agronomic/ natural factors
Low marketing infrastructure
Lack of proper government policy & assistance
No constraints
Labour scarcity
High competition
Difficulty in getting quality inputs
Product specific concerns
Market insecurity leading to low profitability
Nannari sharbat
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(11.11)
3
(33.33)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(22.23)
0
(0.00)
Respondents- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
1
(6.67)
5
(33.33)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(6.67)
3
(20.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(13.33)
2
(13.33)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
100.00
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
401
Constraints
Improper marketing services
Total
Nannari sharbat
3
(33.33)
9
(100.00)
Respondents- N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
1
(6.67)
15
(100.00)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
Table-7.24: Responses of producers of ITK products about willingness and expectations
from G.I. registration
Observation
Willingness for registration of product
Willingness for payment for registration
Non-registration leads to- low volume of sale
Non-registration leads to- low wages to labour
Non-registration leads to- low profit to producers
Non-registration leads to- difficulty in getting loans
Non-registration leads to- sale of fake product with same name
Post registration expectations- increase in sale*
Post registration expectations- increase in unit price
Post registration expectations- increase in net profit
Post registration expectations- less competition
Post registration expectations- market expansion
Post registration expectations- enhanced premium to producers
Post registration expectations- Shift from other livelihoods to RGI
Post registration expectations- improvement in overall socioeconomic conditions of producers
* Significant-1, Marginal-2, No increase-3
Respondents Agree- N (%)
Nannari
sharbat
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
7
(70.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
6
(60.00)
10
(100.00)
9
(90.00)
10
(100.00)
3
(30.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
8
(80.00)
10
(100.00)
Kokum Fruit
Juice
9
(90.00)
9
(90.00)
10
(100.00)
6
(60.00)
10
(100.00)
4
(40.00)
4
(40.00)
5
(50.00)
9
(90.00)
9
(90.00)
4
(40.00)
9
(90.00)
10
(100.00)
2
(20.00)
5
(50.00)
Table-7.25: Willingness of producers to pay for GI registration of ITK products
Amount (Rs)
Respondents N (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice Buraansh Juice*
500
0
9
3
(0.00)
(90.00)
(30.00)
1000
4
1
2
(40.00)
(10.00)
(20.00)
2000
4
0
0
(40.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3000
2
0
0
(20.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Total
10
10
5
(100)
(100)
(100)
* Only five respondents agreed to pay anything
Buraansh
Juice
10
(100.00)
6
(60.00)
7
(87.50)
7
(87.50)
7
(87.50)
7
(87.50)
1
(12.50)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
2
(100.00)
8
(100.00)
8
(80.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
402
Table-7.26: Enhanced premium over the prevailing cost after GI registration of the ITK
products as perceived by producers
Enhance premium (%)
Nannari sharbat
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
0
(0.00)
5
(50.00)
2
(20.00)
3
(30.00)
10
(100)
3
(33.33)
4
(44.45)
2
(22.22)
0
(0.00)
9
(100)
0-5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
Buraansh Juice
-
Opinion of institutional stakeholders regarding product scenario
Table-7.27: Method of inspection and quality control of ITK products as advised by
institutional stakeholders
Methods of inspection
Respondents N (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
No formal method of inspection and quality control
Extension, training and group communication
On-site advice and inspection
Total
1
(25.00)
1
(25.00)
2
(50.00)
4
(100.00)
1
(33.33)
1
(33.33)
1
(33.33)
3
(100.00)
Buraansh Juice
1
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(50.00)
2
(100.00)
Table-7.28: Methods of government defined quality assurance in ITK products
Methods of Govt. defined quality assurance
No quality assurance
Producers’ regulated raw material testing
Total
Respondents N (%)
Nannari sharbat Kokum Fruit Juice
1
2
(20.00)
(50.00)
4
2
(80.00)
(50.00)
5
4
(100.00)
(100.00)
Opinion of consumers regarding product scenario
Table- 7.29: Reasons for purchase of ITK products by consumers
Reason
Quality assurance
Traditional character
Reasonable price
Total
Nannari sharbat
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
Buraansh Juice
2
(40.00)
2
(40.00)
1
(20.00)
5
(100)
0
(0.00)
4
(80.00)
1
(20.00)
5
(100)
0
(0.00)
2
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(100)
Buraansh Juice
1
(33.33)
2
(66.67)
3
(100.00)
403
Table-7.30: Consumers’ suggestions for the areas of improvement in ITK products under
study
Suggestions
Nannari sharbat
3
(18.75)
3
(18.75)
1
(6.25)
3
(18.75)
5
(31.25)
1
(6.25)
16
(100)
Quality to be standardized
Innovative changes to be made keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and kept within reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
More publicity required
Others
Total
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
3
(21.43)
3
(21.43)
0
(0.00)
3
(21.43)
5
(35.71)
0
(0.00)
14
(100)
Buraansh Juice
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
4
(50.00)
4
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
8
(100)
Table-7.31: Preparedness of consumers to pay premium over the prevailing price for
registered ITK products
Enhance premium (%)
0-5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
Nannari sharbat
1
(20.00)
3
(60.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(20.00)
5
(100)
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
0
(0.00)
4
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
4
(100)
Buraansh Juice
-
Opinion of traders regarding product scenario
Table 7.32: Traders’ view that as a post registration effect, ITK product should provide
enhanced premium to the producers and traders
View
Yes
No
Total
Nannari sharbat
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
5
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
5
(100)
2
(40.00)
3
(60.00)
5
(100)
Buraansh Juice
-
404
Table-7.33: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing cost price of ITK
products after GI registration
Expected increase (%)
0-5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
Nannari sharbat
0
(0.00)
1
(20.00)
2
(40.00)
2
(40.00)
5
(100)
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
1
(50.00)
1
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(100)
Buraansh Juice
-
Table-7.34: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing selling price of GI
registered ITK products
Expected increase (%)
0-5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
Nannari sharbat
0
(0.00)
1
(20.00)
2
(40.00)
2
(40.00)
5
(100)
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
1
(50.00)
1
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(100)
Buraansh Juice
-
Table- 7.35: Traders view about the customers bargain in the prices of ITK products
Bargain
Yes
No
Total
Nannari sharbat
0
(0.00)
5
(100.00)
5
(100)
Respondents N (%)
Kokum Fruit Juice
0
(0.00)
5
(100.00)
5
(100)
Buraansh Juice
-
405
Annexure-VIII: Analytical Profile of Products Involving Registered GI- opinion of
stakeholders
A. Socio economic profile of producers
Table-8.1: Education level of family members of surveyed producers of RGI products
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna Toys
Srikalahasthi kalamkari
Coorg Orange
Educational level
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
1
2
2
4
0
8
8
1
4
5
(13.33)
(19.05)
(11.11)
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
6
3
9
(6.67)
(9.52)
(20.00)
3
8
6
14
1
3
4
5
5
10
(46.67)
(9.52)
(22.22)
4
3
2
5
11
5
16
2
3
5
(16.66)
(38.10)
(11.11)
5
2
0
2
5
3
8
4
2
6
(6.67)
(19.05)
(13.33)
6
2
1
3
2
0
2
7
3
10
(10.00)
(4.76)
(22.22)
Total
18
12
30
21
21
42
25
20
45
(100)
(100)
(100)
Code: Not literate- 1, Literate but below primary –2, Primary- 3, Secondary – 4, Higher Secondary – 5, Graduate &
above -6
Table-8.2: Skill level of family members of surveyed producers of RGI products
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna Toys
Srikalahasthi kalamkari
Skill level
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
1
0
0
0
3
1
4
(0.00)
(9.52)
2
25
21
46
6
10
16
(100.00)
(38.10)
3
0
0
0
2
3
5
(0.00)
(11.90)
4
0
0
0
10
7
17
(0.00)
(40.48)
Total
25
21
46
21
21
42
(100)
(100)
Code: No skill –1, Traditionally acquired in the family –2, Skill
traditionally and by training - 4
Coorg Orange
Female Total
N
N (%)
9
20
(45.45)
12
11
23
(52.27)
0
0
0
(0.00)
1
0
1
(2.27)
24
20
44
(100)
acquired through training –3, Skill acquired
Male
N
11
406
Table-8.3: Usual activity of family members of surveyed producers of RGI products
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna Toys
Srikalahasthi kalamkari
Coorg Orange
Activity
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
Male Female Total
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
N
N
N (%)
1
27
21
46
10
1
11
14
4
18
(100.00)
(26.19)
(40.00)
2
0
0
0
5
7
12
0
0
0
(0.00)
(28.57)
(0.00)
5
0
0
0
0
9
9
0
12
12
(0.00)
(21.43)
(26.67)
6
0
0
0
6
1
7
9
3
12
(0.00)
(16.67)
(26.67)
8
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
1
1
(0.00)
(7.14)
(2.22)
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
(0.00)
(0.00)
(4.44)
Total
27
21
46
21
21
42
25
20
45
(100)
(100)
(100)
Code: Self-employed – 1, Unpaid family enterprise worker- 2, Wage/salary worker – 3, Unemployed (seeking and/or
available for work –4, Household duties – 5, Student –6, Pensioners, social workers not in labour force etc- 7, Too
young or old to be active –8, Others - 9
Table-8.4: Monthly expenditure pattern of producers of RGI products
Expenditure items
Food Expenses
Health
Education
Others
Total
Average expenditure- Rs (%)
Chennapatna Toys Srikalahasthi kalamkari
3150
3460
(58.17)
(70.83)
622.22
470
(11.49)
(9.62)
1000
571.43
(18.47)
(11.70)
642.86
383.33
(11.87)
(7.85)
5415.08
4884.76
(100)
(100)
Coorg Orange
3922.22
(39.56)
640
(3.67)
2850
(28.75)
2500
(25.22)
9912.22
(100)
Table-8.5: Contribution of different sources in net annual income of producers of RGI
products
Annual income
Agriculture, horticulture, plantation, forestry
Livestock, poultry, fishing
Trading
Other enterprises
Wage/Salary income
Other income (pensions, property, remittance
received)
Total
Average Income- Rs (%)
Chennapatna
Srikalahasthi
Toys
kalamkari
0
10000
(0.00)
(12.86)
0
0
(0.00)
(0.00)
6500
0
(10.00)
(0.00)
8500
8000
(13.07)
(10.28)
50000
53800
(76.92)
(69.15)
0
6000
(0.00)
(7.71)
65000
77800
(100)
(100)
Coorg
Orange
112500
(31.1)
16666.67
(4.60)
120000
(33.17)
32500
(8.98)
80000
(22.12)
0
(0.00)
361666.67
(100)
407
Table-8.6: Pattern of household value of assets of producers of RGI products
Value of Assets
Average Value Rs (%)
Chennapatna
Toys
0
(0.00)
550000
(98.30)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
9500
(1.70)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
559500
(100)
Land (including water tanks, ponds)
Building
Machinery, implements
Transport equipments
Durable goods (TV/Fridge)
Other assets
Livestock Resources (Cow, Buffalo, Pig, Goat,
Poultry)
Total
Srikalahasthi
kalamkari
616666.67
(48.75)
575714.29
(45.51)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
16111.11
(1.27)
56500
(4.47)
0
(0.00)
1264992.07
(100)
Coorg
Orange
735000
(67.88)
136000
(12.56)
25000
(2.30)
62500
(5.77)
15600
(1.44)
12000
(1.10)
96666.67
(8.92)
1082766.67
(100)
Table–8.7: Welfare indicators of household members of surveyed producers of RGI
products
Welfare indicators
Get enough food every day (during last 30 days)
Have at least a pair of footwear (during last 30 days)
Have at least two sets of clothes (during last 30 days)
Fell sick or get injured (during last 30 days)
Total family members
Chennapatna Toys
49
(100)
49
(100)
49
(100)
10
(20.4)
49
Respondents N (%)
Srikalahasthi kalamkari
43
(84.3)
43
(84.3)
43
(84.3)
12
(23.5)
51
Coorg Orange
45
(100)
45
(100)
45
(100)
9
(20)
45
Table – 8.8: Mode of treatment obtained by household members of producers of RGI
products during their illness in last 30 days
Mode of treatment
No treatment
Treated at Hospital, Clinic or Dispensary
Treated by qualified medical doctor
Homeopathy, Ayurveda)
Treated by unqualified doctors/ persons
Home treatment
Total
(Allopathy,
Chennapatna
Toys
2
(20)
0
(0.00)
4
(40)
2
(20)
2
(20)
10
(100)
Respondents N (%)
Srikalahasthi
kalamkari
2
(16.7)
3
(25)
1
(8.3)
2
(16.7)
4
(33.3)
12
(100)
Coorg
Orange
2
(22.22)
6
(66.66)
1
(11.12)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
9
(100)
408
Table – 8.9: Range of amount spent on medical treatment by RGI producers in last 30 days
Total amount spent on treatment (Rs.)
Respondents N (%)
Chennapatna Toys Srikalahasthi kalamkari
50-100
2
(20.00)
4
(40.00)
4
(40.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
100-200
200- 500
500- 1000
>1000
Total
Coorg Orange
2
(22.2)
2
(22.2)
1
(11.1)
0
(0.00)
4
(44.4)
9
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
4
(57.14)
2
(28.57)
1
(14.28)
7
(100.00)
B. Opinion of producers
Table-8.10: If capacity to improve the production is available - type of assistance required
for increasing the production of RGI products
Type of assistance
Financial assistance
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
Marketing assistance
Total
Chennapatna toys
10
(33.3)
10
(33.3)
0
(0.00)
10
(33.3)
30
(100)
Respondents –N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
8
(47.06)
1
(5.88)
0
(0.00)
8
(47.06)
17
(100)
Coorg orange
10
(27.78)
7
(19.44)
9
(25.00)
10
(27.78)
36
(100)
Table-8.11: Type of storage utilized for RGI products
Type of storage
Plastic/ polythene
Bulk storage
Wrap in cloth/paper
Total
Chennapatna toys
Respondents –N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
0
(0.00)
9
(90.00)
1
(10.00)
10
(100.00)
Coorg orange
8
(80.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
10
(100.00)
-
Table-8.12: Problems faced in storage of RGI products
Type of storage
Chennapatna toys
No problem
Seasonal damage
Insufficient storage space, facilities & capacity
Total
10
100.00
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents –N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
0
(0.00)
8
(80.00)
2
(20.00)
10
(100.00)
Coorg orange
-
409
Table-8.13: Types of packaging used by RGI products enterprises
Nature of Packaging
Respondents –N (%)
Chennapatna toys
Srikalhasti kalamkari
Coorg orange
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(58.82)
0
(0.00)
7
(41.17)
0
(0.00)
17
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
3
(13.04)
8
(34.78)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(8.70)
10
(43.48)
23
(100.00)
Gunny /Jute bags
Wooden boxes
Metal/Machine packing
Glass bottles & containers
Plastic or polythene bags/ plastic cans
Corrugated card board boxes/paper boxes/cartons
Total
Table-8.14: Problems faced in packing by RGI products enterprises
Problems faced in packing
No problems
Deterioration of packing material
Total
Chennapatna toys
10
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents –N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
10
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
Coorg orange
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
Table – 8.15: Methods of inspection and quality control used at various stages of production
in RGI products enterprises
Inspection and quality control
Chennapatna toys
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
Production level on field
-
-
Harvesting level on field
-
-
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
Production level at establishment/workshop
Total
Table-8.16: Type of grading of finished RGI products
Type of grading
Grading on physical traits
Grading on qualitative traits
Total
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna toys
Srikalhasti kalamkari
Coorg orange
10
(50.00)
10
(50.00)
20
(100.00)
8
(44.44)
10
(55.56)
18
(100.00)
10
(83.33)
2
(16.67)
12
(100.00)
Coorg orange
8
(80.0)
2
(20.0)
10
(100.00)
410
Table-8.17: Financial and infrastructure needs of producers of RGI products
Observation
Adequate finance from financial institutions can increase the
production
Better marketing can increase the production
Producers have the capacity to improve production if marketing
outlets are improved
Scope for increasing production
Chennapatna
toys
9
(90.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
Coorg
orange
9
(90.00)
10
(100.00)
9
(90.00)
9
(90.00)
Table 8.18: Producer’s opinion about earnings from RGI product’s enterprise
Earning
Good
Average
Poor
Total
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna toys Srikalhasti kalamkari
10
0
100.00
(0.00)
0
9
(0.00)
(90.00)
0
1
(0.00)
(10.00)
10
10
(100)
(100)
Coorg orange
3
(30.00)
5
(50.00)
2
(20.00)
10
(100)
Table-8.19: If earning is average or poor - type of assistance required for increasing income
from the RGI products enterprise
Type of assistance
Financial assistance
Assistance in supply of machinery & equipments
Assistance in getting seeds, fertilizers etc
Marketing assistance
Total
Chennapatna toys
10
(33.3)
10
(33.3)
0
(0.00)
10
(33.3)
30
(100)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
10
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(50.00)
20
(100)
Coorg orange
9
(25.71)
7
(20.00)
9
(25.71)
10
(28.58)
35
(100)
Table-8.20: Need, protection and maintenance of product as GI: awareness, knowledge and
system of interest of producers of RGI products
Observation
Similar product sold with the same name
Significant competition to product
Uniqueness due to geographical origin
Knowledge that product can be protected as GI
Knowledge of post registration effects- authority to use product
name by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction to produce
within registered geographical area
Respondents agree N (%)
Chennapatna
Srikalhasti
toys
kalamkari
2
(20.00)
8
(80.00)
7
(70.00)
6
(60.00)
6
(60.00)
4
(40.00)
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
7
(70.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
Coorg
orange
0
(0.00)
7
(70.00)
8
(80.00)
3
(30.00)
9
(90.00)
10
(100.00)
411
Knowledge of post registration effects- restriction on trader to sell
product produced by registered producers
Knowledge of post registration effects- traders can be sued in
court of law
Knowledge of post registration effects- higher market value as a
community monopoly
Status of registration of product as GI
Availability of producers association/ marketing group
Membership of producers association/ marketing group
Production as per technical guidelines- of govt. dept
Production as per technical guidelines- of NGO
Production as per technical guidelines- producers association
Production as per self guidelines learnt from forefathers
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- follow technical
guidelines of govt
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- quality control
mechanism available
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- inspection by
govt., NGO, association
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- quality check by
purchaser
Maintenance & monitoring of production code- self control
without any formal mechanism
0
(0.00)
2
(20.00)
2
(20.00)
8
(80.00)
10
(100.00)
6
(60.00)
2
(20.00)
3
(30.00)
10
(100.00)
8
(80.00)
3
(30.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
6
(60.00)
10
(100.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
7
(70.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
7
(70.00)
9
(90.00)
2
(20.00)
3
(30.00)
10
(100.00)
7
(70.00)
10
(100.00)
7
(70.00)
8
(80.00)
2
(20.00)
10
(100.00)
9
(90.00)
8
(80.00)
1
(10.00)
8
(80.00)
10
(100.00)
10
(100.00)
Table-8.21: Mode of sale of RGI products by producers
Mode of sale
Mahajan
Middlemen
Govt. agency
Cooperative society
Exporters
Wholesalers
Selling to local shops; local consumers or in the local
market
Processing agency
Total
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna
toys
0
(0.00)
10
(20.83)
8
(16.67)
1
(2.09)
10
(20.83)
10
(20.83)
9
(18.75)
0
(0.00)
48
(100.00)
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
0
(0.00)
3
(13.64)
3
(13.64)
3
(13.64)
2
(9.09)
8
(36.36)
3
(13.64)
0
(0.00)
22
(100.00)
Coorg
orange
1
(1.64)
10
(16.39)
10
(16.39)
9
(14.76)
3
(4.91)
9
(14.76)
9
(14.76)
10
(16.39)
61
(100.00)
412
Table-8.22: Whether producers’ are satisfied with mode of sale of RGI product: opinion of
producers
Satisfaction
Yes
No
Total
Chennapatna toys
7
(70.00)
3
(30.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
2
(25.00)
6
(75.00)
8
(100.00)
Coorg orange
3
(30.00)
7
(70.00)
10
(100.00)
Table-8.23: Reasons for producer’s unsatisfaction over the mode of sale of RGI products
Reason
Low profit from venture
Intervention/ control of middle men
Insufficient institutional support
High input cost
Limited supply chain facilities
Total
Chennapatna toys
3
(37.5)
5
(62.5)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
-
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
4
(57.14)
1
(14.29)
2
(28.57)
0
(0.00)
-
8
(100.00)
7
(100.00)
Coorg orange
0
(0.00)
2
(22.22)
6
(66.67)
0
(0.00)
1
(11.11)
9
(100.00)
Table-8.24: Price decision of producers over the sale of RGI products
Method
Bargain collectively
Bargain individually
Sale on minimum agreed price between our association and
purchasers
The purchaser offers us a price to which we usually agree
Purchaser offers us a price to which we have to sell; there is no
other choice for us
Total
Chennapatna
toys
5
(25.00)
5
(25.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
20
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti
kalamkari
5
(50.00)
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(20.00)
2
(20.00)
10
(100.00)
Coorg
orange
10
(40.00)
1
(4.00)
8
(32.00)
6
(24.00)
0
(0.00)
25
(100.00)
Table-8.25: Respondent’s constraints in production and marketing of RGI products
Constraints
Hindrances from agronomic/ natural factors
Scarcity of skilled workers
High competition
Low marketing infrastructure
Financial difficulties
Chennapatna toys
-
Respondents-N (%)s
Srikalhasti kalamkari
-
2
(20.00)
7
(70.00)
-
2
(20.00)
0
(0.00)
-
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
Coorg orange
7
(38.89)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
7
(38.89)
0
(0.00)
413
Improper transportation arrangements
Difficulty in getting quality inputs
Improper marketing services
Manufacturing process is tedious, time & labor intensive
Total
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
-
0
(0.00)
1
(10.00)
-
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
7
(70.00)
10
(100.00)
2
(11.11)
0
(0.00)
2
(11.11)
0
(0.00)
18
(100.00)
Table-8.26: Willingness of respondents to pay for GI registration of RGI products
Amount (Rs)
500
1000
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna toys
8
(80.00)
0
(0.00)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
Coorg orange
9
(90.00)
1
(10.00)
Table-8.27: Responses of RGI producers about post-registration observation regarding
impact and change occurred
Observation
Post registration changes observed
Observed post registration changes- increase in annual
production*
Observed post registration changes- increase in unit price
Observed post registration changes- increase in net profit
Observed post registration changes- less competition
Observed post registration changes- market expansion
Observed post registration changes- enhanced premium to
producers
Observed post registration changes- Shift from other
livelihoods to RGI
Observed post registration changes- improvement in
overall socio-economic conditions of producers
Did they contribute money for registration
Chennapatna
toys
7
(70.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
9
(100.00)
2
(20.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
Respondents agree
Srikalhasti kalamkari
Coorg orange
8
(80.00)
2
(20.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
2
(20.00)
7
(70.00)
2
(20.00)
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(20.00)
3
(30.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
1
(10.00)
8
(88.89)
1
(10.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(10.00)
Table- 8.28: Producer’s response whether after registration of RGI products, the premium
to the producers has increased
Response
Yes
No
Total
Chennapatna toys
2
(20.00)
8
(80.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
2
(20.00)
8
(80.00)
10
(100.00)
Coorg orange
1
(10.00)
9
(90.00)
10
(100.00)
414
Table-8.29: Producers opinion about expected enhanced premium to the producers over
prevailing cost after GI registration of RGI products
Increase (%)
0-5
Chennapatna toys
2
(20.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
2
(20.00)
Coorg orange
1
(10.00)
Table – 8.30: Enhanced premium to the producers over the prevailing cost after GI
registration of the RGI products
Enhance premium (%)
0-5
5-10
10-15
Total
Chennapatna toys
3
(30.00)
7
(70.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalhasti kalamkari
10
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
10
(100.00)
Coorg orange
1
(10.00)
8
(80.00)
1
(10.00)
10
(100.00)
C. Opinion of institutional stakeholders
Table-8.31: Method of inspection and quality control of RGI products as advised by
institutional stakeholders
Methods of inspection
No formal method of inspection and quality control
In-situ methods by producers
Inspection by producer at level of manufacturing
process
Maintenance of voluntary and mandatory standards
Extension, training and group communication
On-site advice and inspection
Total
Chennapatna
toys
1
(33.33)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(33.33)
1
(33.33)
3
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti
kalamkari
0
(0.00)
2
(40.00)
3
(60.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
5
(100.00)
Coorg
Orange
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(50.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(50.00)
4
(100.00)
Table-8.32: Methods of government defined quality assurance in RGI products
Methods of Govt. defined quality assurance
No formal quality assurance
Producers’ regulated raw material testing
Quality check for exports
Regulating compliance for mandatory and voluntary
standards
Total
Chennapatna
toys
0
(0.00)
4
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
4
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti
kalamkari
1
(16.67)
5
(83.33)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
6
(100.00)
Coorg
Orange
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
1
(33.33)
2
(66.67)
3
(100.00)
415
Table-8.33: Problems faced by institutional stakeholders to obtain GI registration of RGI
products
Problems faced in GI Registration
Can’t say
Lack of responsiveness
None
Producers’ dilemma
Technical and administrative needs for GI registry
Total
Chennapatna toys
2
(66.67)
0
(0.00)
1
(33.33)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
3
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
0
(0.00)
1
(25.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(50.00)
1
(25.00)
4
(100.00)
Coorg Orange
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
3
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
3
(100.00)
Table-8.34: Constraints faced by institutional stakeholders in maintenance of registered GI
products
Problem Constraints faced in GI Registration
Respondents-N (%)
Chennapatna toys Srikalahasti kalamkari
Can’t say
2
(66.67)
1
(33.33)
0
(0.00)
3
(100.00)
None
Maintenance of quality
Total
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
4
(100.00)
4
(100.00)
Coorg Orange
0
(0.00)
3
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
3
(100.00)
D. Opinion of consumers
Table- 8.35: Reasons for purchase of RGI products by consumers
Reason
Chennapatna toys
5
(100)
5
(100)
Traditional character
Total
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
5
(100)
5
(100)
Coorg Orange
5
(100)
5
(100)
Table-8.36: Consumers’ suggestions for the areas of improvement in RGI products under
study
Suggestions
Quality to be standardized
Innovative changes to be made keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and kept within reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
More publicity required
Chennapatna toys
5
(20.00)
5
(20.00)
5
(20.00)
5
(20.00)
5
(20.00)
25
(100)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
0
(0.00)
5
(31.25)
2
(12.50)
4
(25.00)
5
(31.25)
16
(100)
Coorg Orange
0
(0.00)
2
(15.38)
3
(23.08)
5
(38.46)
3
(23.08)
13
(100)
416
Table-8.37: Preparedness of consumers to pay premium over the prevailing price for
registered RGI products
Enhance premium (%)
Chennapatna toys
3
(60.00)
1
(20.00)
0
(0.00)
0-5
5-10
10-15
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
3
(60.00)
0
(0.00)
2
(40.00)
Coorg Orange
1
(20.00)
1
(20.00)
0
(0.00)
E. Opinion of traders
Table 8.38: Traders’ view that as a post registration effect, RGI product should provide
enhanced premium to the producers and traders
View
Yes
No
Total
Chennapatna toys
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Coorg Orange
4
(80.00)
1
20
5
(100)
5
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
5
(100)
2
(40.00)
3
(60.00)
5
(100)
Table-8.39: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing cost price of RGI
products after GI registration
Expected increase (%)
Chennapatna toys
0
(0.00)
1
(20.00)
0-5
5-10
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
5
(100.00)
0
(0.00)
Coorg Orange
1
(20.00)
1
(20.00)
Table-8.40: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing selling price of GI
registered products
Expected increase (%)
0-5
5-10
Chennapatna toys
1
(20.00)
0
(0.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
5
(100)
0
(0.00)
Coorg Orange
1
(20.00)
1
(20.00)
Table- 8.41: Traders view about the customers bargain in the prices of RGI products
Bargain
Yes
No
Total
Chennapatna toys
5
(100)
0
(0.00)
5
(100.00)
Respondents-N (%)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
5
(100)
0
(0.00)
5
(100.00)
Coorg Orange
1
(20.00)
4
(80.00)
5
(100.00)
417
Annexure – IX: Opinion, knowledge, role and suggestions of institutional
stakeholders about agricultural and non-agricultural products
Table-9.1: Profile of institutional stakeholders
Number and percent of respondents
Agriculture Products Non Agriculture Products Total
Stakeholders
N
%
N
%
Govt. Dept./Agencies dealing with product
30
15.46
34
14.47
N
%
64 14.92
Govt. Dept./Agencies responsible for GI registration
25
12.89
26
11.06
51 11.89
Govt. supported apex bodies
27
13.92
28
11.91
55 12.82
Private institutions (NGO, SHG, intermediaries)
22
11.34
29
12.34
51 11.89
Govt./ Pvt. Marketing institutions
22
11.34
32
13.62
54 12.59
Producers association / formal & informal groups
20
10.31
27
11.49
47 10.96
Scientific Institutions / knowledgeable persons
24
12.37
28
11.91
52 12.12
Banks and financial institutions
24
12.37
31
13.19
Total
194
100
235
100
55 12.82
429 100
Table-9.2: Method of inspection and quality control of agricultural products as advised by
institutional stakeholders
Methods of inspection
No formal method of inspection and quality control
In-situ methods by producers
Maintenance of voluntary and mandatory standards
Extension, training and group communication
On-site advice and inspection
Scientific evidences
Total
I
0(0.00)
(0.00)
4(100)
(7.69)
14(77.78)
(26.92)
10 (37.04)
(19.23)
24(35.14)
(46.15)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
52(35.14)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
15(68.18) 4(18.18) 3(13.64)
(40.54)
(8.00)
(33.33)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
4(22.22)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(8.00)
(0.00)
5(18.52) 10(37.04) 2(7.41)
(13.51)
(20.00)
(22.22)
17(25.37) 22(32.84) 4(5.97)
(45.95)
(44.00)
(44.44)
0(0.00)
10(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(20.00)
(0.00)
37(25.00) 50(33.78) 9(6.08)
All
22
(14.86)
4
(2.70)
18
(12.16)
27
(18.24)
67
(45.27)
10
(6.76)
148
Table-9.3: Method of inspection and quality control of non-agricultural products as advised
by institutional stakeholders
Methods of inspection
No formal method of inspection and quality control
In-situ methods by producers
Inspection by producer at level of purchase of raw
material
Inspection by producer at level of manufacturing process
Inspection by producer at level of grading and
maintaining voluntary standards
Maintenance of voluntary and mandatory standards
V
6(18.18)
(27.27)
4(15.38)
(18.18)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
9(27.27) 10(30.30) 8(24.24)
(27.27)
(23.81)
(10.39)
3(11.54)
5(19.23) 14(53.85)
(9.09)
(11.90)
(18.18)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
12(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(15.58)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
24(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(31.17)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
19(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(24.68)
0(0.00)
7(100)
0(0.00)
All
33
(18.97)
26
(14.94)
12
(6.90)
24
(13.79)
19
(10.92)
7
418
Methods of inspection
Extension, training and group communication
On-site advice and inspection
Scientific evidences
Total
V
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
12(48)
(54.55)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
22(12.64)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
(0.00)
(16.67)
(0.00)
8(61.54)
5(38.46)
0(0.00)
(24.24)
(11.90)
(0.00)
13(52)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(39.39)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
15(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(35.71)
(0.00)
33(18.97) 42(24.14) 77(44.25)
All
(4.02)
13
(7.47)
25
(14.37)
15
(8.62)
174
Table-9.4: Comparative account of method of inspection & quality control in agricultural
and non-agricultural products as adviced by institutional stakeholders
Methods of inspection
No formal method of inspection and quality control
In-situ methods by producers
Inspection by producer at level of purchase of raw material
Agriculture
Products
22(40.00)
(14.86)
4(13.33)
(2.7)
-
Inspection by producer at level of manufacturing process
-
Inspection by producer at level of grading and maintaining
voluntary standards
Maintenance of voluntary and mandatory standards
-
Extension, training and group communication
On-site advice and inspection
Scientific evidences
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Non Agriculture
Products
33(60.00)
(18.97)
26(86.67)
(14.94)
12(100)
(6.9)
24(100)
(13.79)
All
55
(17.08)
30
(9.32)
12
(3.73)
24
(7.45)
18(72.00)
(12.16)
19(100)
(10.92)
7(28.00)
(4.02)
19
(5.90)
25
(7.76)
27(67.50)
(18.24)
67(72.83)
(45.27)
10(40.00)
(6.76)
148(45.96)
13(32.50)
(7.47)
25(27.17)
(14.37)
15(60.00)
(8.62)
174(54.04)
40
(12.42)
92
(28.57)
25
(7.76)
322
Table-9.5: Methods of government defined quality assurance in agricultural products
Methods of government defined quality assurance
No formal quality assurance
Producers’ regulated raw material testing
Quality check for exports
Regulating compliance for certification standards
Regulating compliance for mandatory and voluntary standards
Regulating post harvest practices and processes
Regulating production practices and inputs
Total
I
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
4(100)
(11.43)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
12(63.16)
(34.29)
11(20.00)
(31.43)
8(26.67)
(22.86)
35(24.48)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
19(82.61) 0(0.00)
4(17.39)
(40.43)
(0.00)
(40.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
6(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(60.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(12.77)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
7(36.84)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(13.73)
(0.00)
13(23.64) 31(56.36) 0(0.00)
(27.66)
(60.78)
(0.00)
9(30.00)
13(43.33) 0(0.00)
(19.15)
(25.49)
(0.00)
47(32.87) 51(35.66) 10(6.99)
All
23
(16.08)
6
(4.20)
4
(2.80)
6
(4.20)
19
(13.29)
55
(38.46)
30
(20.98)
143
419
Table-9.6: Methods of government defined quality assurance in non-agricultural products
Methods of Government defined quality assurance
No formal quality assurance
Producers’ regulated raw material testing
Regulating compliance for certification standards
Regulating compliance for mandatory and voluntary standards
Regulating production practices and inputs
Total
V
8(24.24)
(36.36)
14(16.09)
(63.63)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
22(12.64)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
7(21.21)
10(30.30) 8(24.24)
(18.91)
(21.74)
(11.59)
30(34.48) 0(0.00)
43(49.43)
(81.08)
(0.00)
(62.32)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
18(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(26.09)
0(0.00)
13(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(28.26)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
23(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(50.00)
(0.00)
37(21.26) 46(26.44) 69(39.66)
All
33
(18.97)
87
(50.00)
18
(10.34)
13
(7.47)
23
(13.22)
174
Table-9.7: Comparative account of methods of government defined quality assurance in
agricultural and non-agricultural products
Methods of government defined quality assurance
No formal quality assurance
Producers’ regulated raw material testing
Quality check for exports
Regulating compliance for certification standards
Regulating compliance for mandatory and voluntary
standards
Regulating post harvest practices and processes
Regulating production practices and inputs
Total
Agriculture
Products
23(41.07)
(16.08)
6(6.45)
(4.20)
4(100)
(2.80)
6(25.00)
(4.20)
19(59.38)
(13.29)
55(100)
(38.46)
30(56.60)
(20.98)
143(45.11)
Respondents – No. (%)
Non
Agriculture
Products
33(58.93)
(18.97)
87(93.55)
(50.00)
18(75.00)
(10.34)
13(40.63)
(7.47)
23(43.40)
(13.22)
174(54.89)
All
56
(17.67)
93
(29.34)
4
(1.26)
24
(7.57)
32
(10.09)
55
(17.35)
53
(16.72)
317
Table-9.8: Technical advice and training deliveries by institutional stakeholders for
improvement quality of agricultural products
Advice given to the producers
No advice/training
Advice/training facilitated through public organizations
Advice/training given directly on production aspects
Total
I
3(12.5)
(6.52)
27(40.30)
(58.70)
16(26.23)
(34.78)
46(30.26)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
16(66.67) 5(20.83)
0(0.00)
(37.21)
(8.93)
(0.00)
18(26.87) 22(32.84) 0(0.00)
(41.86)
(39.29)
(0.00)
9(14.75)
29(47.54) 7(11.48)
(20.93)
(51.79)
(100)
43(28.29) 56(36.84) 7(4.61)
All
24
(15.78)
67
(44.08)
61
(40.13)
152
420
Table-9.9: Technical advice & training deliveries by institutional stakeholders for
improvement quality of non-agricultural products
Advice given to the producers
No advice/training
Advice/training facilitated through public
organizations
Advice/training given directly on production
aspects
Total
V
12(36.36)
(57.14)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
9(9.78)
(42.86)
21(11.66)
Respondents – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
3(9.09)
10(30.30)
(7.69)
(21.27)
14(25.45) 22(40.00)
(35.89)
(46. 80)
22(23.91) 15(16.30)
(56.41)
(31.91)
39(21.67) 47(26.12)
VIII
8(24.24)
(10.95)
19(34.55)
(26.02)
46(50.00)
(63.01)
73(40.55)
All
33
(18.33)
55
(30.55)
92
(51.11)
180
Table-9.10: Comparative account of technical advice and training deliveries by institutional
stakeholders for improvement of quality of agricultural and non-agricultural products
Advice given to the producers
No advice/training
Advice/training facilitated through public organizations
Advice/training given directly on production aspects
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non Agriculture Products
24 (42.10)
33 (57.89)
(15.78)
(18.33)
67(54.92)
55 (45.08)
(44.08)
(30.55)
61 (39.87)
92 (60.13)
(40.13)
(51.11)
152 (45.78)
180 (54.21)
All
57
(17.16)
122
(36.75)
153
(46.08)
332
Table-9.11: Average price increments in supply chain of agricultural products
GI
Type
I
II
III
IV
All
Average percentage increase of price at different levels
Producer’s selling
over costs
16.54
10.10
17.60
12.44
14.17
Intermediaries supply over
purchase
17.61
32.22
19.17
23.75
23.18
Wholesaler’s selling over
purchase
17.13
30.23
19.03
17.61
21.00
Retailers selling over
purchase
31.90
19.64
20.21
20.38
23.03
Table-9.12: Average price increments in supply chain of non-agricultural products
GI
Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
All
Producer’s selling
over costs
20.00
10.70
16.04
20.89
16.90
Average percentage increase of price at different levels
Intermediaries supply over
Wholesaler’s selling over
purchase
purchase
12.95
11.5
23.57
14.39
12.11
13.11
21.56
22.02
17.54
15.25
Retailers selling over
purchase
9.50
25.3
13.98
28.27
19.26
Table-9.13: Average percent value of spatial distribution of sale of agricultural products
GI
Type
2004
2005
2006
Within the
In other As
Within the
In other As
Within the
In other As
region
parts of exports region
parts of exports region
parts of exports
where G.I. is India
where G.I. is India
where G.I. is India
claimed
claimed
claimed
I
47.5
24.0
20.93
46.7
27.05
22.5
44.62
13.84
21.70
II
86.65
23.3
10.0
77.9
21.65
10.0
76.25
13.32
12.0
III
51.75
78.68
39.18
51.10
75.70
30.7
52.13
80.4
38.6
IV
84.66
16.67
0.0
64.00
15.67
0.0
70.0
17.67
0.0
All
67.64
35.66
17.52
59.92
35.01
15.8
60.75
31.30
18.07
Note: The combined total of all the three categories in a year will not be 100% because these figures are average of
large no. of people where many have given there input for one or two categories only.
421
Table-9.14: Average percent value of spatial distribution of sale of non-agricultural
products
GI
Type
Within the
region
where G.I.
is claimed
80.0
53.36
57.68
72.44
65.87
2004
In other
parts of
India
As
exports
Within the
region
where G.I.
is claimed
85.0
53.10
58.57
70.56
66.80
2005
In other
parts of
India
As
exports
Within the
region
where G.I.
is claimed
78.45
52.92
67.88
77.84
69.27
V
26.0
10.0
20.0
15.0
VI
43.73
16.50
43.5
18.17
VII
36.14
21.18
38.20
17.55
VIII
38.84
33.18
47.19
29.22
All
36.17
20.21
37.22
19.98
nonagri
Note: The combined total of all the three categories in a year will not be 100% because these
of large no. of people where many have given there input for one or two categories only.
2006
In other
parts of
India
28.0
45.62
40.09
46.38
40.02
Respondents – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
All Agric. products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All non-agriculture Products
Increasing-1
19 (70.37)
(36.53)
10 (37.03)
(19.23)
18 (60.0)
(34.61)
5 (71.42)
(9.61)
52 (57.14)
9 (64.28)
(11.11)
16 (64.0)
(19.75)
29 (78.37)
(35.80)
27 (50.0)
(33.34)
81 (62.30)
Stationary-2
7 (25.92)
(26.92)
10 (37.03)
(38.46)
7 (23.34)
(26.92)
2 (28.57)
(7.69)
26 (28.57)
3 (21.42)
(13.04)
6 (24.0)
(26.08)
4 (10.81)
(17.39)
10 (18.51)
(43.47)
23 (17.69)
Declining-3
1 (3.70)
(7.69)
7 (25.92)
(53.84)
5 (16.66)
(38.46)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
13 (14.28)
2 (14.28)
(7.69)
3 (12.0)
(11.53)
4 (10.81)
(15.38)
17 (31.48)
(65.38)
26 (20.0)
Total
27
(29.67)
27
(29.67)
30
(32.96)
7
(7.69)
91
14
(10.76)
25
(19.23)
37
(28.46)
54
(41.53)
130
Table-9.16: Institutional stakeholders’ views on significant competition to products
Competition
Facing (yes)
Not Facing (No)
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non Agriculture Products
73 (38.42)
117 (61.57)
(64.60)
(82.97)
40 (62.5)
24 (37.5)
(35.39)
(17.02)
113 (44.58)
141 (55.52)
All
190
(74.80)
64
(25.19)
254
16.78
17.2
22.34
27.05
18.34
figures are average
Table-9.15: Trend of volume and value of marketing of products in last three years
GI Type
As
exports
422
Table-9.17: Institutional stakeholders’ views about major type of competition faced by
agricultural and non-agricultural products
GI type
Response to various forms of competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
Total
I
24(53.34)
11(24.45) 4(8.88)
6(13.33)
45
(38.09)
(33.33)
(40.0)
(26.08)
(34.88)
II
14(48.27)
10(34.48) 2(6.89)
3(10.34)
29
(22.23)
(30.30)
(20.0)
(13.04)
(24.48)
III
20(42.55)
9(19.14)
4(8.51)
14(29.78) 47
(31.74)
(27.27)
(40.0)
(60.86)
(36.43)
IV
5(62.5)
3(37.5)
0(0.0)
0(0.0)
8
(7.93)
(9.09)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(6.20)
Total-agriculture products
* 63 (48.83) 33 (25.58) 10(7.75)
23 (17.82) 129
V
7(41.17)
10(58.82) 0(0.0)
0(0.0)
17
(9.72)
(14.70)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(9.34)
VI
8(22.85)
11(31.42) 8(22.85)
8(22.85)
35
(11.11)
(16.17)
(38.09)
(36.76)
(19.23)
VII
26(38.80)
22(32.83) 9(13.43)
10(14.92) 67
(36.11)
(32.35)
(42.85)
(42.85)
(36.81)
VIII
31(49.20)
25(39.68) 4(6.34)
3(4.76)
63
(43.05)
(36.76)
(36.76)
(19.04)
(34.61)
Total- non Agriculture Products 72 (39.56)
68(37.36) 21(11.53) 21(11.53) 182
Note: Code [1.Same product produced in other areas of the country, 2. Similar duplicates in the country, 3. Similar
products imported into the country, 4. Competition in the export market from other countries producing similar
products]
Table-9.18: Institutional stakeholders’ views about supplementary types of competition
faced by agricultural and non-agricultural products
GI type
Agriculture products
Non Agriculture Products
All products
Response to various forms of competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
63(48.83)
33 (25.58) 10 (7.75)
23 (17.82)
(46.67)
(32.67)
(32.25)
(52.27)
72(39.56)
68 (37.36) 21 (11.53) 21 (11.53)
(53.33)
(67.32)
(67.74)
(47.72)
135 (43.40) 101(32.47) 31(9.96)
44(14.14)
Total
129
(41.47)
182
(58.52)
311
Note : Code [1.Competition from other products, 2. Consumer’s preference, 3. Less availability of the same produce, 4.
Competition from Producers group within]
Table-9.19: Institutional stakeholders views about import of products
Product
List of
Importing
countries
(Formal
channel)
GI Type 1: Fruits
Nasik grapes California
Australia
Israel
France
Italy
Chile
South
Africa
Himachal
America
apple
Ramnagar
China
litchi
List of
Importing
countries
(Informal
channel)
Price -Formal
channel
Rs/Kg
Price Informal
channel
Rs/Kg
Volume
of
import Formal
channel
(Tonnes)
Volume
of
import Informal
channel
(Tonnes)
Entry
point Formal
channel
Entry
point Informal
channel
China
150*
200
100-120
2500
Mumbai
Mumbai
50-60
China
Comparatively
less
Comparatively
less
423
Product
List of
Importing
countries
(Formal
channel)
List of
Importing
countries
(Informal
channel)
GI Type 2: Grains & Potato
No imports
GI Type 3: Spices & Plantation crops
Alleppy
Gautemala
Gautemala
cardamom
Price -Formal
channel
Rs/Kg
Price Informal
channel
Rs/Kg
Volume
of
import Formal
channel
(Tonnes)
Volume
of
import Informal
channel
(Tonnes)
Entry
point Formal
channel
Entry
point Informal
channel
150-160
150-200
Don’t
know
Don’t
know
Mumbai
Calcutta
(Via
Nepal)
Nilgiri tea
Srilanka
GI Type 4: Unexploited indigenous Products
No imports
GI Type 5: Confectionary
No imports
GI Type 6: Handicrafts
Chennapatna China
Less
toys
Saharanpur
Italy,
No Idea
furniture
Indonesia,
Turkey,
Malaysia,
China
GI Type 7: Manufactured products with organized trade
Mysore
Australia
sandal soap
China
Nilgiri oil
China
China
*Rs 260/lt
Rs 160/lt
Ferozabad
chundia &
Glassware
Khurja
pottery
Bombay
Bombay,
Kolkatha
All
shipyards
Shipyards
of India,
Mumbai
Mumbai
Calcutta
3 -20 t/
month
Japan
China
China
Indonesia
Bangladesh
GI Type 8: Textiles
Ludhiana
China
hosiery
Banarasi
China
China
Rs 500 per
saree
piece
*Average Price from all the countries
No idea
No idea
Table-9.20: Institutional stakeholders’ views about major methods to face competition
GI type
I
II
III
IV
Total-agric
products
V
VI
Responses for methods to face competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
5
24(15.68) 14(9.15)
23(15.03) 15(9.80)
26(16.99)
(30.76)
(41.17)
(33.34) (38.46)
(48.14)
20(22.47) 7(7.86)
19(21.34) 7 (7.86) 9 (10.11)
(25.64) (20.58)
(27.53) (17.94)
(16.66)
32(20.64) 12(7.74)
24(15.48) 12(7.74)
19(12.25)
(41.02) (35.29)
(34.78) (30.76)
(35.18)
2 (11.76) 1 (5.88)
3(17.64)
5(29.41)
0 (0.0)
(2.56)
(2.94)
(4.34)
(12.82)
(0.0)
78(18.84) 34(8.21)
69(16.67) 39(9.42)
54(13.04)
6
12(7.84)
(31.57)
7 (7.86)
(18.42)
19(12.25)
(50.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
38 (9.17)
7
17(11.11)
(50.0)
5 (5.61)
(14.70)
10 (6.45)
(29.41)
2 (11.76)
(5.88)
34 (8.21)
8
22(14.37)
(32.35)
15(16.85)
(22.05)
27(17.41)
(39.70)
4 (23.32)
(5.88)
68(16.42)
Total
153
(36.95)
89
(21.49)
155
(37.45)
17
(4.10)
414
9 (13.84)
(14.28)
14(10.93)
(22.23)
3 (4.61)
(6.12)
9 (7.03)
(18.36)
4 (6.15)
(5.55)
15(11.71)
(20.83)
9 (13.84)
(13.84)
20(15.62)
(30.76)
65
(12.62)
128
(24.85)
10(15.38)
(13.69)
19(14.84)
(26.02)
11(16.92)
(16.41)
17(13.28)
(25.37)
10(15.38)
(16.12)
15(11.71)
(24.19)
9 (13.84)
(14.06)
19(14.93)
(29.68)
424
GI type
VII
VIII
Responses for methods to face competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
5
22(13.25) 22(13.25) 21(12.65) 19(11.44) 25(15.06)
(34.92)
(30.13)
(31.34) (30.64)
(39.06)
18(11.53) 22(14.10) 18(11.53) 18(11.53) 11 (7.05)
(28.57) (30.13)
(26.86)
(29.03)
(17.18)
63(12.23) 73(14.17) 67 (13.0) 62(12.03) 64(12.42)
6
18(10.84)
(36.73)
19(12.17)
(38.77)
49 (9.51)
7
25(15.06)
(34.72)
28(17.94)
(38.88)
72(13.98)
8
14 (8.43)
(21.53)
22(14.10)
(33.84)
65(12.62)
Total
166
(32.23)
156
(30.29)
515
Total –non
Agriculture
Products
Note: Code [1.Production quality control and inspection quality assurance methods to be effectively introduced,
2.Through design and technological development, 3. Improvement of marketing methods, 4. Intensive publicity, 5.
Export-oriented development, 6. Cutting down production and marketing costs, 7. Organizing exhibitions, expos,
and market complexes etc., 8. Seeking GI Registration]
Table – 9.21: Supplementary views of institutional stakeholders about methods to face
competition
GI type
Agriculture products
Non Agriculture Products
All
Responses for methods to face competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1(6.25) 3(18.75) 1(6.25) 2(12.50) 7(43.75) 2(12.50)
-------
Total
16
--
Note: Code [1. Not much can be done, 2. Neat show room/ Small & big outlets dealing/ Proper location of
showroom, 3. Grading & Value added products, 4. Established mandi/ Organized marketing, 5.
Government recognition/Government intervention, 6.Provide Standardization]
Table-9.22: Institutional stakeholders’ views on presence of duplicate / copy type of the
agricultural products in the market
Views
No duplicates
Duplicates present in market
Inferior quality of duplicates
Duplicate from other area/ states are threat
Consumers prefer original products only
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
10(21.73) 17(36.95) 15(32.60) 4 (8.69)
(35.71)
(77.27)
(37.5)
(40.0)
3(17.64)
3(17.64)
7(41.17)
4(23.52)
(10.71)
(13.63)
(17.5)
(40.0)
8(38.09)
1(4.76)
12(57.14) 0 (0.0)
(28.57)
(4.54)
(30.0)
(0.0)
3(42.85)
0(0.0)
4(57.15)
0 (0.0)
(10.71)
(0.0)
(10.0)
(0.0)
4(44.45)
1(11.11)
2(22.22)
2(22.22)
(14.28)
(4.54)
(5.00)
(20.0)
28 (28.0) 22 (22.0)
40 (40.0) 10(10.0)
All
46
(46.0)
17
(17.0)
21
(21.0)
7
(7.00)
9
(9.00)
100
Table-9.23: Institutional stakeholders’ views on presence of duplicate / copy type of the nonagricultural products in the market
Views
No duplicates
Duplicates present in market
Inferior quality of duplicates
Duplicate from other area/ states are threat
Consumers prefer original products only
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
V
VI
VII
VIII
6 (15.0)
10 (25.0) 9 (22.5)
15 (37.5)
(25.0)
(37.03)
(20.45)
(36.58)
5 (22.72) 2 (9.09)
8 (36.36) 7 (31.81)
(20.83)
(7.40)
(18.18)
(17.07)
1 (7.69)
5 (38.46) 1 (7.69)
6 (46.15)
(4.16)
(18.51)
(2.27)
(14.63)
9 (18.0)
9 (18.0)
21 (42.0) 11 (22.0)
(37.5)
(33.33)
(47.72)
(26.82)
3 (22.27) 1 (9.09)
5 (45.45) 2 (18.18)
(62.5)
(3.70)
(11.36)
(4.87)
24(17.64) 27(19.85) 44(32.35) 41(30.14)
All
40
(29.41)
22
(16.17)
13
(9.55)
50
(36.76)
11
(8.08)
136
425
Table- 9.24: Institutional stakeholders’ suggested ways & means to face presence of
duplicates/copy type agricultural products in market
Ways and means
Administrative measures
Branding and labeling
Consumers discourage duplicates
High quality standards
IP protection
Legal enforcement
Promoting originals
Public awareness
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
2(10.53)
13(68.42) 2(10.53)
2(10.53)
(11.11)
(81.25)
(20)
(100)
5(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(27.78)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(12.5)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(40)
(0.00)
2(66.67)
1(33.33)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(11.11)
(6.25)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4(50)
0(0.00)
4(50)
0(0.00)
(22.22)
(0.00)
(40)
(0.00)
1(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(5.56)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(22.22)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
18(39.13)
16(34.78) 10(21.74) 2(4.35)
All
19
(41.30)
5
(10.87)
2
(4.35)
4
(8.70)
3
(6.52)
8
(17.39)
1
(2.17)
4
(8.70)
46
Table-9.25: Institutional stakeholders’ suggested ways & means to face presence of
duplicates/copy type non-agricultural products in market
Ways and means
Administrative measures
Consumers prefer original products only
High quality standards
IP protection
Legal enforcement
Public awareness
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
V
VI
VII
VIII
9(15.52)
9(15.52) 22(37.93) 18(31.03)
(56.25)
(47.37)
(59.46)
(69.23)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(11.54)
3(25)
3(25)
5(41.67)
1(8.33)
(18.75)
(15.79)
(13.51)
(3.85)
1(6.25)
6(37.5)
5(31.25)
4(25)
(6.25)
(31.58)
(13.51)
(15.38)
0(0.00)
1(16.67)
5(83.33)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(5.26)
(13.51)
(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(18.75)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
16(16.33) 19(19.39) 37(37.76) 26(26.53)
All
58
(59.18)
3
(3.6)
12
(12.24)
16
(16.33)
6
(6.12)
3
(3.06)
98
Table-9.26: Opinoin of institutional stakeholders about difference between imported and
domestic agricultural products
Aspect of difference
No imports
Non-awareness of producers
Imported product price cheaper
Imported product quality better
Imported product quality inferior
Total
I
3(27.27)
(13.04)
7(41.18)
(30.43)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
2(66.67)
(8.70)
11(34.38)
(47.83)
23(34.33)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
2(18.18)
1(9.09)
5(45.45)
(13.33)
(4.17)
(100)
5(29.41)
5(29.41)
0(0.00)
(33.33)
(20.83)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(20.83)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(33.33)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(4.17)
(0.00)
8(25)
13(40.63) 0(0.00)
(53.33)
(54.17)
(0.00)
15(22.39) 24(35.82) 5(7.46)
All
11
(16.42)
17
(25.37)
5
(7.46)
3
(4.48)
32
(47.76)
67
426
Table-9.27: Opinoin of institutional stakeholders about difference between imported and
domestic non-agricultural products
Difference
No imports
Non-awareness of producers
Imported product price cheaper
Processing of imported product
Imported product quality inferior
Quality difference
Total
V
10(55.56)
(83.33)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
2(100)
(16.67)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
12(12.77)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
3(16.67)
0(0.00)
5(27.78)
(20.00)
(0.00)
(13.16)
0(0.00)
5(50.00)
5(50.00)
(0.00)
(17.24)
(13.16)
3(14.29)
7(33.33)
11(52.38)
(20.00)
(24.14)
(28.95)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(13.79)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
9(23.08)
13(33.33) 17(43.59)
(60.00)
(44.83)
(44.74)
15(15.96) 29(30.85) 38(40.43)
All
18
(19.15)
10
(10.64)
21
(22.34)
4
(4.26)
2
(2.13)
39
(41.49)
94
Table-9.28: Suggestions of institutional stakeholders about measures to make production
economic viable and improve future prospects of agricultural products
Suggestion
Production level improvements
Post harvest level improvements
Quality standardization, maintenance and assurance
Government policy support
Good transport facilities
Good market practices
Publicity of the product
GI registration
Total
I
22(27.85)
(34.38)
((64.29)
(14.06)
6(28.57)
(9.38)
9(32.14)
(14.06)
3(100)
(4.69)
8(38.10)
(12.50)
4(26.67)
(6.25)
3(37.5)
(4.69)
64(33.86)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
22(27.85) 29(36.71) 6(7.59)
(55)
(41.43)
(40)
0(0.00)
5(35.71)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(7.14)
(0.00)
5(23.81)
9(42.86)
1(4.76)
(12.5)
(12.86)
(6.67)
8(28.57)
8(28.57)
3(10.71)
(20)
(11.43)
(20)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
5(23.81)
8(38.10)
0(0.00)
(12.5)
(11.43)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
6(40)
5(33.33)
(0.00)
(8.57)
(33.33)
0(0.00)
5(62.5)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(7.14)
(0.00)
40(21.16) 70(37.04) 15(7.94)
All
79
(41.80)
14
(7.41)
21
(11.11)
28
(14.81)
3
(1.59)
21
(11.11)
15
(7.94)
8
(4.23)
189
Table-9.29: Suggestion of institutional stakeholders about measures to make production
economic viable and improve future prospects of non-agricultural products
Suggestion
Production level improvements
Quality standardization, maintenance and assurance
Government policy support
Good marketing practices
Publicity of the product
GI registration
V
8(9.52)
(32)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
7(24.14)
(28)
4(17.39)
(16)
2(11.76)
(8)
2(40)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
18(21.43) 24(28.57) 34(40.48)
(50)
(43.64)
(42.5)
6(30.00)
9(45.00)
5(17.86)
(16.67)
(16.36)
(6.25)
7(24.14)
10(34.48) 5(17.24)
(19.44)
(18.18)
(6.25)
2(8.70)
1(4.35)
16(69.57)
(5.56)
(1.82)
(20)
0(0.00)
7(41.18)
8(47.06)
(0.00)
(12.73)
(10)
3(60)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
All
84
(42.86)
20
(10.20)
29
(14.80)
23
(11.73)
17
(8.67)
5
427
Suggestion
Restriction on import and duplicates
Can’t say
Total
V
(8)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
2(18.18)
(8)
25(12.76)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
(8.33)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
7(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(8.75)
0(0.00)
4(36.36)
5(45.45)
(0.00)
(7.27)
(6.25)
36(18.37) 55(28.06) 80(40.82)
All
(2.55)
7
(3.57)
11
(5.61)
196
Table-9.30: Institutional stakeholders’ opinion about current status of marketing of
agricultural products
Code/Opinion about current
status
1. Satisfactory
2. Not satisfactory
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
5(15.62)
10(31.25)
14(43.75)
(25.00)
(55.56)
(50.00)
15(39.47)
8(21.05)
14(36.85)
(75.00)
(44.44)
(50.00)
20(28.57)
18(25.72)
28(40.00)
IV
3(9.38)
(75.00)
1(2.63)
(25.00)
4(5.71)
All
32
(45.71)
38
(54.29)
70
Table-9.31: Institutional stakeholders’ opinion about current status of marketing of nonagricultural products
Code/Opinion about current status
1. Satisfactory
2. Not satisfactory
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
V
VI
VII
VIII
6(13.63)
12(27.27) 12(27.27) 14(31.81)
(54.55)
(92.31)
(80.00)
(56.00)
5(25.00)
1(5.00)
3(15.00)
11(55.00)
(45.45)
(7.69)
(20.00)
(44.00)
11(17.19) 13(20.31) 15(23.44) 25(39.06)
All
44
(68.75)
20
(31.25)
64
Table-9.32: Institutional stakeholders’ suggestions to improve marketing of agricultural
products
Suggestion
Organized and regulated markets
Post harvest facility-processing
Post harvest facility-storage
Post harvest facility-transportation
Special markets
Regulated price structure
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Good marketing practices
Government policy support
Publicity
Export avenues
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
10(41.67) 0(0.00)
14(58.33) 0(0.00)
(21.74)
(0.00)
(21.88)
(0.00)
5(71.43)
0(0.00)
2(28.57)
0(0.00)
(10.87)
(0.00)
(3.13)
(0.00)
5(62.5)
0(0.00)
3(37.5)
0(0.00)
(10.87)
(0.00)
(4.69)
(0.00)
4(80)
0(0.00)
1(20)
0(0.00)
(8.70)
(0.00)
(1.56)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(15.79)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4(30.77)
1(7.69)
8(61.54)
0(0.00)
(8.70)
(5.26)
(12.50)
(0.00)
4(21.05)
4(21.05)
11(57.89) 0(0.00)
(8.70)
(21.05)
(17.19)
(0.00)
6(37.5)
5(31.25)
5(31.25)
0(0.00)
(13.04)
(26.32)
(7.81)
(0.00)
5(21.74)
3(13.04)
10(43.48) 5(21.74)
(10.87)
(15.79)
(15.63)
(45.45)
1(11.11)
0(0.00)
2(22.22)
6(66.67)
(2.17)
(0.00)
(3.13)
(54.55)
2(15.38)
3(23.08)
8(61.54)
0(0.00)
(4.35)
(15.79)
(12.50)
(0.00)
46(32.86) 19(13.57) 64(45.71) 11(7.86)
All
24
(17.14)
7
(5.00)
8
(5.71)
5
(3.57)
3
(2.14)
13
(9.29)
19
(13.57)
16
(11.43)
23
(16.43)
9
(6.43)
13
(9.29)
140
428
Table-9.33: Institutional stakeholders’ suggestions to improve marketing of nonagricultural products
Suggestion
Organized and regulated markets
Regulated price structure
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Good marketing practices
Government policy support
Publicity
Export avenues
Involvement of ICTs
Restricting imports and duplicates
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
V
VI
VII
VIII
0(0.00)
2(14.29)
0(0.00)
12(85.71)
(0.00)
(7.41)
(0.00)
(20.00)
0(0.00)
1(25.00)
2(50.00)
1(25.00)
(0.00)
(3.70)
(4.76)
(1.67)
2(8.70)
9(39.13)
4(17.39)
8(34.78)
(16.67)
(33.33)
(9.52)
(13.33)
0(0.00)
1(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(3.70)
(0.00)
(0.00)
5(18.52) 5(18.52)
11(40.74) 6(22.22)
(41.67)
(18.52)
(26.19)
(10.00)
5(12.50) 2(5.00)
20(50.00) 13()
(41.67)
(7.41)
(47.62)
(21.67)
0(0.00)
4(26.67)
5(33.33)
6(40.00)
(0.00)
(14.81)
(11.90)
(10.00)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(11.11)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
14(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(23.33)
12(8.51) 27(19.15) 42(29.79) 60(42.55)
All
14
(9.93)
4
(2.84)
23
(16.31)
1
(0.71)
27
(19.15)
40
(28.37)
15
(10.64)
3
(2.13)
14
(9.93)
141
Table-9.34: General opinion of institutional stakeholders about the future prospects of
products under study
S.N.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
P.C.
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
Product
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Sehori genhu
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Telichery black pepper
Alleppy cardamom
Nilgiri tea
Dungarpur zinger
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
Respondents – No. (%)
Bright and likely to Likely to remain the
improve-1
same-2
37(94.87)
1(2.56)
3(75.00)
1(25.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
5(83.33)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
1(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
25(67.57)
9(24.32)
5(83.33)
1(16.67)
1(20.00)
1(20.00)
3(75.00)
1(25.00)
3(75.00)
1(25.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
2(50.00)
2(50.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
1(25.00)
3(75.00)
1(100)
0(0.00)
47(92.16)
4(7.84)
1(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
2(33.33)
4(66.67)
6(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
Likely
worsen-3
1(2.56)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(16.67)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(8.11)
0(0.00)
3(60.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
to
429
S.N.
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
P.C.
51
52
54
6
12
67
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
61
2
7
18
26
27
28
34
36
40
41
43
53
56
59
64
Product
Kumbhraj dhania
Fenugreek
Mahoba paan
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass material
Saharanpur furniture
Manufactured products with
organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Mysore sandal soap
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
Khurja pottery
Textiles
Gadwal saree
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Kancheepuram silk
Bandhani saree
Patola saree
Kutch embroidery
Paithani saree
Phulkari
Ludhiana hosiery
Jaipuri rajai
Sanganeri print
Banarasi saree
Lucknavi chikan
Bhadoi carpet
Kullu shawl
Respondents – No. (%)
Bright and likely to Likely to remain the
improve-1
same-2
4(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
29(85.29)
5(14.71)
5(100)
0(0.00)
2(50.00)
2(50.00)
2(100)
0(0.00)
20 (86.9)
3 (13.1)
4(66.67)
2(33.33)
1(100)
0(0.00)
5(83.33)
1(16.67)
6(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
30(83.3)
3(8.33)
6(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(100)
4(100)
0(0.00)
3(50.00)
1(16.67)
39(88.64)
4(9.09)
Likely
worsen-3
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(8.33)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(33.33)
1(2.27)
2(33.33)
5(100)
5(100)
3(100)
6(100)
5(100)
4(80.00)
3(100)
6(100)
58(90.63)
4(100)
6(100)
2(40.00)
0(0.00)
1(50.00)
4(100)
5(100)
2(100)
4(80.00)
6(100)
5(100)
5(83.33)
4(100)
6(100)
4(100)
1(16.67)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(50.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
6(9.38)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(60.00)
0(0.00)
1(50.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(16.67)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
to
430
Table-9.35: Institutional stakeholders’ response to product’s unique quality, reputation and
other characteristics attributing to geographical origin
Sl.No.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
Product code
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
Product
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Sehori genhu
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Telichery black pepper
Alleppy cardamom
Nilgiri tea
Dungarpur zinger
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
Kumbhraj dhania
Fenugreek
Mahoba paan
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass material
Saharanpur furniture
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Mysore sandal soap
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes-1
No-2
38(90.48) 4(9.52)
6(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
3(50.00)
3(50.00)
4(80.00)
1(20.00)
1(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
34(94.44) 2(5.56)
6(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
2(50.00)
2(50.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
50(96.15) 2(3.85)
0(0.00)
1(100)
4(100)
0(0.00)
5(83.33)
1(16.67)
6(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
10(100)
5(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
2(100)
0(0.00)
22(95.65) 1(4.35)
6(100)
0(0.00)
1(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
3(75.00)
1(25.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
33(94.29) 2(5.71)
6(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
2(100)
0(0.00)
3(60.00)
2(40.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
28(66.67) 14(33.33)
6(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
431
Sl.No.
Product code
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
20
21
39
42
47
55
61
2
7
18
26
27
28
34
36
40
41
43
53
56
59
64
Product
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
Khurja pottery
Textiles
Gadwal saree
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Kancheepuram silk
Bandhani saree
Patola saree
Kutch embroidery
Paithani saree
Phulkari
Ludhiana hosiery
Jaipuri rajai
Sanganeri print
Banarasi saree
Lucknavi chikan
Bhadoi carpet
Kullu shawl
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes-1
No-2
5(100)
0(0.00)
1(33.33)
2(66.67)
6(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
5(100)
1(33.33)
2(66.67)
5(83.33)
1(16.67)
48(72.73) 18(27.27)
5(83.33)
1(16.67)
6(100)
0(0.00)
4(80.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
2(100)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
6(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(100)
1(16.67)
5(83.33)
1(25.00)
3(75.00)
1(16.67)
5(83.33)
4(100)
0(0.00)
Table-9.36: Response for description of uniqueness of characteristics found in the product
being produced in the particular region, which cannot be achieved if, produced in other
geographical regions
Commodity
Agriculture products
Non-agriculture products
All
Respondents – No. (%)
Some response No response Total
158 (82.29)
34 (17.70)
192 (46.37)
(50.15)
(34.34)
157 (70.72)
65 (29.27)
222 (53.62)
(49.85)
(65.65)
315 (76.08)
99 (53.62)
414 (100)
Table-9.37: Opinion of institutional stakeholders about awareness of producers/sellers that
their product can be protected as community patent known as geographical indication
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
All Agriculture products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All non Agriculture products
Total Agri+ Non Agri Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes-1
No-2
Cant say-3
9(28.13)
16(50.00)
7(21.87)
3(11.11)
16(59.26)
8(29.63)
5(14.70)
22(64.71)
7(20.59)
2(28.57)
5(71.43)
0(0.00)
19(19.00)
59(59.00)
22(22.00)
7(50.00)
6(42.86)
1(7.14)
11(42.31)
4(15.38)
11(42.31)
7(20.59)
23(67.65)
4(11.76)
24(50.00)
16(33.33)
8(16.67)
49(40.16)
49(40.16)
24(19.68)
68(30.63)
108(48.65)
46(20.72)
432
Table-9.38: Awareness of institutional stakeholders’ whether the product under study is
registered under GI
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
All Agriculture products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All non Agriculture products
Total Agri+ Non Agri Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes-1
No-2
8 (19.51)
26 (63.41)
(50.0)
(30.23)
2 (5.56)
25 (69.44)
(12.5)
(29.06)
5 (10.20)
29 (59.18)
(31.25)
(33.72)
1 (10.0)
6 (60.0)
(6.25)
(6.97)
16(11.76)
86(63.24)
Cant say-3
7 (17.07)
(20.58)
9 (25.0)
(26.47)
15 (30.61)
(44.11)
3 (30.0)
(8.82)
34(25.0)
Total
41
(30.14)
36
(26.47)
49
(36.02)
10
(7.35)
136
12 (54.54)
(27.27)
10 (27.77)
(22.72)
6 (13.63)
(13.63)
16 (24.24)
(36.36)
44(26.19)
1 (4.54)
(10.0)
1 (2.78)
(10.0)
3 (6.81)
(30.0)
5 (7.57)
(50.0)
10(5.95)
22
60 (19.73)
9 (40.90)
(7.89)
25 (69.44)
(21.92)
35 (79.54)
(30.70)
45 (68.18)
(39.47)
114(67.85)
200 (65.78)
44 (14.47)
(13.09)
36
(21.42)
44
(26.19)
66
(39.28)
168
304
Table-9.39: Institutional stakeholders’ view about expected post-registration changes in
production and marketing of various types of agricultural products
*EC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
*T
I
Y
37(94.87)
(11.17)
39(97.50)
(11.78)
33(82.50)
(9.96)
36(90.00)
(10.87)
31(77.5)
(9.36)
29(70.73)
(8.76)
31(75.60)
(9.36)
38(95.00)
(11.48)
18(43.90)
(5.43)
39(95.12)
(11.78)
331(82.13)
Respondents to GI Types – No. (%)
III
N
C
Y
N
0(0.0)
4(10.53)
45(88.24)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
(5.55)
(12.32)
(0.0)
1(2.63)
6(15.79)
43(86.00)
1(2.00)
(7.14)
(8.34)
(11.78)
(5.0)
1 (2.70)
9 (24.33)
37(74.00)
1(2.00)
(7.14)
(12.5)
(10.13)
(5.0)
0 (0.0)
4 (10.81)
36(70.59)
1(1.96)
(0.0)
(5.55)
(9.86)
(5.0)
0 (0.0)
8(21.62)
41(80.39)
1(1.96)
(0.0)
(11.1)
(11.23)
(5.0)
1(2.70)
8(21.62)
37(72.55)
2 (3.92)
(7.14)
(11.1)
(10.13)
(10.0)
1 (2.70)
8 (21.62)
26(50.98)
4(7.84)
(7.14)
(11.1)
(7.12)
(20.0)
0(0.0)
8 (21.62)
41(80.40)
1 (1.96)
(0.0)
(11.1)
(11.23)
(5.0)
((25.00)
9 (25.00)
24(48.00)
9(18.00)
(64.28)
(12.5)
(6.57)
(45.0)
1 (2.63)
8 (21.05)
35(71.43)
0 (0.0)
(7.14)
(11.1)
(9.58)
(0.0)
14(3.76) 72(19.35) 365(72.28) 20(3.96)
II
N
0(0.00)
(0.0)
1(2.50)
(3.33)
3 (7.50)
(10.0)
0(0.0)
(0.0)
3(7.5)
(10.0)
4 (9.76)
(13.3)
5 (12.20)
(16.66)
0(0.00)
(0.0)
14(34.15)
(46.67)
0(0.00)
(0.0)
30 (7.44)
C
2(5.13)
(4.76)
0(0.00)
(0.0)
4 (10.00)
(9.52)
4(10.00)
(9.52)
6(15.00)
(14.28)
8(19.51)
(19.04)
5(12.20)
(11.90)
2(5.00)
(4.76)
9 (21.95)
(21.42)
2 (4.88)
(4.76)
42(10.42)
Y
34(89.47)
(11.88)
31(81.58)
(10.83)
27(72.97)
(9.44)
33(89.19)
(11.53)
29(78.38)
(10.13)
28(75.68)
(9.79)
28(75.68)
(9.79)
29(78.38)
(10.13)
18(50.00)
(6.29)
29(76.32)
(10.13)
286(76.88)
C
6(11.76)
(5.0)
6(12.00)
(5.0)
12(24.0)
(10.0)
14(27.45)
(11.6)
9(17.65)
(7.5)
12(23.53)
(10.0)
21(41.18)
(17.5)
9(17.65)
(7.5)
17(34.00)
(14.16)
14(28.57)
(11.66)
120(23.76)
Y
8(88.89)
(10.52)
8(88.89)
(10.52)
8(88.89)
(10.52)
9(100.0)
(11.84)
9(100.0)
(11.84)
8(88.89)
(10.52)
8(88.89)
(10.52)
8(88.89)
(10.52)
4(44.45)
(5.26)
6(75.00)
(7.89)
76(85.40)
IV
N
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0(0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
0 (0.00)
(0.0)
0 (0.0)
(0.00)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
1(11.11)
(50.0)
3(33.33)
(8.57)
0 (0.0)
(0.0)
4(4.49)
Note: *EC= Expected changes after GI Registration, T= Total number of respondents, Y = yes, N =- No, C =
Can’t say. Code [1. Product Quality has standardized/will become standard, 2.Product grading has improved /will
improve, 3.Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers only, 4.Income of
producers has increased/will increase, 5.Income of traders has increased/will increase, 6. Number of producers has
increased/will increase, 7. Producers are producing/will produce more, 8. Price of the product has increased/will
increase, 9. Producers have shifted/will shift from other livelihood activities, 10.Overall improvement in socio-eco
conditions of producers]
C
1(11.11)
(11.11)
1(11.11)
(11.11)
1(11.11)
(11.11)
0(0.0)
(0.0)
0(0.00)
(0.0)
1(11.11)
(11.11)
1(11.11)
(11.11)
0(0.00)
(0.0)
2(22.22)
(22.22)
2(25.00)
(22.22)
9(10.11)
433
Table-9.40: Institutional stakeholders’ view about expected post-registration changes in
production and marketing of various types of agricultural products in general
Expected changes after GI Registration
Product Quality has standardized/will become standard
Product grading has improved /will improve
Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers
only
Income of producers has increased/will increase
Income of traders has increased/will increase
Number of producers has increased/will increase
Producers are producing/will produce more
Price of the product has increased/will increase
Producers have shifted/will shift from other livelihood activities
Overall improvement in socio-eco conditions of producers
Total no. of responses
Total Agriculture Products
Yes
No.
Can’t say
124(90.51)
0(0.0)
13(9.49)
(11.72)
(0.0)
(5.34)
121(88.32)
(11.43)
105(77.21)
(9.92)
114(83.21)
(10.77)
110(80.29)
(10.39)
102(73.91)
(9.64)
93(67.39)
(8.79)
116(84.67)
(10.96)
64(47.06)
(6.04)
109(80.15)
(10.30)
1058(77.28)
3 (2.19)
(4.41)
5 (3.68)
(7.35)
1(0.73)
(1.47)
4 (2.92)
(5.88)
7(5.07)
(10.29)
10(7.25)
(14.70)
2 (1.46)
(2.94)
35(25.73)
(51.47)
1 (0.74)
(1.47)
68 (4.97)
13(9.49)
(5.34)
26(19.12)
(10.69)
22(16.06)
(9.05)
23(16.79)
(9.46)
29(21.01)
(11.93)
35(25.36)
(14.40)
19(13.87)
(7.81)
37(27.2)
(15.22)
26(19.11)
(10.69)
243(17.75)
Table-9.41: Institutional stakeholders’ view about expected post-registration changes in
production and marketing of various types of non-agricultural products
*EC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
*T
Y
19(86.36)
(12.34)
18(81.82)
(11.69)
21(95.45)
(13.64)
18(81.82)
(11.69)
17(77.27)
(11.04)
18(85.72)
(11.69)
14(66.67)
(9.09)
13(59.09)
(8.44)
2(9.09)
(1.29)
14(63.64)
(9.09)
154(70.64)
(100)
V
N
3(13.64)
(6.98)
3(13.64)
(6.98)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
4(18.18)
(9.30)
5(22.73)
(11.63)
1(4.76)
(2.33)
5(23.81)
(11.62)
6(27.27)
(13.95)
13(59.09)
(30.23)
3(13.64)
(6.98)
43(19.73)
(100)
C
0(0.00)
(0.00)
1(4.54)
(4.76)
1(4.55)
(4.76)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
2(9.52)
(9.52)
2(9.52)
(9.52)
3(13.64)
(14.29)
7(31.82)
(33.34)
5(22.72)
(23.81)
21(9.63)
(100)
Y
32(91.43)
(10.96)
28(80.00)
(9.59)
30(88.24)
(10.27)
31(88.57)
(10.62)
31(88.57)
(10.62)
32(88.88)
(10.96)
32(91.43)
(10.96)
26(74.28)
(8.90)
16(45.71)
(5.48)
34(97.14)
(11.64)
292(83.67)
(100)
Respondents to GI Types – No. (%)
VI
VII
N
C
Y
N
0(0.00)
3(8.57)
37(90.24)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(8.57)
(13.26)
(0.00)
1(2.86)
6(17.14)
35(87.50)
2(5.00)
(4.55)
(17.14)
(12.55)
(15.38)
2(5.88)
2(5.88)
29(72.50)
2(5.00)
(9.09)
(5.71)
(10.39)
(15.38)
3(8.57)
1(2.86)
30(75.00)
1(2.50)
(13.63)
(2.86)
(10.75)
(7.69)
2(5.71)
2(5.71)
29(72.50)
0(0.00)
(9.09)
(5.71)
(10.39)
(0.00)
2(5.56)
1(2.86)
22(55.00)
1(2.50)
(9.09)
(2.86)
(7.89)
(7.69)
1(2.86)
2(5.71)
27(67.50)
0(0.00)
(4.55)
(5.71)
(9.68)
(0.00)
1(2.86)
8(22.86)
30(75.00)
3(7.50)
(4.55)
(22.86)
(10.75)
(23.08)
9(25.71) 10(28.58) 14(35.90)
3(7.69)
(40.90)
(28.58)
(5.02)
(23.08)
1(2.86)
0(0.00)
26(65.00)
1(2.50)
(4.55)
(0.00)
(9.32)
(7.69)
22(6.30) 35(10.03) 279(69.75) 13(3.25)
(100)
(100)
(100)
(100)
C
4(9.76)
(3.70)
3(7.50)
(2.78)
9(22.50)
(8.33)
9(22.50)
(8.33)
11(27.50)
(10.19)
17(42.50)
(15.74)
13(32.50)
(12.04)
7(17.50)
(6.48)
22(56.41)
(20.37)
13(32.50)
(12.04)
108(27.00)
(100)
Y
57(87.69)
(11.20)
56(86.15)
(11.00)
53(82.81)
(10.41)
55(84.62)
(10.81)
55(84.62)
(10.81)
53(81.54)
(10.41)
52(80.00)
(10.22)
53(81.54)
(10.41)
23(35.38)
(4.51)
52(81.25)
(10.22)
509(78.55)
(100)
VIII
N
1(1.54)
(3.23)
1(1.54)
(3.23)
2(3.13)
(6.45)
2(3.07)
(6.45)
3(4.61)
(9.68)
4(6.15)
(12.90)
1(1.54)
(3.23)
2(3.07)
(6.45)
15(23.08)
(48.38)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
31(4.78)
(100)
Note: *EC= Expected changes after GI Registration, T= Total number of respondents, Y = yes, N =- No, C =
Can’t say. Code [1. Product Quality has standardized/will become standard, 2.Product grading has improved /will
improve, 3.Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers only, 4.Income of
producers has increased/will increase, 5.Income of traders has increased/will increase, 6. Number of producers has
increased/will increase, 7. Producers are producing/will produce more, 8. Price of the product has increased/will
increase, 9. Producers have shifted/will shift from other livelihood activities, 10.Overall improvement in socio-eco
conditions of producers]
C
7(10.77)
(6.48)
8(12.31)
(7.41)
9(14.06)
(8.33)
8(12.31)
(7.41)
7(10.77)
(6.48)
8(12.31)
(7.41)
12(18.46)
(11.11)
10(15.39)
(9.26)
27(41.54)
(25.00)
12(18.75)
(11.11)
108(16.67)
(100)
434
Table-9.42: Institutional stakeholders’ view about expected post-registration changes in
production and marketing of various types of non-agricultural products in general
Expected changes after GI registration
Product Quality has standardized/will become standard
Product grading has improved /will improve
Traders are purchasing/will purchase from actual and authorized producers
only
Income of producers has increased/will increase
Income of traders has increased/will increase
Number of producers has increased/will increase
Producers are producing/will produce more
Price of the product has increased/will increase
Producers have shifted/will shift from other livelihood activities
Overall improvement in socio-eco conditions of producers
Total number of responses
Total non-agriculture products
Yes
No
Can’t say
145(88.96)
4(2.45)
14(8.59)
(11.75)
(3.67)
(5.15)
137(84.57)
7(4.32)
18(11.11)
(11.10)
(6.42)
(6.62)
133(83.13)
6(3.75)
21(13.12)
(10.78)
(5.50)
(7.72)
134(82.72)
10(6.17)
18(11.11)
(10.86)
(9.18)
(6.62)
132(81.48)
10(6.17)
20(12.35)
(10.69)
(9.18)
(7.35)
125(77.64)
8(4.97)
28(17.39)
(10.13)
(7.34)
(10.29)
125(77.64)
7(4.35)
29(18.01)
(10.13)
(6.42)
(10.66)
122(75.31)
12(7.41)
28(17.28)
(9.89)
(11.00)
(10.29)
55(34.16) 40(24.84)
66(41.00)
(4.46)
(36.70)
(24.26)
126(78.26)
5(3.11)
30(18.63)
(10.21)
(4.59)
(11.02)
1234(76.41) 109(6.75) 272(16.84)
Table-9.43: Responsibility and functions of respondent’s office in relation to G.I.
registration in the State
Responsibility
Responses – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
No responsibility taken
7
(21.88)
8
(25.00)
8
(25.00)
9
(28.12)
32
Hiring IPR consultants
Creating awareness
Conventional activities
Total
9
(31.03)
14
(48.28)
6
(20.69)
0
(0.00)
29
Table-9.44: Concerned officers/ staffs undergone training to perform the duties assigned to
them in relation to G.I. registration
Product
Agriculture Products
Non-Agriculture Products
All agric+non agric.
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
No Answer
14(43.75) 12(37.50) 6(18.75)
11(29.73) 10(27.03) 16(43.24)
25(36.24) 22(31.88) 22(31.88)
Table-9.45: Average percentage of staff trained in GI registration
Agriculture Products
44.25
Non-Agriculture Products
47.5
All Agri+Non-Agri
45.88
435
Table-9.46: Information on proactive steps taken by institutional stakeholders for activating
awareness on and facilitating G.I. registration
Question
Agriculture Products
Y
IP
NP
14(51.85)
4(14.81)
9(33.33)
(11.02)
(21.05)
(6.92)
Responses – No. (%)
Non-Agriculture Products
Y
IP
NP
11(47.83)
6(26.09)
6(26.09)
(9.91)
(12.77)
(8.00)
Have you
distributed booklets, leaflets,
posters etc.?
Have you
10(37.04)
2(7.41)
15(55.56)
8(36.36)
communicated
(7.87)
(10.53)
(11.54)
(7.21)
the information
through TV/
Radio?
Have you
18(66.67)
1(3.70)
8(29.63)
13(59.09)
addressed group/
(14.17)
(5.26)
(6.15)
(11.71)
public meeting
for the purpose?
Have you
17(62.96)
1(3.70)
9(33.33)
12(54.55)
imparted the
(13.39)
(5.26)
(6.92)
(10.81)
needed training
to individuals/
groups?
Have you
9(36)
2(8)
14(56)
8(34.78)
engaged NGOs/
(7.09)
(10.53)
(10.77)
(7.21)
Consultants to do
the job on your
behalf?
Have you
12(48)
2(8)
11(44)
12(57.14)
assisted in
(9.45)
(10.53)
(8.46)
(10.81)
preparing and
submitting
application with
all details
Have you
9(37.5)
0(0.00)
15(62.5)
10(45.45)
analyzed the cost
(7.09)
(0.00)
(11.54)
(9.01)
of GI registration
in advance
Have you
10(41.67)
1(4.17)
13(54.17)
12(54.55)
analyzed the
(7.87)
(5.26)
(10.00)
(10.81)
expected benefits
of GI prior to its
registration
Whether the
13(52)
3(12)
9(36)
8(40.00)
product has a
(10.24)
(15.79)
(6.92)
(7.21)
database
Have you done
8(34.78)
0(0.00)
15(65.22)
10(47.62)
the analysis of
(6.30)
(0.00)
(11.54)
(9.01)
threat by Mills or
import from other
countries
Have you taken
7(31.82)
3(13.64)
12(54.55)
7(46.67)
any initiative to
(5.51)
(15.79)
(9.23)
(6.31)
stop infringement
of your GI
Total number of
127(46.01) 19(6.88)
130(47.10)
111(47.64)
respondents
Note: Code [Y = Yes, IP = in pipeline, NP = Not planned]
All Agri+ non- agri products
Y
IP
NP
25(50.00)
10(20.00) 15(30.00)
(10.50)
(15.5)
(7.32)
4(18.18)
(8.51)
10(45.45)
(13.33)
18(36.73)
(7.56)
6(12.24)
(9.09)
25(51.02)
(12.20)
3(13.64)
(6.38)
6(27.27)
(8.00)
31(63.27)
(13.03)
4(8.16)
(6.06)
14(28.57)
(6.83)
4(18.18)
(8.51)
6(27.27)
(8.00)
29(59.18)
(12.18)
5(10.20)
(7.58)
15(30.61)
(7.32)
5(21.74)
(10.64)
10(43.48)
(13.33)
17(35.42)
(7.14)
7(14.58)
(10.61)
24(50.00)
(11.7)
2(9.52)
(4.26)
7(33.33)
(9.33)
24(52.17)
(10.08)
4(8.70)
(6.06)
18(39.13)
(8.78)
4(18.18)
(8.51)
8(36.36)
(10.67)
19(41.30)
(7.98)
4(8.70)
(6.06)
23(50.00)
(11.22)
5(22.73)
(10.64)
5(22.73)
(6.67)
22(47.83)
(9.24)
6(13.04)
(9.09)
18(39.13)
(8.78)
5(25.00)
(10.64)
7(35.00)
(9.33)
21(46.67)
(8.82)
8(17.78)
(12.12)
16(35.56)
(7.80)
5(23.81)
(10.64)
6(28.57)
(8.00)
18(40.91)
(7.56)
5(11.36)
(7.58)
21(47.73)
(10.24)
4(26.67)
(8.51)
4(26.67)
(5.33)
14(29.79)
(5.88)
7(14.89)
(10.61)
26(55.32)
(12.68)
47(20.17)
75(32.19)
238(46.76)
66(12.97)
205(40.28)
436
Table – 9.47: Sources fom which money was provided for GI registration
Stakeholders
Government
Public financial institution
Producers’ association
Producers individually
NGO
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non-Agriculture Products
4
4
(30.77)
(28.57)
3
2
(23.08)
(14.29)
4
5
(30.77)
(35.71)
2
2
(15.38)
(14.29)
0
1
(0.00)
(7.14)
13
14
Table-9.48: Information regarding GI registration
Issue
Average cost (in Rs.)
% of respondents not responding to this question
Average contribution per person (in Rs.)
Total no.of infringement cases
Agriculture products
83200
6.75(49.09)
367
2(25.00)
Non-agriculture products
50000
7(50.91)
390
6(75.00)
All
66600
13.75(100)
378
8(100)
Table-9.49: Method of identification of producers for the purpose as co-applicant in GI
application
Method of identification
Through Survey
Through discussions and interactions
Through awareness camps
Through community registration in a society
Through producers association
Total
Response (%)
8
(42.10)
5
(26.32)
1
(5.26)
2
(10.53)
3
(15.79)
19
Table-9.50: Major problems in identifying the producers located at various places
Problem
No problem
Lack of awareness of GI registration
Non-awareness, mass organization, institutional constraints and attitude
of producers
Lack of product specific associations and variation in area under it
Lack of organized marketing organization
Total
Responses – No. (%)
Agric
Non-agric.
3(60.00)
2(40.00)
(27.28)
(12.50)
4(50.00)
4(50.00)
(36.36)
(25.00)
1(20.00)
4(80.00)
(9.09)
(25.00)
2(40.00)
3(60.00)
(18.18)
(18.75)
1(25.00)
3(75.00)
(9.09)
(18.75)
11(40.74)
16(59.26)
All
5
(18.52)
8
(29.63)
5
(18.52)
5
(18.52)
4
(14.81)
27
437
Table-9.51: Visualised expected benefits at the time of making application for GI
registration
Expected benefits
Can’t say
Market organization
Enhancing production and productivity
Economic and social welfare of producers
Enhancing regional, social and cultural benefits
Protection of production/sale rights
Enhancing profit
Total
Responses – No. (%)
Agric
Non-agric.
3(75.00)
1(25.00)
(17.65)
(3.45)
5(45.45)
6(54.55)
(29.42)
(20.69)
0(0.00)
5(100)
(0.00)
(17.24)
2(50.00)
2(50.00)
(11.76)
(6.90)
3(27.27)
8(72.73)
(17.65)
(27.59)
2(33.33)
4(66.67)
(11.76)
(13.79)
2(40.00)
3(60.00)
(11.76)
(10.34)
17(36.96) 29(63.04)
All
4
(8.70)
11
(23.91)
5
(10.87)
4
(8.70)
11
(23.91)
6
(13.04)
5
(10.87)
46
Table-9.52: Actions taken to stop infringement of GI
Action
Responses – No. (%)
Agric
Non-agric.
3(60.00)
2(40.00)
(27.27)
(13.33)
1(20.00)
4(80.00)
(9.09)
(26.67)
1(33.33)
2(66.67)
(9.09)
(13.33)
6(46.15)
7(53.85)
(54.55)
(46.67)
11(42.31) 15(57.69)
Can’t say
Pre-infringement legal enforcement actions
Administrative action at producers organization level
Post infringement legal enforcement actions
Total
All
5
(19.23)
5
(19.23)
3
(11.54)
13
(50.00)
26
Table-9.53: Deficiencies / difficulties found in getting G.I. registration
Deficiencies / difficulties
Deficiencies with respect to government departments
Deficiencies with respect to producers and collectivism
No deficiency reported
Total
Responses – No. (%)
Agric
Non-agric.
All
2(25.00)
6(75.00)
8
(14.29)
(46.15)
(29.63)
7(53.85)
6(46.15)
13
(50.00)
(46.15)
(48.15)
5(83.33)
1(16.67)
6
(35.71)
(7.70)
(22.22)
14(51.85) 13(48.15)
27
Table-9.54: Month wise sale activity of agriculture products as mentioned by institutional
stakeholders
S. N.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
P.C
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
Product Name
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Month wise activity schedule
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
3
4
1
4
3
1
1
2
3
3
2
4
4
1
1
2
4
3
4
4
4
2
1
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
1
4
4
2
4
2
3
4
1
4
4
2
1
1
4
4
1
4
4
3
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
3
1
1
4
3
4
4
2
3
1
1
4
2
4
4
3
2
1
2
4
1
4
3
4
4
1
3
4
1
2
2
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
2
438
S. N.
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
P.C
Product Name
68
Month wise activity schedule
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
2
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
13 Navara rice
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
1
4
3
3
4
17 Pokkali rice
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
4
1
1
24 Bhaliya wheat
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
37 Basmati rice
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
48 Sehori genhu
1
1
2
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
25 Kurnool rice
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
49 Malwa potato
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
65 Pahari aloo
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
1
1
69 Hill rajma
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Plantation crops & spices
4 Guntur chilli
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
10 Coorg coffee
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
14 Wayanadan tea
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
15 Telichery black pepper
3
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16 Alleppy cardamom
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
19 Nilgiri tea
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
46 Dungarpur zinger
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
50 Amleta & Mahadev garlic 1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
51 Kumbhraj dhania
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
52 Fenugreek
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
54 Mahoba paan
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
Unexploited indigenous products
6 Nannari sharbat
2
3
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
12 Kokum fruit juice
3
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
67 Buraansh juice
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note : Codes [ No Activity –1, Lean Activity –2, Normal Activity – 3, Peak Activity – 4] obtained on the basis of
highest frequency of respondents.
Table-9.55: Month wise sale activity of non-agriculture products as mentioned by
institutional stakeholders
S.
N.
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
P.C.
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
20
21
39
42
Product Name
Month wise activity schedule
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
4
3
4
Dodha
0
0
0
Bikaneri bhujia
3
3
3
Bikaneri rasgolla
3
3
3
Agra petha
2
2
3
Bal mithai
0
0
0
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
4
4
3
Chennapatana toys
3
3
3
Thanjaur art plate
4
3
3
Kolhapuri chappal
3
3
4
Warli paintings
3
4
4
Punjabi jooti
3
3
3
Moradabad brass material
3
3
3
Saharanpur furniture
4
4
4
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
4
4
4
Mysore sandal soap
3
3
3
Nilgiri oil
1
1
2
Sivakasi patakha
3
3
3
Harambha thresher
3
3
4
Makrana marble
3
3
4
4
0
3
3
4
0
4
0
3
3
4
0
4
0
3
2
4
0
3
0
3
3
4
0
3
0
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
4
0
3
0
3
4
4
0
3
0
3
4
4
0
4
0
3
4
2
0
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
3
3
4
2
1
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
4
4
3
4
4
2
1
3
4
4
3
4
2
3
1
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
1
4
3
4
3
4
1
3
4
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
4
4
1
3
4
3
4
3
1
2
3
3
4
2
1
3
439
S.
N.
21
22
P.C.
Product Name
47
55
Month wise activity schedule
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and
glassware
23
61 Khurja pottery
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
3
3
4
4
4
VIII
Textiles
24
2 Gadwal saree
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
25
7 Srikalahasti kalamkari
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
26
18 Kancheepuram silk
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
27
26 Bandhani saree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
27 Patola saree
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
29
28 Kutch embroidery
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
30
34 Paithani saree
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
4
4
3
31
36 Phulkari
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
40 Ludhiana hosiery
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
33
41 Jaipuri rajai
4
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
34
43 Sanganeri print
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
35
53 Banarasi saree
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
36
56 Lucknavi chikan
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
37
59 Bhadoi carpet
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
38
64 Kullu shawl
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
Note : Codes [ No Activity –1, Lean Activity –2, Normal Activity – 3, Peak Activity – 4] obtained on the basis of
highest frequency of respondents
Table-9.56: Comparative statement of month wise production and sale activity of
agricultural products as mentioned by respondents
S.
N.
I
1
P.C.
2
11
3
29
4
30
5
31
6
62
7
63
8
66
9
68
3
Product Name
Fruits
Banganpally
mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi
Dussheri
Himchal apple
Harshil apple
II
10
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
13
Njvara rice
11
17
12
24
13
37
14
48
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Sehori genhu
Factor
Month wise activity schedule
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
3
3
4
4
3
1
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
3
3
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
1
4
4
3
3
1
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
4
4
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
2
3
1
4
2
4
4
2
1
3
4
3
3
1
1
3
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
2
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
0
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
4
1
0
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
0
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
4
3
0
3
2
3
4
4
1
1
4
4
0
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
0
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
4
0
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
2
3
3
1
1
4
4
4
2
0
2
4
4
1
1
3
3
2
2
0
2
440
S.
N.
15
P.C.
Month wise activity schedule
Factor
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
25
Production 4
2
2
4
1
2
4
4
3
2
2
4
Kurnool rice
Sale
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
16 49
Production 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Malwa potato
Sale
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
17 65
Production 4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
Pahari aloo
Sale
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
1
1
18 69
Production 1
2
3
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
2
Hill rajma
Sale
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
III
Plantation crops & spices
19
4
Production 4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
4
4
3
Guntur chilli
Sale
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
20 10
Production 4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
Coorg coffee
Sale
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
21 14
Production 3
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Wayanadan tea
Sale
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
22 15 Telichery black
Production 4
4
3
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
2
4
pepper
Sale
3
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23 16 Alleppy
Production 3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
cardamom
Sale
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
24 19
Production 3
2
2
2
1
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
Nilgiri tea
Sale
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
25 46
Production 3
2
3
3
4
4
2
3
2
3
4
4
Dungarpur zinger Sale
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
26 50 Amleta &
Production 3
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
Mahadev garlic
Sale
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
27 51
Production 3
3
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
Kumbhraj dhania Sale
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
28 52
Production 2
3
4
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Fenugreek
Sale
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
29 54
Production 4
4
4
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
Mahoba paan
Sale
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
IV
Unexploited indigenous products
30
6 Nannari sharbat
Production 1
2
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Sale
2
3
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
31 12 Kokum fruit juice Production 3
3
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Sale
3
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
32 67 Buraansh juice
Production 1
2
3
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
2
Sale
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: Codes [ No Activity –1, Lean Activity –2, Normal Activity – 3, Peak Activity – 4] obtained on the basis of
highest frequency of respondents
Product Name
Table-9.57: Comparative statement of month wise production and sale activity of nonagricultural products as mentioned by respondents
S.
N.
P.C. Product Name
I
1
22
Confectionary
Tirunelveli halwa
2
38
Dodha
3
44
Bikaneri bhujia
4
45
Bikaneri rasgolla
5
58
Agra petha
Month wise activity schedule
Factor
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
Production
Sale
4
4
4
0
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
0
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
0
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
0
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
2
0
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
0
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
0
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
0
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
3
3
3
4
2
2
441
S.
N.
6
P.C. Product Name
70
II
7
5
8
8
9
23
10
32
11
33
12
35
13
57
14
60
III
15
1
16
9
17
20
18
21
19
39
20
42
21
47
22
55
23
61
IV
24
2
25
7
26
18
27
26
28
27
29
28
30
34
31
36
32
40
Bal mithai
Month wise activity schedule
Factor
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Production 4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
Sale
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Handicrafts
Kondapalli toys
Production
(bommalu)
Sale
Chennapatana toys Production
Sale
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
Production 4
4
3
Sale
4
3
3
Kolhapuri chappal Production 3
3
4
Sale
3
3
4
Warli paintings
Production 4
4
4
Sale
3
4
4
Punjabi jooti
Production 4
4
4
Sale
3
3
3
Moradabad brass
Production 1
3
3
material
Sale
3
3
3
Saharanpur
Production 4
4
3
furniture
Sale
4
4
4
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Production 3
3
3
Sale
4
4
4
Mysore sandal
Production 3
3
4
soap
Sale
3
3
3
Nilgiri oil
Production 2
2
4
Sale
1
1
2
Sivakasi patakha
Production 3
3
3
Sale
3
3
3
Harambha thresher Production 3
3
4
Sale
3
3
4
Makrana marble
Production 3
3
3
Sale
3
3
4
Jaipur blue pottery Production 2
2
2
Sale
4
4
4
Ferozabad chundia Production 4
4
4
and glassware
Sale
4
4
4
Khurja pottery
Production 4
4
3
Sale
4
4
4
Textiles
Gadwal saree
Production 4
4
4
Sale
4
3
3
Srikalahasti
Production 3
4
4
kalamkari
Sale
3
4
4
Kancheepuram
Production 4
3
2
silk
Sale
4
3
3
Bandhani saree
Production 4
3
3
Sale
0
0
0
Patola saree
Production 4
4
3
Sale
3
4
4
Kutch embroidery Production 4
3
3
Sale
4
3
4
Paithani saree
Production 4
4
4
Sale
3
3
3
Phulkari
Production 4
4
3
Sale
1
1
1
Ludhiana hosiery
Production 2
2
3
2
3
4
4
4
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
2
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
4
4
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
4
4
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
1
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
2
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
2
3
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
2
4
2
3
2
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
4
1
1
3
4
3
3
2
4
1
1
3
3
3
4
1
3
4
4
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
1
2
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
1
4
2
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
1
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
0
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
1
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
0
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
0
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
0
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
1
4
4
4
3
3
1
3
4
0
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
1
4
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
0
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
1
4
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
1
4
Thanjaur art plate
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
442
S.
N.
P.C. Product Name
Month wise activity schedule
Factor
Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Sale
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
33 41
Jaipuri rajai
Production 2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
Sale
4
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
34 43
Sanganeri print
Production 3
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Sale
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
35 53
Banarasi saree
Production 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
Sale
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
36 56
Lucknavi chikan
Production 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Sale
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
37 59
Bhadoi carpet
Production 4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Sale
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
38 64
Kullu shawl
Production 1
1
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
2
2
2
Sale
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
Note : Codes [No Activity –1, Lean Activity –2, Normal Activity – 3, Peak Activity – 4] obtained on the basis of
highest frequency of respondents
Table – 9.58: Average number of persons engaged in marketing of agricultural products
under study and payments made to them during the last operating month
Categories
Professional
Male
Female
All: Male+Female
No. Payment (Rs) No. Payment (Rs) No. Payment (Rs)
12.29
23291.35
15.13
12833.33
27.42
36124.68
Technicians
13.23
14716.67
15.86
14950
29.09
29666.67
Other Skilled Persons 44.87
45344.35
36.08
39093.18
80.95
84437.53
Unskilled Persons
7806.67
40.84
5240.29
79.45
13046.96
38.61
Table-9.59: Average number of persons engaged in marketing of non-agricultural products
under study and payments made to them during the last operating month
Categories
Professional
Male
Female
All: Male+Female
No. Payment (Rs) No. Payment (Rs) No. Payment (Rs)
12.57
53134.28
12.47
23288.57
25.04
76422.85
Technicians
14.18
Other Skilled Persons
Unskilled Persons
12652.58
8.06
8752
22.24
21404.58
17
38268.6
21.07
34271.59
38.07
72540.19
26.64
13659.14
41.86
18300.5
68.5
31959.64
Table-9.60: Institutional stakeholders’ views on unique characteristics of products giving
better sale value than the other products in the same category available in the markets
GI Type
Agriculture products
I
II
III
IV
Non Agriculture Products
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total Agri+ Non Agri Products
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
79(91.86)
7(8.14)
27(93.10)
2(6.90)
19(95.00)
1(5.00)
30(93.75)
2(6.25)
3(60.00)
2(40.00)
83(86.46)
13(13.54)
13(86.67)
2(13.33)
20(86.96)
3(13.04)
16(94.12)
1(5.88)
34(82.93)
7(17.07)
162(89.01)
20(10.99)
443
Table-9.61: Problems faced by institutional stakeholders to obtain GI registration of
products
Problem
Responses – No. (%)
Agric
Non-agric. All
29
19
48
(34.94) (20.43)
(27.27)
17
25
42
(20.48) (26.88)
(23.87)
7
8
15
(8.44)
(8.60)
(8.52)
11
26
37
(13.25) (27.96)
(21.02)
11
11
22
(13.25) (11.83)
(12.50)
8
4
12
(9.64)
(4.30)
(6.82)
83
93
176
Can’t say
Lack of responsiveness
None
Producers’ dilemma
Technical and administrative needs for GI registry
Lack of responsive government policy
Total
Table-9.62: Constraints faced by institutional stakeholders in maintenance of registered GI
products
Constraints
Can’t say
Ignorance about GI
None
Maintenance of quality
Administration for enforcement and monitoring
Producers’ attitude and cohesiveness
Marketing of product
Total
Responses – No. (%)
Agric
Non-agric. All
28
41
69
(38.89) (48.24)
(43.95)
6
10
16
(8.33)
(11.76)
(10.19)
8
5
13
(11.11) (5.88)
(8.28)
15
14
29
(20.83) (16.47)
(18.47)
7
9
16
(9.72)
(10.59)
(10.19)
5
11
6
(6.95)
(7.01)
(7.06)
3
0
3
(4.17)
(0.00)
(1.91)
72
85
157
Table – 9.63: Actions taken to stop infringement of GI
Product
Agriculture Products
Non-Agriculture Products
All Agri+Non-agri
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
2(100.00)
0
6(100.00)
0
8(100.00)
0
Table-9.64: Scientific endeavours for GI registration
Research Questions
Research Study for finding out the unique characteristics
Scientific experimentations to establish uniqueness
Initiative ness for GI registration
Technical intervention to stop infringement of the GI
Facilitation for G.I. Registration
Response Agri No. (%)
Yes
No
Response Non Agri Response Total –
– No. (%)
No. (%)
Yes
No
Yes
No
9(39.13) 14(60.87) 12(44.44) 15(55.56) 21(42.00) 29(58.00)
18(78.26) 5(21.74) 17(65.38) 9(34.62) 35(71.43) 14(28.57)
8(34.78) 15(65.22) 4(15.38) 22(84.62) 12(24.49) 37(75.51)
4(22.22) 14(77.78) 9(37.50) 15(62.50) 13(30.95) 29(69.05)
15(75.00) 5(25.00) 13(54.17) 11(45.83) 28(63.64) 16(36.36)
444
Table-9.65: Financial assistance rendered by banks and financial institutions to enterprises
and/or groups/organizations etc. engaged in production and/or other activities related to the
products under study
Product
Agriculture Products
Non-Agriculture Products
All agric. + non-agric.
Respondents – No. (%)
Yes
No
13(56.52) 10(43.48)
15(53.57) 13(46.43)
28(54.90) 23(45.10)
Table-9.66: Details of financial assistance rendered by banks and financial institutions to
enterprises
Year Average Number of recipients Assistance given for recipient (Rs.)Amount repaid % recovery
Agri
2004 9713
2005 10848
2006 12137
Non Agri
1008
1225
977.93
Total
5360
6036
6557
Agri
1363
1541
1568
Non Agri
1931
2089
1625
Total
1647
1815
1596
Agri Non Agri Total
67.17
38.13
52.65
68.01
7.51
37.76
75.85
1.15
38.5
Note: Reasons for less % amt repaid in Non agri- [1. No repayment done in Kondapalli toys, Sivakasi Patakha,
Muradabad Brass material, Saharanpur furniture, Khurja Pottery; 2. Not sure whether repayment is annual basis in nonagri product, unlike crop loan in agri product. Gestational period of repayment might be more for non-agriculture
products].
Table – 9.67: Reasons quoted by banks for not financing the enterprises
Reasons
None approached for assistance
No scheme available for such financing
Absence of GI registration
Recommendation for concerned Govt. Dept. needed
Non-availability of margin money
Repayment possibilities not guaranteed
Future prospect of the activity not bright
Others
Total
Responses – No. (%)
4
(21.05)
8
(42.11)
1
(5.26)
3
(15.79)
0
(0.00)
1
(5.26)
0
(0.00)
2
(10.53)
19(100)
Table-9.68: Bankers’ views on GI registration
Views
Ignorance of bankers towards GI
Systematized welfare of producers
Strengthening product as a organized sector of industrial good
Ensuring community IP rights
Easy financing and better client relatioship
Total
Responses – No. (%)
7
(16.28)
12
(27.91)
12
(27.91)
7
(16.28)
5
(11.62)
43
445
Table-9.69: Financial assistance already given by banks for GI registration for products
Response
Yes
No
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agri
Non Agri
Total
7(58.33)
5(41.67)
12
(33.33)
(19.23)
(25.53)
14(40.00) 21(60.00) 35
(66.67)
(80.77)
(74.47)
21(44.68) 26(55.32) 47
Table-9.70: Possibility of rendering financial assistance by banks for GI registration of
products
Response
Yes
No
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agri
Non Agri
All
17(51.52) 16(48.48) 33
(89.47)
(64.00)
(75.00)
2(18.18)
9(81.82)
11
(10.53)
(36.00)
(25.00)
19(43.18) 25(56.82)
44
Table-9.71: Banker’s views on the need for research and development of the agricultural
products
Need
Futuristic development
TQM
Enhance productivity
Risk mitigation
Can’t say
Total
Responses – No. (%)
8
(26.66)
13
(43.33)
5
(16.67)
2
(6.67)
2
(6.67)
30
Table-9.72: Bankers’ views on the need for research and development of the nonagricultural products
Need
Futuristic development
Systems development
Enhance export
Innovations
Enhance productivity
Social research
Total
Responses – No. (%)
6
(15.79)
7
(18.42)
2
(5.26)
7
(18.42)
11
(28.95)
5
(13.16)
38
446
Annexure – X: Opinion, knowledge and suggestions of consumers about agricultural
and non-agricultural products
Table-10.0: Profile of consumers
Male
258((69.73)
Urban
259(70.00)
Respondents – No. (%)
Female
Total Average age
112(30.27) 370
39 years
Rural
Total -111(30.00) 370
--
Table-10.1: Comparative statement of awareness of consumers about GI implications in
agricultural products
Observations
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product registered as GI
Quality assurance led consumers to purchase the product
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become standard
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase
Percent respondents agree
I
II
III
IV
96.36 97.83 94.55
100
17.31 22.22 22.64 33.33
74.20 75.00 61.11 71.43
60.78 39.54 54.00 16.67
80.39 81.82 75.00
100
80.39 84.85 60.87 86.67
82.00 72.73 54.17 93.33
Table-10.2: Comparative statement of awareness of consumers about GI implications in
non-agricultural products
Observations
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product registered as GI
Quality assurance led consumers to purchase the product
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become standard
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase
Percent respondents agree
V
VI
VII
VIII
100
87.50 91.30 86.42
27.59 47.37 16.28 85.33
40.00 66.67 44.44 60.61
46.43 26.47 56.10 17.74
89.65 100
76.74 70.83
82.76 60.00 76.74 59.72
72.42 71.43 54.76 48.61
Table-10.3: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in agricultural product: Fruits
Observations for GI type-I
Q. no.
Respondents- No. (%)
1
2
53(96.36) 2(3.64)
3
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to Q 2.01
--geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
Q 2.02
9(17.31)
43(82.69)
--If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get Q 2.03*
23(74.20) 4(12.90)
4(12.90)
product registered as GI*
What led consumers to purchase the product#
Q 2.04#
31(60.78) 17(33.34) 3(5.88)
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will Q
41(80.39) 2(3.92)
8(15.69)
become standard*
2.11.1*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will Q
41(80.39) 1(1.96)
9(17.65)
improve*
2.11.2*
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers Q
41(82.00) 0(0.00)
9(18.00)
will increase*
2.11.3*
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
55
52
31
51
51
51
50
447
Table-10.4: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in agricultural product: Grains,
potato
Observations for GI type-II
Respondents- No. (%)
1
2
45(97.83)
1(2.17)
3
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to
--geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
10(22.22)
35(77.78) --If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product 15(75.00)
1(5.00)
4(20.00)
registered as GI*
What led consumers to purchase the product#
17(39.54)
22(51.16) 4(9.30)
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become 27(81.82)
0(0.00)
6(18.18)
standard*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve*
28(84.85)
0(0.00)
5(15.15)
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase* 24(72.73)
1(3.03)
8(24.24)
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
46
45
20
43
33
33
33
Table-10.5: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in agricultural product:
Plantation crops and spices
Observations for GI type-III
Respondents- No. (%)
1
2
52(94.55)
3(5.45)
3
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to
--geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
12(22.64)
41(77.36) --If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product 11(61.11)
2(11.11)
5(27.78)
registered as GI*
What led consumers to purchase the product#
27(54.00)
14(28.00) 9(18.00)
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become 36(75.00)
0(0.00)
12(25.00)
standard*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve*
28(60.87)
2(4.35)
16(34.78)
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase*
26(54.17)
2(4.16)
20(41.67)
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
55
53
18
50
48
46
48
Table-10.6: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in agricultural product:
Unexploited indigenous products
Observations for GI type-IV
Respondents- No. (%)
1
2
15(100)
0(0.00)
3
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to
--geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
5(33.33)
10(66.67) --If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product 5(71.43)
0(0.00)
2(28.57)
registered as GI*
What led consumers to purchase the product#
2(16.67)
8(66.66)
2(16.67)
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become 15(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
standard*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve*
13(86.67)
0(0.00)
2(13.33)
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase* 14(93.33)
0(0.00)
1(6.67)
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
15
15
7
12
15
15
15
Table-10.7: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in non-agricultural product:
Confectionary
Observations for GI type-V
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to
geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product
registered as GI*
1
29(100)
8(27.59)
6(40.00)
Respondents- No. (%)
2
3
0(0.00)
--21(72.41)
1(6.67)
--8(53.33)
Total
29
29
15
448
Observations for GI type-V
1
13(46.43)
26(89.65)
Respondents- No. (%)
2
3
12(42.86) 3(10.71)
2(6.90)
1(3.45)
What led consumers to purchase the product#
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become
standard*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve*
24(82.76) 3(10.34)
2(6.90)
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase*
21(72.42) 4(13.79)
4(13.79)
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
28
29
29
29
Table-10.8: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in non-agricultural product:
Handicrafts
Observations for GI type-VI
1
35(87.50)
Respondents- No. (%)
2
3
5(12.50)
---
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to
geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
18(47.37) 20(52.63) --If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product 16(66.67) 1(4.16)
7(29.17)
registered as GI*
What led consumers to purchase the product#
9(26.47)
25(73.53) 0(0.00)
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become 35(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
standard*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve*
21(60.00) 1(2.86)
13(37.1)
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase*
25(71.43) 0(0.00)
10(28.5)
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
40
38
24
34
35
35
35
Table-10.9: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in non-agricultural product:
Manufactured products with organized trade
Observations for GI type-VII
1
42(91.30)
Respondents- No. (%)
2
3
4(8.70)
---
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to
geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
7(16.28)
36(83.72) --If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product 8(44.44)
2(11.12)
8(44.44)
registered as GI*
What led consumers to purchase the product#
23(56.10) 16(39.02) 2(4.88)
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become 33(76.74) 1(2.33)
9(20.93)
standard*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve*
33(76.74) 1(2.33)
9(20.93)
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase*
23(54.76) 2(4.76)
17(40.4)
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
46
43
18
41
43
43
42
Table-10.10: Awareness of consumers about GI implications in non-agricultural product:
Textiles
Observations for GI type-VIII
1
70(86.42)
Respondents- No. (%)
2
3
11(13.58) ---
Quality, reputation & traditional characteristics attributable to
geographical origin
Are consumers aware of GI Act?
64(85.33) 11(14.67) --If consumers are aware of GI Act, would they like to get product 20(60.61) 0(0.00)
13(39.3)
registered as GI*
What led consumers to purchase the product#
11(17.74) 44(70.97) 7(11.29)
Expected post registration changes: Product quality will become 51(70.83) 2(2.78)
19(26.3)
standard*
Expected post registration changes: Product grading will improve*
43(59.72) 5(6.94)
24(33.3)
Expected post registration changes: Number of consumers will increase*
35(48.61) 3(4.17)
34(47.2)
*For: Yes-1, No-2, Cant say-3. # For: Quality assurance-1, Traditional character-2, Reasonable price-3
Total
81
75
33
62
72
72
72
449
Table-10.11: Consumers’ suggestions for the areas of improvement in agricultural products
under study
Suggestions for improvement
Quality to be standardized
Innovative changes to be made
keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and kept within
reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
More publicity required
Others
Total
I
24(24.74)
(19.05)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
33(34.02)
34(35.05)
(28.45)
(27.64)
IV
6(6.19)
(15.79)
All
97
(24.07)
17(25.00)
(13.49)
27(36.00)
(21.43)
30(37.97)
(23.81)
24(32.00)
(19.05)
4(44.45)
(3.17)
126(31.27)
24(35.29)
(20.69)
14(18.67)
(12.07)
20(25.32)
(17.24)
22(29.33)
(18.97)
3(33.33)
(2.58)
116(28.78)
6(8.82)
(15.79)
1(1.33)
(2.63)
10(12.66)
(26.32)
14(18.67)
(36.84)
1(11.11)
(2.63)
38(9.43)
68
(16.87)
75
(18.61)
79
(19.60)
75
(18.61)
9
(2.24)
403
21(30.88)
(17.07)
33(44.00)
(26.83)
19(24.05)
(15.45)
15(20.00)
(12.20)
1(11.11)
(0.81)
123(30.52)
Table-10.12: Consumers’ suggestions for the areas of improvement in non-agricultural
products under study
Suggestions for improvement
Quality to be standardized
Innovative changes to be made
keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and kept within
reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
More publicity required
Others
Total
V
11(11.34)
(20.00)
6(6.52)
(10.91)
13(13.54)
(23.64)
11(18.03)
(20.00)
14(22.95)
(25.45)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
55(13.35)
VI
19(19.59)
(19.39)
25(27.17)
(25.51)
23(23.96)
(23.47)
12(19.67)
(12.24)
16(26.23)
(16.33)
3(60.00)
(3.06)
98(23.79)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VII
28(28.86)
(24.78)
22(23.91)
(19.47)
25(26.04)
(22.12)
21(34.43)
(18.58)
16(26.23)
(14.16)
1(20.00)
(0.89)
113(27.43)
VIII
39(40.21)
(26.72)
39(42.40)
(26.72)
35(36.46)
(23.97)
17(27.87)
(11.64)
15(24.59)
(10.27)
1(20.00)
(0.68)
146(35.43)
All
97
(23.54)
92
(22.33)
96
(23.30)
61
(14.81)
61
(14.81)
5
(1.21)
412
Table-10.13: Consumers’ preferential purchase of genuine agricultural products and their
willingness to pay extra for GI registered product
Observation
At the time of purchase of products, whether
consumers are sure that product is genuine
Whether consumers make any special effort to
purchase genuine product
As a post registration effect, whether consumers are
willing to pay more for the product
Respondents in agreement- No.(%) for each GI Type
I
II
III
IV
All
44(84.62) 30(90.91) 40(85.11) 14(93.33) 128(87.07)
24(46.15)
18(45.45)
26(55.32)
11(73.33)
79(53.74)
30(57.69)
21(63.64)
29(61.70)
9(60.00)
89(60.14)
Table-10.14: Consumers’ preferential purchase of genuine non-agricultural products and
their willingness to pay extra for GI registered product
Observation
At the time of purchase of products, whether
consumers are sure that product is genuine
Whether consumers make any special effort to
purchase genuine product
As a post registration effect, whether consumers
are willing to pay more for the product
Respondents in agreement- No.(%) for each GI Type
V
VI
VII
VIII
29(100.00) 33(94.28) 41(95.39) 72(94.74)
All
175(95.63)
17(58.62)
25(71.43)
32(74.42)
66(88.00)
140(76.92)
19(65.52)
24(68.57)
27(62.79)
41(55.41)
111(61.33)
450
Table-10.15: Preparedness of consumers to pay premium over the prevailing price for
registered agricultural products
Per cent premium
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
I
4(12.50)
(12.50)
16(39.02)
(50.00)
8(72.73)
(25.00)
4(57.13)
(12.50)
32(35.16)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
9(28.12)
18(56.25) 1(3.13)
(45.00)
(60.00)
(11.11)
8(19.51)
10(24.39) 7(17.07)
(40.00)
(33.34)
(77.78)
2(18.18)
1(9.09)
0(0.00)
(10.00)
(3.33)
(0.00)
1(14.29)
1(14.29)
1(14.29
(5.00)
(3.33)
) (11.11)
20(21.98) 30(32.97) 9(9.89)
All
32
(35.16)
41
(45.05)
11
(12.10)
7
(7.69)
91
Table-10.16: Preparedness of consumers to pay premium over the prevailing price for
registered non-agricultural products
Per cent premium
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
V
5(8.62)
(27.78)
7(21.21)
(38.89)
1(8.33)
(5.55)
5(55.56)
(27.78)
18(16.07)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
19(32.76) 15(25.86) 19(32.76)
(76.00)
(55.56)
(45.24)
5(15.15)
7(21.21)
14(42.43)
(20.00)
(25.92)
(33.33)
1(8.33)
3(25.00)
7(58.34)
(4.00)
(11.11)
(16.67)
0(0.00)
2(22.22)
2(22.22)
(0.00)
(7.41)
(4.76)
25(22.32) 27(24.11) 42(37.50)
All
58
(51.79)
33
(29.46)
12
(10.71)
9
(8.04)
112
Table-10.17: Special efforts made by consumers for purchase of genuine agricultural
products
Observations
Go to Government shop
Number of respondents giving rank
1
2
3
4
5 Final Score
A B
C
D E X
15 13 6
12 6 52
Get Authenticated Receipt
2
5
24
17
3
51
Authorized / Reliable & Reputed shop
31
25
12
5
1
74
See Label / Trade Mark
19
21
9
14
3
66
Note: ΣAx5+Bx4+Cx3+Dx2+Ex1=X; Code [a. Go to government shop; b. Get authenticated receipt; c. Authorized /
reliable & reputed shop; d. See label / trade mark]
Table-10.18: Special efforts made by consumers for purchase of genuine non-agricultural
products
Observations
Go to Government shop
Number of respondents giving rank
1
2
3
4
5 Final Score
A B
C
D E X
49 28 22 34 5 138
Get Authenticated Receipt
23
40
40
27
9
139
Authorized / Reliable & Reputed shop
59
42
22
16
0
139
See Label / Trade Mark
33
27
36
37
5
138
Any other
Note: ΣAx5+Bx4+Cx3+Dx2+Ex1=X; Code [a. Go to government shop; b. Get authenticated receipt; c. Authorized /
reliable & reputed shop; d. See label / trade mark]
451
Table-10.19: GI type-wise consumers’ preferential priority in order to purchase genuine
product
GI Type
Priority of approach*
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
I
d
b
a
c
II
c
b
a
d
III
b
c
d
a
IV
a
b
d
c
V
a
b
d
c
VI
b
d
a
c
VII
a
b
d
c
VIII
d
b
a
C
Note: Code [a. Go to government shop; b. Get authenticated receipt; c. Authorized / reliable & reputed shop; d. See
label / trade mark] obtained using preferential ranking method
Table-10.20: Product-wise summary of consumers’ preferential priority in order to
purchase genuine product
S.N
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
V
1
2
3
P.C
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
22
38
44
Product
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Sehori genhu
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Telichery black pepper
Alleppy cardamom
Nilgiri tea
Dungarpur zinger
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
Kumbhraj dhania
Fenugreek
Mahoba paan
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Priority of approach
1st
2nd 3rd 4th
c,d
b
a
d
b
c
d
a
c
d
a,d
b
c
a
b
c
b
a,b
c
c
d
d
a
c
c
b,d
c
d
b
b
b
b
a,d
c
c
a
c
d
a,d
c
c
c,d
a
b
b,d
a
a
b
c
d
b,c
a
d
a
d
c
5th
452
S.N
P.C
Product
Priority of approach
1st
2nd 3rd 4th
c
b
d
a
d
b
a
d
b
c
4
45 Bikaneri rasgolla
5
58 Agra petha
6
70 Bal mithai
VI
Handicrafts
7
5
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
d
a
b
8
8
Chennapatana toys
d
c
b
9
23 Thanjaur art plate
c
b
a
10
32 Kolhapuri chappal
b
a
d
11
33 Warli paintings
a
b
d
12
35 Punjabi jooti
b,d
a
c
13
57 Moradabad brass material
c
b
d
14
60 Saharanpur furniture
b
c
a
VII
Manufactured products with organized trade
15
1
Hyderabad pearls
a
d
b
16
9
Mysore sandal soap
17
20 Nilgiri oil
a
b
c
18
21 Sivakasi patakha
b
a
d
19
39 Harambha thresher
a,b
d
c
20
42 Makrana marble
d
a
c
21
47 Jaipur blue pottery
d
b
c
22
55 Ferozabad chundia and glassware
c
d
b
23
61 Khurja pottery
b,c
d
a
VIII
Textiles
24
2
Gadwal saree
b
d
c
25
7
Srikalahasti kalamkari
b
d
a
26
18 Kancheepuram silk
b
d
a
27
26 Bandhani saree
a
c,d
b
28
27 Patola saree
d
a,c
b
29
28 Kutch embroidery
b
d
c
30
34 Paithani saree
d
c
b
31
36 Phulkari
d
b
a
32
40 Ludhiana hosiery
a
c
b
33
41 Jaipuri rajai
d
b
a
34
43 Sanganeri print
d
c
b
35
53 Banarasi saree
b
a
36
56 Lucknavi chikan
d
b
a,c
37
59 Bhadoi carpet
a,b,c
38
64 Kullu shawl
a,d
b
c
Note: Code [a. Go to government shop; b. Get authenticated receipt; c. Authorized
label / trade mark] obtained using preferential ranking method
5th
c
a
c
c
a
d
c
d
c
b
a
a
a
c
c
a
a
c
d
c
a
/ reliable & reputed shop; d. See
453
Table-10.21: Consumers’ assessment of future prospects of the product under survey
S. N.
P.C.
Product
1
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
20
Fruits
Banganpally mango
3(33.33)
Coorg orange
0
Alphonso mango
5(100)
Nagpur orange
2(22.22)
Nasik grapes
1(20.00)
Malihabadi Dussheri
3(60.00)
Himachal apple
3(100)
Harshil apple
5(100)
Ramnagar litchi
4(100)
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
1(20.00)
Pokkali rice
0
Bhaliya wheat
0
Basmati rice
1(20.00)
Sehori genhu
0
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
0
Pahari aloo
0.00
Hill rajma
5(100.00)
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
2(40.00)
Coorg coffee
2(40.00)
Wayanadan tea
2(40.00)
Telichery black pepper
0
Alleppy cardamom
2(50.00)
Nilgiri tea
0
Dungarpur Ginger
2(40.00)
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
5(100)
Kumbhraj dhania
1(100)
Fenugreek
2(66.67)
Mahoba paan
0
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
2(40.00)
Kokum fruit juice
4(80.00)
Buraansh juice
5(100)
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
1(20.00)
Dodha
3(75.00)
Bikaneri bhujia
4(80.00)
Bikaneri rasgolla
1(20.00)
Agra petha
3(60.00)
Bal mithai
5(100)
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
1(20.00)
Chennapatana toys
0
Thanjaur art plate
0
Kolhapuri chappal
5(100)
Warli paintings
0
Punjabi jooti
2(40.00)
Moradabad brass material
0
Saharanpur furniture
3(75.00)
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
2(40.00)
Mysore sandal soap
0
Nilgiri oil
2(40.00)
2
Respondent – No. (%)
3
4
Total
6(66.67)
0
0
6(66.67)
4(80.00)
2(40.00)
0
0
0
0
5(100)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(11.11)
0
0
0
0
0
9
5
5
9
5
5
3
5
4
3(60.00)
1(20.00)
3(33.33)
3(60.00)
0
0
0
0
1(20.00)
2(40.00)
2(22.22)
1(20.00)
0
0
2(50.00)
0
0
2(40.00)
4(44.45)
0
0
0
2(50.00)
0
5
5
9
5
0
0
4
5
2(40.00)
1(20.00)
2(40.00)
1(20.00)
2(50.00)
4(80.00)
3(60.00)
0
0
1(33.33)
2(40.00)
0
2(40.00)
1(20.00)
4(80.00)
0
1(20.00)
0
0
0
0
3(60.00)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
1
3
5
3(60.00)
1(20.00)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
4(80.00)
1(25.00)
1(20.00)
4(80.00)
1(20.00)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(20.00)
0
5
4
5
5
5
5
3(60.00)
4(100)
4(80.00)
0
5(100)
1(20.00)
1(100)
0
1(20.00)
0
1(20.00)
0
0
2(40.00)
0
1(25.00)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
5
5
5
5
1
4
2(40.00)
5(100)
2(40.00)
1(20.00)
0
1(20.00)
0
0
0
5
5
5
454
S. N.
P.C.
Product
1
3(100)
1(20.00)
4(80.00)
6(85.71)
2(100)
5(100)
Respondent – No. (%)
2
3
4
0
0
0
2(40.00) 2(40.00) 0
1(20.00) 0
0
1(14.29) 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
18
21
Sivakasi patakha
3
19
39
Harambha thresher
5
20
42
Makrana marble
5
21
47
Jaipur blue pottery
7
22
55
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
2
23
61
Khurja pottery
5
VIII
Textiles
24
2
Gadwal saree
0
5(100)
0
0
5
25
7
Srikalahasti kalamkari
5(100)
0
0
0
5
26
18
Kancheepuram silk
1(20.00)
4(80.00) 0
0
5
27
26
Bandhani saree
2(40.00)
2(40.00) 1(20.00) 0
5
28
27
Patola saree
0
3(60.00) 2(40.00) 0
5
29
28
Kutch embroidery
5(100)
0
0
0
5
30
34
Paithani saree
4(80.00)
0
0
1(20.00) 5
31
36
Phulkari
2(40.00)
3(60.00) 0
0
5
32
40
Ludhiana hosiery
2(40.00)
3(60.00) 0
0
5
33
41
Jaipuri rajai
5(100)
0
0
0
5
34
43
Sanganeri print
5(55.56)
4(44.44) 0
0
9
35
53
Banarasi saree
0
5(100)
0
0
5
36
56
Lucknavi chikan
2(100)
0
0
0
2
37
59
Bhadoi carpet
2(40.00)
1(20.00) 2(40.00) 0
5
38
64
Kullu shawl
3(60.00)
2(40.00) 0
0
5
Note: Code [Very bright-1, Bright which could improve with changes-2, Stationary-3, Not bright-4]
455
Annexure-XI: Opinion, knowledge and Suggestions of traders about agricultural
and non-agricultural products
Table-11.1: Background of traders
Respondents – No. (%)
Urban
Rural
Total
263(70.13) 112(29.87)
375
Table-11.2: Basic types of trader
Type of trader
Consumers
Local shop-keepers
Sellers in special environment
Wholesaler
Showroom
Other
Total
Per cent
38(10.13)
168(44.80)
21(5.60)
73(19.47)
29(7.73)
46(12.27)
375
Table-11.3: Gender-wise distribution of traders
Male
348(92.80)
Respondents – No. (%)
Female
Total
27(07.20) 375(100.00)
Average age
42 years
Table-11.4: Trend of sales of the agricultural products under study according to traders
Trend in sale
I
38(41.76)
(71.70)
12(19.05)
(22.64)
3(10.72)
(5.66)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
53(29.12)
Sales increasing significantly
More or less stationary
Sales are declining
Very little or no sale at all
Total
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
20(21.98) 25(27.47) 8(08.79)
(44.45)
(33.78)
(80.00)
16(25.40) 33(52.38) 2(3.17)
(35.55)
(44.60)
(20.00)
9(32.14) 16(57.14) 0(0.00)
(20.00)
(21.62)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
45(24.73) 74(40.66) 10(5.49)
All
91
(50.00)
63
(34.62)
28
(15.38)
0
(0.00)
182
Table-11.5: Trend of sales of the non-agricultural products under study according to
traders
Trend in sale
Sales increasing significantly
More or less stationary
Sales are declining
Very little or no sale at all
Total
V
21(20.39)
(70.00)
5(7.14)
(16.67)
3(20.00)
(10.00)
1(20.00)
(3.33)
30(15.55)
VI
26(25.24)
(61.91)
11(15.72)
(26.19)
3(20.00)
(7.14)
2(40.00)
(4.76)
42(21.76)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VII
VIII
21(20.39)
35(33.98)
(45.65)
(46.67)
21(30.00)
33(47.14)
(45.65)
(44.00)
4(26.67)
5(33.33)
(8.70)
(6.66)
0(0.00)
2(40.00)
(0.00)
(2.67)
46(23.83)
75(38.86)
All
103
(53.37)
70
(36.27)
15
(7.77)
5
(2.59)
193
456
Table-11.6: Traders’ suggestions to improve sales of agricultural products
Suggestions to improve sale
Quality to be standardized
Innovative changes to be made
keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and kept
within reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
More publicity required
Others
Total
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
38(29.23)
46(35.38)
(29.92)
(30.46)
22(32.83)
20(29.85)
(17.32)
(13.25)
15(20.27)
31(41.89)
(11.81)
(20.53)
22(31.43)
15(21.43)
(17.32)
(9.93)
27(28.12)
34(35.42)
(21.26)
(22.52)
3(21.43)
5(35.71)
(2.37)
(3.31)
127(28.16)
151(33.48)
I
38(29.23)
(27.54)
18(26.87)
(13.04)
26(35.14)
(18.84)
28(40.00)
(20.29)
25(26.04)
(18.12)
3(21.43)
(2.17)
138(30.60)
IV
8(6.16)
(22.87)
7(10.45)
(20.00)
2(2.70) (5.71)
5(7.14)
(14.28)
10(10.42)
(28.57)
3(21.43)
(8.57)
35(7.76)
All
130
(28.82)
67
(14.86)
74
(16.41)
70
(15.52)
96
(21.29)
14
(3.10)
451
Table-11.7: Traders’ suggestions to improve sales of non-agricultural products
Suggestions to improve sale
Quality to be standardized
Innovative changes to be
made keeping traditional base
Price to be controlled and
kept within reasonable limits
Easy availability assured
More publicity required
Others
Total
V
10(10.00)
(17.25)
11(12.50)
(18.96)
10(13.16)
(17.25)
6(10.34)
(10.34)
20(21.74)
(34.48)
1(6.25)
(1.72)
58(13.49)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VII
25(25.00)
(24.51)
17(19.32)
(16.67)
21(27.63)
(20.59)
15(25.86)
(14.70)
21(22.83)
(20.59)
3(18.75) (2.94)
VI
27(27.00)
(22.31)
20(22.73)
(16.53)
22(28.95)
(18.19)
18(31.04)
(14.87)
26(28.26)
(21.49)
8(50.00)
(6.61)
121(28.14)
102(23.72)
VIII
38(38.00)
(25.50)
40(45.45)
(26.85)
23(30.26)
(15.44)
19(32.76)
(12.75)
25(27.17)
(16.78)
4(25.00)
(2.68)
149(34.65)
All
100
(23.26)
88
(20.47)
76
(17.67)
58
(13.49)
92
(21.39)
16
(3.72)
430
Table-11.8: Traders’ views on agricultural products under study
Question-observation
Unique characteristics of this product give better market
value than the other products in the same category
available in the markets
Due to unique characteristics, the sale of this product is
better than the other products in the same category
available in the markets
Satisfaction with the current earnings from the product
under study
As a registered GI, it should provide enhanced premium
to the producers and traders
Do the customers bargain the prices of these products
Respondents agree – No. (%)
GI Type
I
II
III
IV
51(32.28) 41(25.95) 56(35.44) 10(6.33)
All
158
47(32.19)
41(28.08)
49(33.56)
9(6.16)
146
32(37.65)
13(15.29)
30(35.29)
10(11.76)
85
41(34.17)
38(31.67)
34(28.33)
7(5.83)
120
33(37.5)
26(29.55)
29(32.95)
0(0.00)
88
457
Table-11.9: Traders’ views on non-agricultural products under study
Question-observation
Unique characteristics of this product give better market
value than the other products in the same category available
in the markets
Due to unique characteristics, the sale of this product is better
than the other products in the same category available in the
markets
Satisfaction with the current earnings from the product under
study
As a registered GI, it should provide enhanced premium to
the producers and traders
Do the customers bargain the prices of these products
V
29(16.20)
Respondents agree – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
38(21.23) 43(24.02) 69(38.55)
All
179
29(16.86)
37(21.51)
42(24.42)
64(37.21)
172
18(12.50)
26(18.06)
41(28.47)
59(40.92)
144
27(19.29)
32(22.86)
31(22.14)
50(35.71)
140
21(13.46)
41(26.28)
28(17.95)
66(42.31)
156
Table-11.10: Traders’ view on products facing significant competition
Competition
Facing (yes)
Not Facing
Total
Respondents – No. (%)
Agriculture Products Non Agriculture Products
100(41.15)
143(58.85)
(58.48)
(75.66)
71(60.68)
46(39.32)
(41.52)
(24.34)
171(47.50)
189(52.50)
All
243
(67.50)
117
(32.50)
360
Table-11.11: Major types of competition faced by agricultural products under study as
viewed by traders
GI type
Responses to various form of competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
Total
I
22(46.81) 18(38.30) 2(4.25)
5(10.64)
47
(40.00)
(38.30)
(15.39)
(20.00)
(33.57)
II
11(32.35) 16(47.06) 6(17.65) 1(2.94)
34
(20.00)
(34.04)
(46.15)
(4.00)
(24.29)
III
20(35.71) 12(21.43) 5(8.93)
19(33.93) 56
(36.36)
(25.53)
(38.46)
(76.00)
(40.00)
IV
2(66.67)
1(33.33)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3
(3.64)
(2.13)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(2.14)
All agricultural products 55(39.28) 47(33.57) 13(9.29) 25(17.86) 140
Note: Code [1.Same product produced in other areas of the country, 2. Similar duplicates in the country, 3. Similar
products imported into the country, 4. Competition in the export market from other countries producing similar
products]
Table-11.12: Major types of competition faced by non-agricultural products under study as
viewed by traders
GI type
Responses to various form of competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
Total
V
17(53.12) 15(46.88) 0(0.00)
0(0.00)
32
(20.48)
(17.24)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(14.68)
VI
8(17.78)
18(40.00) 12(26.66) 7(15.56)
45
(9.64)
(20.69)
(48.00)
(30.43)
(20.64)
VII
19(31.67) 22(36.67) 8(13.33)
11(18.33) 60
(22.89)
(25.29)
(32.00)
(47.83)
(27.52)
VIII
39(48.15) 32(39.51) 5(6.17)
5(6.17)
81
(46.99)
(36.78)
(20.00)
(21.74)
(37.16)
All non Agricultural Products 83(38.07) 87(39.91) 25(11.47) 23(10.55) 218
Note: Code [1.Same product produced in other areas of the country, 2. Similar duplicates in the country, 3. Similar
products imported into the country, 4. Competition in the export market from other countries producing similar
products]
458
Table-11.13: Other types of competition faced by agricultural and non-agricultural
products as viewed by traders
GI type
Response to various forms of competition – No. (%)
1
2
3
4
Total
Agriculture products
7(70.00) 1(10.00) 2(20.00) 0(0.00)
10
(53.85)
(33.33)
(50.00)
(0.00)
(40.00)
Non Agriculture Products 6(40.00) 2(13.33) 2(13.33) 5(33.33)
15
(46.15)
(66.67)
(50.00)
(100)
(60.00)
All
13(52.00) 3(12.00) 4(16.00) 5(20.00)
25
Note: Code [1.Competition from other products, 2. Consumer’s preference, 3. Less Availability of the same
produce, 4. Competition from Producers group within]
Table-11.14: Traders’ opinion about difference of imported and domestically produced
agricultural product
Aspects of difference
No imports
Non-awareness of producers
Imported product price cheaper
Imported product quality better
Imported product quality inferior
Total
I
0 (0.00)
(0.00)
2(100)
(13.33)
0 (0.00)
(0.00)
4(50.00)
(26.67)
9(18.37)
(60.00)
15(24.19)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
0 (0.00)
1(50.00) 1(50.00)
(0.00)
(3.23)
(100)
0 (0.00)
0 (0.00)
0 (0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0 (0.00)
1(100)
0 (0.00)
(0.00)
(3.23)
(0.00)
0 (0.00)
4(50.00)
0 (0.00)
(0.00)
(16.00)
(0.00)
15(30.61) 25(51.02) 0 (0.00)
(100)
(80.65)
(0.00)
15(24.19) 31(50.00) 1(1.61)
All
2
(3.23)
2
(3.23)
1
(1.61)
8
(12.90)
49
(79.03)
62
Table-11.15: Traders’ opinion about difference of imported and domestically produced
non-agricultural product
Aspects of difference
No imports
Imported product price cheaper
Processing of imported product
Quality difference
Traditional nature of indigenous products highly valued
Total
V
3(30.00)
(100.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
3(3.49)
Responses – No. (5)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
7(70.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(21.88)
(0.00)
(0.00)
5(22.73)
4(18.18) 13(59.09)
(15.63)
(17.39)
(46.43)
0(0.00)
5(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(21.74)
(0.00)
16(37.21) 14(32.56) 13(30.23)
(50.00)
(60.87)
(46.43)
4(66.67)
0(0.00)
2(33.33)
(12.5)
(0.00)
(7.14)
32(37.21) 23(26.74) 28(32.56)
All
10
(11.63)
22
(25.58)
5
(5.81)
43
(50.00)
6
(6.98)
86
Table-11.16: Traders’ opinion about methods to face competition in agricultural products
GI type
I
II
III
IV
Total
1
35(17.24)
(35.35)
18(21.17)
(18.18)
41(20.50)
(41.42)
5(22.73)
(5.05)
99(19.41)
2
18(8.87)
(34.62)
8(9.41)
(15.38)
25(12.50)
(48.07)
1(4.54)
(1.92)
52(10.20)
Responses for methods to face competition – No. (%)
3
4
5
6
7
34(16.75) 18(8.87) 29(14.28) 18(8.87) 31(15.27)
(37.77)
(38.30)
(44.62)
(40.00)
(63.27)
15(17.65) 10(11.76) 9(10.59)
7(8.24)
6(7.06)
(16.67)
(21.27)
(13.85)
(15.56)
(12.24)
36(18.00) 15(7.50) 24(12.00) 20(10.00) 12(6.00)
(40.00)
(31.92)
(36.92)
(44.44)
(24.49)
5(22.73)
4(18.18)
3(13.64)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(5.56)
(8.51)
(4.61)
(0.00)
(0.00)
90(17.65) 47(9.21) 65(12.75) 45(8.82)
49(9.61)
8
20(9.85)
(31.74)
12(14.12)
(19.05)
27(13.50)
(42.86)
4(18.18)
(6.35)
63(12.35)
All
20)
(39.80)
85
(16.67)
200
(39.22)
22
(4.31)
510
Note: Code [1.Production quality control and inspection quality assurance methods to be effectively introduced, 2.Through design and
technological development, 3. Improvement of marketing methods, 4. Intensive publicity, 5. Export-oriented development, 6. Cutting
down production and marketing costs, 7. Organizing exhibitions, expos, and market complexes etc., 8. Seeking GI Registration]
459
Table-11.17: Traders’ opinion about methods to face competition in non-agricultural
products
GI type
V
VI
VII
VIII
Total
1
9(9.09)
(13.23)
23(14.84)
(33.82)
19(13.38)
(27.94)
17(10.43)
(25.00)
68(12.16)
2
17(17.18)
(16.34)
23(14.84)
(22.12)
27(19.01)
(25.96)
37(22.70)
(35.58)
104(18.61)
Responses for methods to face competition – No. (%)
3
4
5
6
7
21(21.21)
21(21.21)
11(11.11)
4(4.04)
11(11.11)
(26.25)
(25.61)
(18.03)
(10.53)
(15.28)
18(11.61)
21(13.55)
19(12.26)
13(8.39)
20(12.90)
(22.50)
(25.61)
(31.15)
(34.21)
(27.78)
24(16.90)
21(14.79)
15(10.56)
9(6.34)
14(9.86)
(30.00)
(25.61)
(24.59)
(23.68)
(19.44)
17(10.43)
19(11.66)
16(9.82)
12(7.36)
27(16.56)
(21.25)
(23.17)
(26.23)
(31.58)
(37.50)
80(14.31)
82(14.67)
61(10.91)
38(6.80)
72(12.88)
8
5(5.05)
(9.26)
18(11.61)
(33.33)
13(9.15)
(24.08)
18(11.04)
(33.33)
54(9.66)
All
99
(17.71)
155
(27.73)
142
(25.40)
163
(29.16)
559
Note: Code [1.Production quality control and inspection quality assurance methods to be effectively introduced,
2.Through design and technological development, 3. Improvement of marketing methods, 4. Intensive publicity, 5.
Export-oriented development, 6. Cutting down production and marketing costs, 7. Organizing exhibitions, expos,
and market complexes etc., 8. Seeking GI Registration]
Table-11.18: Traders’ opinion about other supplementary methods to face competition in
agricultural and non-agricultural products
GI type
Agriculture products
Non Agriculture Products
Total
1
0(0.00)
(0.00)
5(55.56)
(100)
5(41.67)
Responses for methods to face competition – No. (%)
2
3
4
5
6
1(33.33) 0(0.00) 1(33.33) 1(33.33) 0(0.00)
(50.00)
(0.00)
(50.00)
(50.00)
(0.00)
1(11.11) 0(0.00) 1(11.11) 1(11.11) 1(11.11)
(50.00)
(0.00)
(50.00)
(50.00)
(100)
2(16.67) 0(0.00) 2(16.67) 2(16.67) 1(8.33)
Total
3
(25.00)
9
(75.00)
12
Note: Code [1.Not much can be done, 2. Neat show room/ Small & big outlets dealing/ Proper location of showroom,
3. Grading & Value added products, 4. Established mandi/ Organized marketing, 5. Government
recognition/Government intervention, 6.Provide Standardization]
Table-11.19: Traders’ views on presence of duplicate / copy type of the agricultural
products under study in the market
Views
No duplicates
Duplicates present in market
Inferior quality of duplicates
Duplicate from other area/ states are threat
Consumers prefer original products only
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
17(40.48) 8(19.05) 13(30.95)
4(9.52)
(68.00)
(27.58)
(22.03)
(30.77)
2(5.88)
11(32.35) 17(50.00) 4(11.77)
(8.00)
(37.93)
(28.81)
(30.77)
3(8.82)
7(20.59) 20(58.82) 4(11.77)
(12.00)
(24.14)
(33.90)
(30.77)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
3(60.00)
1(20.00)
(0.00)
(3.45)
(5.08)
(7.69)
3(27.27)
2(18.18)
6(54.55)
0(0.00)
(12.00)
(6.90)
(10.17)
(0.00)
25(19.84) 29(23.02) 59(46.82) 13(10.32)
All
42
(33.34)
34
(26.98)
34
(26.98)
5
(3.97)
11
(8.73)
126
460
Table-11.20: Traders’ views on presence of duplicate / copy type of the non-agricultural
products under study in the market
Code/Views
No duplicates
Duplicates present in market
Inferior quality of duplicates
Duplicate from other area/ states are threat
Consumers prefer original products only
Total
V
0(0.00)
(0.00)
9(28.13)
(28.13)
10(30.30)
(31.25)
12(24.49)
(37.50)
1(5.88)
(3.12)
32(18.60)
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
VI
VII
VIII
10(24.39)
15(36.59)
16(39.02)
(26.32)
(37.50)
(25.81)
1(3.12)
8(25.00)
14(43.75)
(2.63)
(20.00)
(22.58)
9(27.28)
6(18.18)
8(24.24)
(23.68)
(15.00)
(12.90)
12(24.49)
8(16.33)
17(34.69)
(31.58)
(20.00)
(27.42)
6(35.29)
3(17.65)
7(41.17)
(15.79)
(7.50)
(11.29)
38(22.09)
40(23.26)
62(36.05)
All
41
(23.84)
32
(18.60)
33
(19.19)
49
(28.49)
17
(9.88)
172
Table-11.21: Ways and means to face competition: Opinion of traders about agricultural
products
Ways and means
Public awareness
Legal enforcement
Administrative measures
Consumers discourage duplicates
High quality standards
Branding and labeling
IP protection
Promoting originals
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
5(83.33)
1(16.67)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(41.67)
(7.69)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3(42.86)
0(0.00)
4(57.14)
0(0.00)
(25.00)
(0.00)
(33.34)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
9(60.00)
6(40.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(69.23)
(50.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(66.67)
0(0.00)
1(33.33)
(0.00)
(15.39)
(0.00)
(100)
All
6
(15.79)
7
(18.42)
15
(39.47)
3
(7.89)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
2(100)
(16.67)
1(33.33)
(8.33)
1(100)
(8.33)
12(31.58)
1
(2.63)
2
(5.26)
3
(7.89)
1
(2.63)
38
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
1(33.33)
(7.69)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
13(34.21)
1(100)
(8.33)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
1(33.33)
(8.33)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
12(31.58)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
1(2.63)
Table-11.22: Ways and means to face competition: Opinion of traders about nonagricultural products
Ways and means
Public awareness
Legal enforcement
Administrative measures
High quality standards
IP protection
Administrative procedures
Administrative action
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
V
VI
VII
VIII
1(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(6.25)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
6(66.67)
3(33.33)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(27.27)
(20.00)
(0.00)
12(27.27) 12(27.27) 0(0.00)
20(45.45)
(75.00)
(54.54)
(0.00)
(71.43)
1(20.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
3(60.00)
(6.25)
(4.55)
(0.00)
(10.71)
2(20.00)
3(30.00)
0(0.00)
5(50.00)
(12.50)
(13.64)
(0.00)
(17.86)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
8(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(53.33)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(26.67)
(0.00)
16(19.75) 22(27.16) 15(18.52) 28(34.57)
All
1
(1.23)
9
(11.11)
44
(54.32)
5
(6.17)
10
(12.35)
8
(9.88)
4
(4.94)
81
461
Table-11.23: Traders’ opinion about current status of marketing of agricultural products
Code/Opinion about current status
1. Satisfactory
2. Not satisfactory
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
4(10.53)
9(23.68)
20(52.63) 5(13.16)
(30.77)
(56.25)
(54.05)
(62.50)
9(25.00)
7(19.44)
17(47.22) 3(8.33)
(69.23)
(43.75)
(45.95)
(37.50)
13(17.57) 16(21.62) 37(50.00) 8(10.81)
All
38
(51.35)
36
(48.65)
74
Table-11.24: Traders’ opinion about current status of marketing of non-agricultural
products
Code/Opinion about current status
1. Satisfactory
2. Not satisfactory
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
V
VI
VII
VIII
8(14.29)
13(23.21) 17(30.36) 18(32.13)
(50.00)
(56.52)
(80.95)
(51.43)
8(20.51)
10(25.64) 4(10.26)
17(43.59)
(50.00)
(43.48)
(19.05)
(48.57)
16(16.84) 23(24.21) 21(22.11) 35(36.84)
All
56
(58.95)
39
(41.05)
95
Table-11.25: Suggestions of traders to improve marketing of agricultural products
Suggestion
Organized and regulated markets
Post harvest facility-processing
Post harvest facility-storage
Post harvest facility-transportation
Export avenues
Regulated price structure
Good marketing practices
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Government policy support
Publicity
Special market
Total
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
I
II
III
IV
13(46.43)
0(0.00)
15(53.57) 0(0.00)
(30.95)
(0.00)
(19.23)
(0.00)
4(57.14)
0(0.00)
3(42.86)
0(0.00)
(9.52)
(0.00)
(3.85)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(100)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(3.85)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(16.67)
5(83.33)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(4.76)
(6.41)
(0.00)
4(44.44)
0(0.00)
5(55.56)
0(0.00)
(9.52)
(0.00)
(6.41)
(0.00)
3(23.07)
4(30.77)
6(46.15)
0(0.00)
(7.14)
(19.05)
(7.69)
(0.00)
1(14.29)
1(14.29)
5(71.42)
0(0.00)
(2.38)
(4.76)
(6.41)
(0.00)
6(20.69)
7(24.14) 16(55.17) 0(0.00)
(14.29)
(33.34)
(20.51)
(0.00)
5(25.00)
5(25.00)
6(30.00) 4(20.00)
(11.91)
(23.81)
(7.69)
(40.00)
6(22.22)
1(3.71)
14(51.85) 6(22.22)
(14.29)
(4.76)
(17.95)
(60.00)
0(0.00)
2(100)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(9.52)
(0.00)
(0.00)
42(27.81) 21(13.91) 78(51.66) 10(6.62)
All
28
(19.87)
7
(4.64)
3
(1.98)
6
(3.97)
9
(5.96)
13
(8.61)
7
(4.64)
29
(19.21)
20
(13.24)
27
(17.88)
2
(1.32)
151
Table-11.26: Suggestions of traders to improve marketing of non-agricultural products
Suggestion
Organized and regulated markets
Government policy support
Publicity
Good marketing practices
Export avenues
Responses to various GI types – No. (%)
V
VI
VII
VIII
0(0.00)
2(18.18)
6(54.55)
3(27.27)
(0.00)
(5.71)
(17.14)
(4.00)
5(14.71) 10(29.41)
3(8.82)
16(47.06)
(25.00)
(28.57)
(8.57)
(21.33)
12(25.00) 12(25.00) 9(18.75) 15(31.25)
(60.00)
(34.30)
(25.72)
(20.00)
0(0.00)
2(100.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(5.71)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(13.33)
0(0.00)
13(86.67)
All
11
(6.67)
34
(20.61)
48
(29.10)
2
(1.21)
15
462
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Regulated price structure
Involvement of ICTs
Restricting imports and duplicates
Total
(0.00)
3(10.00)
(15.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
20(12.12)
(5.71)
5(16.66)
(14.29)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
2(100)
(5.71)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
35(21.21)
(0.00)
11(36.67)
(31.43)
6(66.67)
(17.14)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
35(21.21)
(17.33)
11(36.67)
(14.67)
3(33.33)
(4.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
14(100)
(18.67)
75(45.46)
(9.09)
30
(18.18)
9
(5.45)
2
(1.21)
14
(8.48)
165
Table-11.27: Traders’ opinion about future prospects of products under study
S.
N.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
Product Name
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Sehori genhu
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Telichery black pepper
Alleppy cardamom
Nilgiri tea
Dungarpur zinger
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
Kumbhraj dhania
Fenugreek
Mahoba paan
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Bright and likely to
improve-1
Respondents – No. (%)
Likely to remain the
same-2
Likely to worsen3
9(100.00)
1(20.00)
4(100)
6(75.00)
3(60.00)
5(100.00)
4(80.00)
5(100.00)
5(100.00)
0(0.00)
4(80.00)
0(0.00)
2(25.00)
2(40.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
1(12.50)
4(80.00)
---4(100.00)
5(100.00)
4(80.00)
0(0.00)
3(37.50)
0(0.00)
------
0(0.00)
5(100.00)
4(50.00)
1(20.00)
------
5(100.00)
1(20.00)
2(40.00)
0(0.00)
3(60.00)
3(75.00)
6(75.00)
5(100.00)
-9(100.00)
5(55.56)
-4(80.00)
3(60.00)
5(100.00)
2(40.00)
1(25.00)
2(25.00)
0(0.00)
-0(0.00)
1(11.11)
-0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
-0(0.00)
3(33.33)
5(100.00)
4(80.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
5(100.00)
3(75.00)
4(100.00)
4(100.00)
4(80.00)
4(100.00)
0(0.00)
1(25.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
463
S.
N.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Product Name
Bright and likely to
improve-1
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
4(100.00)
Chennapatana toys
5(100.00)
Thanjaur art plate
5(100.00)
Kolhapuri chappal
5(100.00)
Warli paintings
4(66.67)
Punjabi jooti
1(20.00)
Moradabad brass material
2(40.00)
Saharanpur furniture
4(80.00)
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
2(40.00)
Mysore sandal soap
3(60.00)
Nilgiri oil
3(60.00)
Sivakasi patakha
5(100.00)
Harambha thresher
3(60.00)
Makrana marble
6(100.00)
Jaipur blue pottery
2(50.00)
Ferozabad chundia and
3(75.00)
glassware
Khurja pottery
5(100.00)
Textiles
Gadwal saree
5(100.00)
Srikalahasti kalamkari
5(100.00)
Kancheepuram silk
1(20.00)
Bandhani saree
3(60.00)
Patola saree
2(40.00)
Kutch embroidery
5(100.00)
Paithani saree
1(25.00)
Phulkari
2(40.00)
Ludhiana hosiery
1(20.00)
Jaipuri rajai
5(100.00)
Sanganeri print
0(0.00)
Banarasi saree
5(100.00)
Lucknavi chikan
5(100.00)
Bhadoi carpet
5(100.00)
Respondents – No. (%)
Likely to remain the
same-2
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(33.33)
2(40.00)
2(40.00)
0(0.00)
Likely to worsen3
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
2(40.00)
1(20.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
2(40.00)
2(40.00)
0(0.00)
2(40.00)
0(0.00)
2(50.00)
1(25.00)
3(60.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
3(60.00)
1(20.00)
3(60.00)
0(0.00)
2(50.00)
3(60.00)
3(60.00)
0(0.00)
5(100.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
1(25.00)
0(0.00)
1(20.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
Table-11.28: Traders’ suggestions for constructive measures to improve economic viability
and future prospects of agricultural products
Measures
Production level improvements
Quality standardization, maintenance and assurance
Post harvest level improvements
Good transport facilities
Government policy support
Good market practices
Publicity of the product
GI registration
Total
I
14(30.44)
(23.73)
11(25.00)
(18.65)
7(33.33)
(11.86)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
3(11.11)
(5.08)
11(32.35)
(18.65)
12(36.36)
(20.34)
1(6.66)
(1.69)
59(26.11)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
16(34.78) 11(23.91) 5(10.87)
(31.37)
(11.23)
(27.78)
11(25.00) 19(43.18) 3(6.82)
(21.57)
(19.39)
(16.66)
0(0.00)
14(66.67) 0(0.00)
(0.00)
(14.28)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
6(100.00) 0(0.00)
(0.00)
(6.12)
(0.00)
11(40.74) 8(29.63)
5(18.52)
(21.57)
(8.16)
(27.78)
6(17.65)
17(50.00) 0(0.00)
(11.76)
(17.35)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
16(48.49) 5(15.15)
(0.00)
(16.33)
(27.78)
7(46.67)
7(46.67)
0(0.00)
(13.73)
(7.14)
(0.00)
51(22.57) 98(43.36) 18(7.96)
All
46
(20.35)
44
(19.47)
21
(9.30)
6
(2.65)
27
(11.95)
34
(15.04)
33
(14.60)
15
(6.64)
226
464
Table-11.29: Traders’ suggestions for constructive measures to improve economic viability
and future prospects of non-agricultural products
Measures
Can’t say
Production level improvements
Quality standardization, maintenance and assurance
Good marketing practices
Government policy support
Publicity of the product
GI registration
Restriction on import and duplicates
Total
V
3(37.50)
(9.09)
8(9.30)
(24.24)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
3(12.50)
(9.10)
9(16.67)
(27.27)
7(31.82)
(21.21)
3(42.86)
(9.09)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
33(14.35)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
0(0.00)
2(25.00)
3(37.50)
(0.00)
(3.85)
(3.33)
29(33.72) 14(16.28) 35(40.70)
(52.73)
(26.92)
(38.89)
7(29.17)
10(41.66) 7(29.17)
(12.73)
(19.23)
(7.78)
5(20.84)
8(33.33)
8(33.33)
(9.09)
(15.38)
(8.89)
14(25.93) 12(22.22) 19(35.18)
(25.45)
(23.08)
(21.11)
0(0.00)
6(27.27)
9(40.91)
(0.00)
(11.54)
(10.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
4(57.14)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(4.44)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
5(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(5.56)
55(23.91) 52(22.61) 90(39.13)
All
8
(3.48)
86
(37.39)
24
(10.44)
24
(10.44)
54
(23.48)
22
(9.56)
7
(3.04)
5
(2.17)
230
Table-11.30: Sources of purchase of agricultural products by traders
Source of purchase for traders
I
27(29.35)
(25.47)
25(44.64)
(23.58)
26(65.00)
(24.53)
20(35.71)
(18.87)
8(38.10)
(7.55)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
106(38.13)
Direct
Local middlemen
Producers Group
Mandi
Local shop
Any Other
Total
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
25(27.17) 35(38.04) 5(5.44)
(40.32)
(36.84)
(33.33)
10(17.86) 17(30.36) 4(7.14)
(16.13)
(17.90)
(26.67)
5(12.50)
9(22.50)
0(0.00)
(8.07)
(9.47)
(0.00)
10(17.86) 25(44.64) 1(1.79)
(16.13)
(26.32)
(6.67)
8(38.10)
5(23.80)
0(0.00)
(12.90)
(5.26)
(0.00)
4(30.77)
4(30.77) 5(38.46)
(6.45)
(4.21)
(33.33)
62(22.30) 95(34.17) 15(5.40)
All
92
(33.10)
56
(20.14)
40
(14.39)
56
(20.14)
21
(7.55)
13
(4.68)
278
Table-11.31: Sources of purchase of non-agricultural products by traders
Source of purchase for traders
Direct
Local middlemen
Producers Group
Mandi
Local shop
Any Other
Total
V
5(4.81)
(14.71)
5(15.62)
(14.71)
15(21.13)
(44.12)
4(50.00)
(11.76)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
5(22.73)
(14.70)
34(14.05)
VI
23(22.12)
(42.60)
3(9.38)
(5.56)
22(30.98)
(40.74)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
2(40.00)
(3.70)
4(18.18)
(7.40)
54(22.32)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VII
28(26.92)
(49.12)
11(34.37)
(19.30)
11(15.50)
(19.30)
2(25.00)
(3.51)
1(20.00)
(1.75)
4(18.18)
(7.02)
57(23.55)
VIII
48(46.15)
(49.48)
13(40.63)
(13.40)
23(32.39)
(23.71)
2(25.00)
(2.06)
2(40.00)
(2.06)
9(40.91)
(9.28)
97(40.08)
All
104
(42.97)
32
(13.22)
71
(29.34)
8
(3.31)
5
(2.07)
22
(9.09)
242
465
Table-11.32: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing cost price of
agricultural products after GI registration
Per cent increase
I
4(14.29)
(9.52)
10(20.83)
(23.81)
17(56.67)
(40.48)
11(61.11)
(26.19)
42(33.87)
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
6(21.43)
17(60.71) 1(3.57)
(15.00)
(48.57)
(14.29)
22(45.83) 14(29.17) 2(4.17)
(55.00)
(40.00)
(28.57)
8(26.67)
3(10.00)
2(6.66)
(20.00)
(8.57)
(28.57)
4(22.22)
1(5.56)
2(11.11)
(10.00)
(2.86)
(28.57)
40(32.26) 35(28.23) 7(5.64)
All
28
(22.58)
48
(38.71)
30
(24.19)
18
(14.52)
124
Table-11.33: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing cost price of nonagricultural products after GI registration
Per cent increase
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
V
15(25.00)
(55.56)
6(12.24)
(22.22)
1(4.76)
(3.70)
5(50.00)
(18.52)
27(19.29)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
14(23.34) 11(18.33) 20(33.33)
(43.75)
(35.48)
(40.00)
16(32.65) 9(18.37)
18(36.74)
(50.00)
(29.03)
(36.00)
2(9.52)
10(47.62) 8(38.10)
(6.25)
(32.26)
(16.00)
0(0.00)
1(10.00)
4(40.00)
(0.00)
(3.23)
(8.00)
32(22.86) 31(22.14) 50(35.71)
All
60
(42.86)
49
(35.00)
21
(15.00)
10
(7.14)
140
Table-11.34: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing selling price of GI
registered agricultural products
Per cent increase
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
I
2(8.33)
(4.76)
10(30.30)
(23.81)
14(46.67)
(33.33)
16(51.61)
(38.10)
42(35.60)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
IV
10(41.67) 11(45.83) 1(4.17)
(29.41)
(31.43)
(14.29)
11(33.34) 10(30.30) 2(6.06)
(32.35)
(28.57)
(28.57)
8(26.67)
6(20.00)
2(6.66)
(23.53)
(17.14)
(28.57)
5(16.13)
8(25.81)
2(6.45)
(14.71)
(22.86)
(28.57)
34(28.81) 35(29.66) 7(5.93)
All
24
(20.34)
33
(27.97)
30
(25.42)
31
(26.27)
118
Table-11.35: Traders’ expected percent increase over the prevailing selling price of GI
registered non-agricultural products
Per cent increase
0–5
5-10
10-15
>15
Total
V
10(20.83)
(37.03)
7(16.67)
(25.93)
1(2.86)
(3.70)
9(60.00)
(33.34)
27(19.29)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
11(22.92) 4(8.33)
23(47.92)
(34.38)
(12.90)
(46.00)
15(35.71) 16(38.10) 4(9.52)
(46.87)
(51.61)
(8.00)
6(17.14)
11(31.43) 17(48.57)
(18.75)
(35.49)
(34.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
6(40.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(12.00)
32(22.86) 31(22.14) 50(35.71)
All
48
(34.29)
42
(30.00)
35
(25.00)
15
(10.71)
140
466
Table-11.36: Trade suitability of GI type I: Fruits
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
D
8
3
9
28
4
18
20
7
19
21
8
3
26
4
2
Final Priority
Score
X
87
117
158
18
138
Table-11.37: Trade suitability of GI type II: Grains & Potato
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
D
14
3
5
16
7
10
18
3
14
14
8
4
23
6
2
12
Final Priority
Score
X
91
97
118
126
Table-11.38: Trade suitability of GI type III: Plantation crops & spices
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
D
7
9
8
33
4
17
27
9
16
16
14
9
38
3
4
13
Final Priority
Score
X
104
130
149
182
Table-11.39: Trade suitability of GI type IV: Unexploited indigenous products
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
A
B
C
1
5
1
4
1
5
3
4
3
2
0
1
1
D
3
0
0
Final Priority
Score
X
24
29
30
7
17
Table-11.40: Trade suitability of GI type V: Confectionary
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
D
15
2
1
12
1
9
15
5
1
12
7
10
13
2
2
13
Final Priority
Score
X
80
66
64
75
467
Table-11.41: Trade suitability of GI type VI: Handicrafts
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
D
3
6
6
26
1
8
24
8
13
17
4
7
26
6
7
2
Final Priority
Score
X
68
84
118
138
Table-11.42: Trade suitability of GI type VII: Manufactured products with organized trade
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
D
20
5
7
13
7
16
16
6
8
16
16
6
7
13
9
17
Final Priority
Score
X
112
114
118
102
Table-11.43: Trade suitability of GI type VIII: Textiles
Observations
It is suited for the local consumption only
It is suited for the consumption in this state only
It is suited for the domestic consumption including other
states also
It is suited for export to other countries
ΣAx4+Bx3+Cx2+Dx1 =X
No of respondents giving rank
4
3
2
1
A
B
C
D
11
11
9
44
20
13
24
17
31
22
4
17
30
8
16
20
Final Priority
Score
X
139
184
215
196
Table-11.44: Comparative analysis of traders’ preferential priority with suitability of
consumption (trade) of the products
GI Type
Priority of suitability*
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
I
c
d
b
a
II
d
c
b
a
III
d
c
b
a
IV
c
b
a
d
V
a
d
b
c
VI
d
c
b
a
VII
a
c
b
d
VIII
c
d
b
a
Note: Code [a-It is suited for the local consumption only, b-It is suited for the consumption in this state only, c-It is
suited for the domestic consumption including other states also, d-It is suited for export to other countries]. The results
are obtained using preferential ranking method.
Table-11.45: Product-wise explanation of traders’ preferential priority with suitability of
consumption (trade) of the products
S.N
P.C
Product
I
1
2
3
3
11
29
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Priority of suitability*
2nd 3rd 4th
1st
d
c
d
b
b
b,c
c
a
a
a
d
468
S.N
P.C
Product
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
30
31
62
63
66
68
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Sehori genhu
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Telichery black pepper
Alleppy cardamom
Nilgiri tea
Dungarpur zinger
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
Kumbhraj dhania
Fenugreek
Mahoba paan
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass material
Saharanpur furniture
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Mysore sandal soap
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
13
17
24
37
48
25
49
65
69
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
Priority of suitability*
2nd 3rd 4th
1st
c
d
b
a
c
b
a
d
d
a
b
c
c
d
a
b
c
d
b
a
c
b
d
a
a
d
a,b
d
c
-c
c
c
b
c
c
c
d
-d
b
b
d
a
d
b
b
-a
d
d
c
b
a
c
b
d
d
d
c
-b
c
c
b
b
d
b
c
c
b
-a
a
a
c
d
a
a
b
b
a
-c
b
b
d
a
c
c
a
c
d
-d
d
d
c
b
--
a
c
--
b
a
--
d
d
--
a
b
d
a
c
b
b
c
c
b
b
c
c
a
b
d
d
d
d
d
a
c
a
a
c
c
c
d
d
d
d
c
d
d
b
a
b
c
c
d
b
b
a
b
c
b
b
b
a
a
d
c
a
a
a
a
c
b,c
c
c
b
a
c
a
b
a
b
d
c
b
d
b
a
d
d
b
a
c
b
d
d
a
a
-b
a
a
a
a
d
d
a
c
469
S.N
P.C
Product
Priority of suitability*
2nd 3rd 4th
1st
c
d
b
a
23
61 Khurja pottery
VIII
Textiles
24
2
Gadwal saree
b
a
c
d
25
7
Srikalahasti kalamkari
c
d
b
a
26
18 Kancheepuram silk
c
d
b
a
27
26 Bandhani saree
c
b
a
d
28
27 Patola saree
c
b
a
d
29
28 Kutch embroidery
a
c
b
d
30
34 Paithani saree
b
d
c
a
31
36 Phulkari
d
c
b
a
32
40 Ludhiana hosiery
c
b
d
a
33
41 Jaipuri rajai
d
c
b
a
34
43 Sanganeri print
c
b
a
d
35
53 Banarasi saree
d
c
b
a
36
56 Lucknavi chikan
a
b
c
d
37
59 Bhadoi carpet
d
a
b
c
38
64 Kullu shawl
b
c
d
a
Note: Code [a-It is suited for the local consumption only, b-It is suited for the consumption in this state only, c-It is
suited for the domestic consumption including other states also, d-It is suited for export to other countries]. The results
are obtained using preferential ranking method.
Table-11.46: Comparative analysis of opinion of traders about preferred efforts for trade of
products
GI Type
Priority for preference
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
I
d
a
b
c
II
d
a
b
c
III
d
b
a
IV
d
a
V
d
a
c
VI
d
b,c
a
VII
d
a
b
c
VIII
d
b
a
c
Note: Code [a - For this product preference must be given to the domestic sale than export; b - For this product
preference must be given to export than the domestic sale; c - It is neither suited for export nor domestic trade at
national level; d - Equal preference for both domestic and export]. The results are obtained using preferential ranking
method.
Table-11.47: Product-wise explanation of opinion of traders about preferred efforts for
trade of products
S.N
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
II
10
11
12
13
P.C
3
11
29
30
31
62
63
66
68
13
17
24
37
Product
Fruits
Banganpally mango
Coorg orange
Alphonso mango
Nagpur orange
Nasik grapes
Malihabadi Dussheri
Himachal apple
Harshil apple
Ramnagar litchi
Grains & Potato
Navara rice
Pokkali rice
Bhaliya wheat
Basmati rice
Priority for preference
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
d
c
d
c
d
d
d
d
b
d
b
b
d
a
b
c
d
b
b
b
b
c
d
b
d
d
c
c
a,c
c
a
a
470
S.N
P.C
Product
14
15
16
17
18
III
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
IV
30
31
32
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
VI
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VII
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
VIII
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
48
25
49
65
69
Sehori genhu
Kurnool rice
Malwa potato
Pahari aloo
Hill rajma
Plantation crops & spices
Guntur chilli
Coorg coffee
Wayanadan tea
Telichery black pepper
Alleppy cardamom
Nilgiri tea
Dungarpur zinger
Amleta & Mahadev garlic
Kumbhraj dhania
Fenugreek
Mahoba paan
Unexploited indigenous products
Nannari sharbat
Kokum fruit juice
Buraansh juice
Confectionery
Tirunelveli halwa
Dodha
Bikaneri bhujia
Bikaneri rasgolla
Agra petha
Bal mithai
Handicrafts
Kondapalli bommalu (toys)
Chennapatana toys
Thanjaur art plate
Kolhapuri chappal
Warli paintings
Punjabi jooti
Moradabad brass material
Saharanpur furniture
Manufactured products with organized trade
Hyderabad pearls
Mysore sandal soap
Nilgiri oil
Sivakasi patakha
Harambha thresher
Makrana marble
Jaipur blue pottery
Ferozabad chundia and glassware
Khurja pottery
Textiles
Gadwal saree
Srikalahasti kalamkari
Kancheepuram silk
Bandhani saree
Patola saree
Kutch embroidery
Paithani saree
Phulkari
Ludhiana hosiery
4
10
14
15
16
19
46
50
51
52
54
6
12
67
22
38
44
45
58
70
5
8
23
32
33
35
57
60
1
9
20
21
39
42
47
55
61
2
7
18
26
27
28
34
36
40
Priority for preference
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
c
d
d
b
c
d
d
d
b
d
d
b
b
b
b
c
a
d
b
b
b
c
b
c
a
c
c
b
d
c
d
d
d
c
d
--
d
a
--
--
a
b
d
b
c
c
d
d
c
c
b
d
c
d
d
d
d
d
c
d
d
c
b
c
c
b
d
b
d
c
d
d
d
a
b
c
d
b
b
b
a
b
c
a
b
b
b
c
a
a
a
b
d
d
c
c
d
d
d
c
d
c
a
--
b
c
c
c
d
b
a
a
b
d
a
d
471
S.N
P.C
Product
Priority for preference
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
33
41 Jaipuri rajai
d
a
b
c
34
43 Sanganeri print
a
c
b
d
35
53 Banarasi saree
d
c
36
56 Lucknavi chikan
a
c
b
d
37
59 Bhadoi carpet
d
c
38
64 Kullu shawl
d
b
a
c
Note: Code [a - For this product preference must be given to the domestic sale than export; b - For this product
preference must be given to export than the domestic sale; c - It is neither suited for export nor domestic trade at
national level; d - Equal preference for both domestic and export]. The results are obtained using preferential ranking
method.
Table-11.48: Traders’ view about maintenance of quality of agricultural products
Methods for quality maintenance
High quality production practices and inputs
Good practices at market yard
Good practices at processing units
Proper handling in supply chain
Publicity, training and awareness
Purchasing through authorized dealers
Removing market malpractices
Developing quality standards
Facilitation and enforcement of quality standards
Total
I
20(26.67)
(27.78)
28(40.58)
(38.89)
5(26.32)
(6.94)
12(52.17)
(16.67)
7(46.67)
(9.72)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
72(31.30)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
II
III
18(24.00)
30(40.00)
(33.96)
(35.30)
14(20.29)
18(26.09)
(26.41)
(21.18)
0(0.00)
10(52.63)
(0.00)
(11.76)
0(0.00)
11(47.83)
(0.00)
(12.94)
0(0.00)
8(53.33)
(0.00)
(9.41)
0(0.00)
8(100)
(0.00)
(9.41)
10(100)
0(0.00)
(18.87)
(0.00)
4(100)
0(0.00)
(7.55)
(0.00)
7(100)
0(0.00)
(13.21)
(0.00)
53(23.04)
85(36.96)
IV
7(9.33)
(35.00)
9(13.04)
(45.00)
4(21.05)
(20.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
20(8.70)
All
75
(32.61)
69
(30.00)
19
(8.26)
23
(10.00)
15
(6.52)
8
(3.48)
10
(4.35)
4
(1.74)
7
(3.04)
230
Table-11.49: Traders’ view about maintenance of quality of non-agricultural products
Methods for quality maintenance
High quality production practices and inputs
Good practices at market yard
Good practices at processing units
Facilitation and enforcement of quality standards
Inspection and monitoring
Publicity, training and awareness
Involvement of technically efficient human resource
Motivation through incentives
Quality already good
Total
V
15(21.3)
(37.50)
3(15)
(7.50)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
6(100)
(15.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
13(28.89)
(32.50)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
3(42.86)
(7.50)
40(16.60)
Responses – No. (%)
GI Type
VI
VII
VIII
19(26.76) 16(22.54) 21(29.58)
(28.78)
(38.10)
(22.58)
12(60.00) 5(25.00)
0(0.00)
(18.18)
(11.90)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
28(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(30.11)
5(14.29) 11(31.43) 19(54.29)
(7.58)
(26.19)
(20.43)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4(23.53)
0(0.00)
13(76.47)
(6.06)
(0.00)
(13.98)
26(57.78) 6(13.33)
0(0.00)
(39.40)
(14.29)
(0.00)
0(0.00)
0(0.00)
12(100)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(12.90)
0(0.00)
4(57.14)
0(0.00)
(0.00)
(9.52)
(0.00)
66(27.39) 42(17.43) 93(38.59)
All
71
(29.46)
20
(8.30)
28
(11.62)
35
(14.52)
6
(2.49)
17
(7.05)
45
(18.67)
12
(4.98)
7
(2.90)
241
472
Annexure- XIII: The list of GIs applied and registered
N°
IG
1
2
3
Applicant
Darjeeling tea (word)
Darjeelinf tea (logo)
Aranmula kannadi
Tea Board of India
Tea Board of India
Parthasarathy Handicraft Center amended as to be
Viswabrahmana Aranmula Kannadi Nirman Society
(1) Pochampally Handloom Weavers' Co-op Society Ltd,
an autonomous society registered under the Societies Act,
1860.
(2) Pochampally Handloom Tie & Dye Silk Sarees
Manufacturers' Association
Salem Exporters Association, Tamil Nadu
Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans and Devp Society,
Cochi
Chanderi Development Foundation
Textile development foundation, Surat, Gujarat
Textile development foundation, Surat, Gujarat
The Orissa State Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society Ltd
Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation
Kota Doria development Hadauti Foundation
Fusion with n°18
Ngo “The Heritage”
Department of Handloom and Textiles, govt of TNadu
Department of Handloom and Textiles, govt of TNadu
Navara Rice Farmers Society Karukamanikalam, Kerala
All India Agarbathi Manufacturers Association
H.P. Patent Information Center (established by TIFAC,
department of Sciences and Technology, Gov of India),
State Council for Science, Technology and Environment,
Shimla
Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation
Lmtd
Department of Handloom and Textiles, govt of TNadu
Orissa State Handloom weaver co-op., Society Ltd
Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation
Lmtd
Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation
Lmtd
H.P. Patent Information Center Center (TIFAC, …)
Coimbatore Wet Grinders and Accessories Manufacturers
Association
Punjab Small scale industries and export corporation
4
Pochampolly ikat
5
6
Salem fabric
Payyannur pavithra ring
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Chanderi saree
Solapur chaddar
Solapur terry towel
Kotpad Handloom fabric
Mysore silk
Kota doria
Mysore agarbathi (word)
Basmati Rice
Kanchepuram Silk
Bhavani Jamakkalam
Navra rice
Mysore agabathi (logo)
Kullu shawl
20
Bidriware
21
22
23
24
Madurai sungudi
Orissa ikat
Channapatana toys and
dolls
Mysore rosewood inlay
25
26
Kangra tea
Coimbatore wet grinder
27
28
Phulkari (flower
embroidory)
Sri kalahasthi Kalamkari
29
Mysore sandal wood oil
30
31
Mysore sandal soap
Kasuti embroidory
32
33
34
35
36
Mysore traditional
paintings
Coorg orange
Mysore betel leaf
Nanjangud banana
Palakkadan matta
Karuna Kalamkari Artisans Revival and Upsurge for
National Acclaim (KARUNA)
Karnataka Soaps and detergents Limited, Sandalwood oil
division
Karnataka Soaps and detergents Limited, Bangalore
Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation
Lmtd
Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation
Lmtd
Department of Horticulture Govt of Karnataka
Department of Horticulture Govt of Karnataka
Department of Horticulture Govt of Karnataka
Palakkadan Matta Farmers Producer Company Limited
37
Madhubani paintings
The Director of Industries, Bihar
Reg
filed
29.10.2004
29.10.2004
19.09.2005
27.10.2003
27.10.2003
8.12.2003
31.12.2004
15.12.2003
19.09.2005
12.02.2004
23.02.2004
28.01.2005
19.09.2005
19.09.2005
2.06.2005
28.11.2005
5.07.2005
2.06.2005
2.06.2005
5.07.2005
23.11.2007
2.06.2005
12.05.2005
2.04.2004
5.04.2004
20.05.2004
10.06.2004
22.07.2004
22.07.2004
11.08.2004
19.08.2004
7.10.2004
25.10.2005
25.11.2005
25.11.2004
10.12.2004
30.01.2006
24.01.2005
12.05.2005
7.06.2006
30.01.2006
24.01.2005
1.02.2005
7.02.2005
30.01.2006
7.02.2005
12.12.2005
30.01.2006
11.02.2005
14.03.2005
14.03.2005
X
16.03.2005
30.01.2006
18.03.2005
30.01.2006
30.01.2006
18.03.2005
31.03.2005
30.01.2006
31.03.2005
30.01.2006
30.01.2006
30.01.2006
X (Journal
21)
X (Journal
31.03.2005
31.03.2005
31.03.2005
18.04.2005
22.08.2005
473
17)
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Jamnagar petrol
Jamnagar fuel
Krishna godavari gas
Jamnagar LPG
Jamnagar diesel
Pisco
Kondapalli Bommalu toys
45
46
Poddar diamond
Kashmir pashmina
47
Thanjavur painting
48
49
50
51
52
53
Kashmir sozani craft
Malabar pepper
Allahabad surka
Kani shawl
Nakshi kanta
Karimnagar silver filigree
54
Alleppey coir
55
Muga Silk of Assam
56
57
60
Tellecherry Pepper
Coconut shell crafts of
Kerala
Screw pine crafts of
Kerala
Madalam of Palakkad
KERALA
Ganjifa Cards of Mysore
61
Navalgund Durries
62
Karnataka Bronze Ware
63
Thanjavur Art Plate
64
Swamimalai Bronze Icons
65
Temple jewellery of
Nagercoil
Blue Pottery of Jaipur
Molela Clay Idols
Kathputlis of Rajasthan
Mysore Malligae
(Jasmine)
Udupi Malligae (Jasmine)
58
59
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Hadagali Malligae
(Jasmine)
Alleppey Green
Cardamom
Applique (Khatwa) Work
of Bihar
Reliance Industries Limited, fusion 38, 39, 41, 42
Reliance Industries Limited
Reliance Industries Limited
Reliance Industries Limited
Reliance Industries Limited
Embassy of Peru in India
Lanco Institute of General Humanitarian Trust and
Kondapalli Wooden Toys / Manufacturers Mutually
Aided Purchase and Sales Co-operative Ltd
Craft Development Institute (Registered under the J
& K Societies Act. Registration Number: 4332S/2003), Solina Bazar, Srinagar, 190009, Kashmir, J& K.
Tanjavur Oviya Padhukaapu Sangam (registered body)
X
28.11.2005
09.12.2005
X (Journal
17)
Craft Development Institute
Spices Board, Cochi
Craft Development Institute
KAARU-KUL Foundation
Karimnagar Silver Filigree Handicrafts, Mutually Aided
Cooperative Welfare (Andra Pradesh)
Coir Board, Ministry of Agro and Rural Industries, Gov
of India
Patent information centre, ASTEC, Assam Science
Technology and Environment Council
Spices board
15.09.2005
15.09.2005
15.09.2005
15.09.2005
15.09.2005
29.09.2005
10.11.2005
16.05.2007
X (Journal
17)
13.07.2007
04.01.2006
19.01.2006
13.02.2006
13.02.2006
13.02.2006
07.04.2006
28.04.2006
03.07.2006
20.07.2006
20.07.2006
20.07.2006
26.07.2006
26.07.2006
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India.
26.07.2006
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India.
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India.
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India.
Development Commissioner,
Ministry of Textiles, Govt of India, NDelhi
Development Commissioner,
Ministry of Textiles, Govt of India, Ndelhi
26.07.2006
Department of Horticulture Govt of Karnataka
Department of Horticulture Govt of Karnataka
Department of Horticulture Govt of Karnataka
26.07.2006
X (Journal
21)
26.07.2006
X (Journal
21)
X (Journal
17)
X (Journal
17)
X (Journal
17)
Spices board of India
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts)
Ministry of Textiles, GOvernment of India
26.07.2006
26.07.2006
14.08.2006
31.08.2006
31.08.2006
24.07.2006
24.07.2006
24.07.2006
14.09.2006
X (Journal
21)
21.09.2006
474
74
76
Sujini Embroidery work
of Bihar
Sikki Grass Products of
Bihar
Ilkal sarees
77
Molakalmuru Sarees
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Coorg Green Cardamom
Chamba Rumal
Dharwad Pedha
Pokkali Rice
Bastar Iron Craft
Bastar Dhokra
Bastar Wooden Craft
Monsooned Malabar
Arabica coffee
Pipli Applique Work
Konark Stone Carving
Puri Pattachitra
Budhiti bell & brass craft
Machilipatnam Kalamkari
Nirmal Toys and Crafts
Arni Silk
Covai Cora Cotton
Salem Silk
E. I. Leather
75
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
Thanjavur Doll
Leather Toys of Indore
Bagh Prints of Dhar
Banaras Brocades and
Sarees
Sankheda Furniture
Agates of Cambay
Datia and Tikamgarh Bell
Kutch Embroidery
Santiniketan leather goods
Nirmal Furniture
Nirmal Paintings
Andhra Pradesh Leather
Puppetry
Pipli Applique Craft
Naga Mircha
Eathomozhy Tall Coconut
Laxman Bhog Mango
Khirsapati Himsagar
Fazli Mango
Mansooned Malabar
Robusta Coffee
Assam Tea
Nilgiri tea
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts)
Ministry of Textiles, GOvernment of India
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts),
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India.
Commissioner for Textile, Development and Director of
Handlooms and Textiles, Government of Karnataka
Commissioner for Textile, Development and Director of
Handlooms and Textiles, Government of Karnataka
Spices board of India
Coffee board
Department of Handloom and Textiles, govt of TNadu
Department of Handloom and Textiles, govt of TNadu
Department of Handloom and Textiles, govt of TNadu
1. The Trichy Tanners Association, 2. The Dindigul
Tanners Association
Coffee board
Tea Board of India
X (Journal
21)
23.11.2007
X (Journal
21)
21.09.2006
21.09.2006
16.10.2006
16.10.2006
27.12.2006
22.01.2007
24.01.2007
29.01.2007
12.03.2007
12.03.2007
12.03.2007
05.04.2007
09.04.2007
09.04.2007
09.04.2007
16.04.2007
16.04.2007
16.04.2007
25.04.2007
25.04.2007
15.05.2007
475
Annexure-XIV: Action framework- Facts as per agricultural GI Types
Observation
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Highlights
opinion
consumers
traders (T)
of
of
(C) /
Marketing operations
Packing
methods and
problems
(Opinion of
producers)
Grading
methods
(Opinion of
producers)
Mode of sale
and
satisfaction
level
(Opinion of
producers)
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
Mode of
purchase by
traders
Spectrum of
region-wise
sale of product
(Opinion of
institutional
stakeholders)
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
No particular method used
Packing through the gunny or jute bag
Packing through the gunny or jute bag
Packing through the gunny or jute bag
Majority of producers do not use any packing. Packing through the gunny
or jute bag is most popular. Most of them do not have any problems, those
who have mostly complained about deterioration of packing material.
Knowledge of the newer technology meager.
Physical traits used
Physical traits used
Physical traits used
Physical traits used; no scientific procedures
Grading is done but mostly its grading is based on physical traits.
Therefore, challenge is to initiate some grading, wherever it is not there
and convert physical traits based grading to qualitative traits based grading.
Sale is mostly to middle-men or wholesalers, In this category, there is a
need encourage sale through cooperative society for processing agency and
export.
Mostly the sale is direct to wholesaler, middlemen, local market, and
Mahajans. Mahajans have highest influence in this category. Sale through
government agency and cooperative is very low, which need to be
increased mainly for processing agency.
Sale through government agency and cooperative in this category is best
among all the GI types but the major mode of sale is still direct to
wholesalers, middlemen and local shops. There is a need to enhance share
to exporters through strengthening sale through cooperative society.
The sale is mostly direct to local market followed by moderate sale to
middle men and processing agency and least sale is to wholesalers
Various modes of sales are there, mostly it is so wholesalers or local shops,
comparatively less to processing agency, and very less to mahajans or
experts.
Direct, producers group, local middlemen with equal emphasis
40% direct, 17% local middle-men
37% direct, 18% local middle-men
33% direct, 27% local middle-men
33% direct, 20% local middle-men, 20% mandi. In agricultural products
middle-men are more than in non-agricultural products
48% sale within area of GI claim
87% sale within area of GI claim
78% sale in other parts, 52% sale within area of GI claim
85% sale within area of GI claim
68% sale within area of GI claim. Export 17%
476
Observation
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
Contribution
of uniqueness
to sale
I
--
II
--
III
--
IV
--
All
agricultural
products
--
I
II
---
III
--
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
---
Mostly increasing
57% feel increasing, 28%
feel stationary
Increasing trends
--
II
The
collective
bargaining is almost
nil
Increasing trends in
most; decreasing in
few
Status quo
--
Trend of sale
Price decision
and trend of
unit price
III
IV
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
More than 90% feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
More than 90% feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value More than
90%
feel
uniqueness
contribute to better sale
value
More than 90% feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
More than 60% feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
More than 90% feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
Mostly increasing
Mostly
stationary
increasing little
Mostly increasing
or
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
About
32%
feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
About 25-28% feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
About 33-35% feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
About
6%
feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
Less
number
of
traders
feel
that
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
Mostly increasing
Mostly stationary or
increasing little
Mostly stationary or
increasing little
Mostly increasing
About 50% traders
feel increasing, 34%
feel stationary
Moderate bargain by
customers
Less
bargain
by
customers
--
Moderate bargain by
customers
--
--
477
Observation
Price
increments in
supply chain
(Opinion of
institutional
stakeholders)
Constraints in
production
and marketing
(Opinion of
producers)
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
All
agricultural
products
-The prices of
product for sale are
mostly decided
either through
individual bargain
or purchaser offer a
price to which
producers had to
agree and there is
no other choice;
The collective
bargaining and
process of minimum
agreed price
between an
association and
purchaser is veryvery weak. The
trend of unit price is
almost of increasing
side during 2004-06
except few products
Retailers increment-32%
Intermediaries-32%
Retailers-20%
Intermediaries-24%
Producers increment-14%
Wholesaler- 21%
Retailer & middle-men- 23%
Improper marketing services is a severe constraint
Improper marketing services, insecurity in market
Lack of quality inputs, high competition
Improper marketing services is a severe constraint
Hindrances from agronomic/natural factors, market insecurity leading to
low profitability, labour scarcity and low marketing infrastructure. In GI
type IV ‘difficulty in getting quality input’ is acute constraint; ‘no
organized producers association’
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
Customers
moderately bargain
while
purchasing
from the trader
Inspection, quality control & quality assurance
Inspection,
quality control
at various
stages of
production
I
II
III
IV
Few instances of
inspection
Inspection
by
producers
Inspection done by
associations; more
regulated
No or little attempts
Mostly on-site advice,
mandatory standards exist
Mostly on-site advice or
no formal method exist
Mostly on-site advice,
mandatory standards exist,
scientific
evidences
available
Mostly on-site advice or
no formal method exist
----
--
478
Observation
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
All
agricultural
products
Methods
of About 65% believe that it
inspection
and is done informally through
quality control in on-site advice, training and
communication. 15% say
agricultural
products is very no formal method exist.
pathetic.
.The Only 19% believe that
inspection
and scientific and mandatory
quality control is standards methods are
either by producers available. Producers have
themselves
at in-situ method in GI type-I
production level on only. The inspections are
field and harvesting more regulated in GI typelevel or there is no I&III
inspection
and
quality
control.
Only in few cases it
is
done
at
processing
at
grading level and in
very few cases,
there is a provision
of inspection by an
authority.
Through compliance of mandatory standards, post harvest practices and
input quality control
Mostly it is not available, post harvest practices and input quality control,
certification used
Through compliance of mandatory standards, post harvest practices and
input quality control
Either no formal method available or done by producers as regulated raw
material testing
Only 18% believe that compliance to mandatory standards and certification
is a method of quality assurance.
Govt defined
quality
assurance
methods and
advice given
for quality
improvement
I
(Opinion of
institutional
stakeholders)
Technical
guidelines for
production
codes
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
(Opinion of
producers)
IV
All
agricultural
products
Maintenance
and
monitoring of
codes of
production
practices
(Opinion of
producers)
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Highlights
opinion
consumers
traders (T)
--
of
of
(C) /
Given for few
None
Cash crop products have associations for referring. Govt Boards also help
in few cases
Nil
While many producers say that there are no technical guidelines from
government to follow some opined that there is no quality control
mechanism available. There is no inspection by government, NGO or
association.
Moderate no. of producers feel- not follow tech. Guidelines of govt,
monitoring by purchaser
Very high no. producers feel-no quality control mechanism available, no
inspection mechanism, maintenance of production code by self control
479
Observation
GI type
Traders’ view
to maintain
product
quality
High lights
opinion
producers
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
Good market yard practices and high quality production practice and inputs
High quality production practice and inputs and good market yard practices
High quality production practice and inputs and good market yard practices
Good market yard practices and high quality production practice and inputs
Almost equal emphasis to high quality production practice and inputs and
good market yard practices
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
Perceived changes after registration
Presumed
results of nonregistration
(Opinion of
producers)
Expected
changes after
registrationon market
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
Low wages, sale
Low profit
Low sale, profit, difficult to compete
Low sale
Majority agreed non registration will be disadvantageous to them
II
More sale
III
Profits
enhanced,
competition
from
spurious
material
wiped
More
market
opportunities
IV
All
agricultural
products
Expected
changes after
registrationenhanced
premium as
expected by
producers and
traders
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
Better price
Expect
good
market, better price
and less threat from
spurious material
High –10-15% or
more
Moderate- up to
15%
Mostly up to 10%
Moderate- up to
15%
Mostly
expect
mostly between 5 to
15%.
Improvement in product
grading, overall socioeconomic conditions
Improvement in product
standardization, enhanced
income
Improvement in product
standardization/grading
--
Rise
in
income
of
producers/ traders and
standardization
and
grading of product
Improved product quality
standardization/ grading
and
enhancement
in
income
--
--
--
--
--
---
---
--
--
---
--
480
Observation
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Expected
changes after
registrationlivelihoods &
overall socioeconomic
conditions
I
About 37% feel that
producers will shift
from
other
livelihood activities.
And 71% feel that
there will be overall
improvement
in
socio-economic
conditions
of
producers, if other
protection system
followed
About 35% feel that
producers will shift
from
other
livelihood activities.
And 76% feel that
there will be overall
improvement
in
socio-economic
conditions
of
producers, if other
protection system
followed
About 46% feel
that producers will
shift from other
livelihood activities.
And 71% feel that
there will be overall
improvement
in
socio-economic
conditions
of
producers, if other
protection system
followed
About 35% feel that
producers will shift
from
other
livelihood activities.
And 79% feel that
there will be overall
improvement
in
socio-economic
conditions
of
producers, if other
protection system
followed
About 43% feel that
producers will shift from
other livelihood activities.
And 95% feel that there
will
be
overall
improvement in socioeconomic conditions of
producers
II
III
IV
Highlights
opinion
consumers
traders (T)
--
About 50% feel that
producers will shift from
other livelihood activities.
And 76% feel that there
will
be
overall
improvement in socioeconomic conditions of
producers
--
About 48% feel that
producers will shift from
other livelihood activities.
And 71% feel that there
will
be
overall
improvement in socioeconomic conditions of
producers
--
About 44% feel that
producers will shift from
other livelihood activities.
And 75% feel that there
will
be
overall
improvement in socioeconomic conditions of
producers
--
of
of
(C) /
481
Observation
Expected
changes after
registrationconsumers’
expectations
Visualized
benefits at
time of GI
registration
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
All
agricultural
products
About 39% feel that About 47% feel that
producers will shift producers will shift from
from
other other livelihood activities.
livelihood activities. And 80% feel that there
be
overall
And 73% feel that will
there will be overall improvement in socioimprovement
in economic conditions of
producers.
Stakeholders
socio-economic
conditions
of are more enthusiastic than
producers, if other producers
protection system
followed
Product standardization, grading and increase in number of consumers is
expected extremely (GI type-IV), highly (I&II) and moderately (III)
All
agricultural
products
All
agricultural
products
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Highlights
opinion
consumers
traders (T)
--
of
of
(C) /
--
Market organization was
the main motivation factor,
followed by enhancing
regional social and cultural
benefits
--
I
Present
Moderate number feel that
duplicates are not in the
market
II
Present
Most feel that duplicates
are not in the market
III
Divided on presence
of duplicates
Moderate number feel that
duplicates are not in the
market
IV
Feel there are no
duplicates
Moderate number feel that
duplicates are not in the
market
T- Large number feel
that duplicates are not
in the market
C-moderate no. feel
quality assurance led
to purchase
T- Moderate number
feel that duplicates
are not in the market
C-less no. feel quality
assurance
led
to
purchase
T- Moderate number
feel that duplicates
are not in the market
C-moderate no. feel
quality assurance led
to purchase
T-Moderate number
feel that duplicates
are not in the market
C-very less no. feel
quality assurance led
to purchase
Perceived impact on market
Duplicates
and similar
products
482
Observation
GI type
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Produced elsewhere
and passed off
Same product produced
elsewhere in the country
and similar duplicates in
the country
II
Produced elsewhere
in country
Same product produced
elsewhere in the country
and similar duplicates in
the country
III
Imports
Same product produced
elsewhere in the country
and competition in export
market
IV
Nil
Not much competition
All
agricultural
products
Consumers’
efforts to
purchase
genuine
product
I
II
III
IV
Competitiontypes and
sources
All
agricultural
products
I
High lights
opinion
producers
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
Mixed reaction to Moderate number feel that Moderate number of
duplicates. While duplicates are not in the traders
feel
that
some believe that market. In GI type-I &III, duplicates are not in
there cannot be any, there is a threat from the market but other
some producers are similar products from similar
kind
of
aware of other other areas.
products
put
products
being
competition
passed as theirs
Consumers
feelquality assurance is
not the main reason
of purchase
85% confident about originality of purchased product but less than 50%
make any effort to purchase genuine product
>90% confident about originality of purchased product and <50% make
any effort to purchase genuine product
85% confident about originality of purchased product but 55% make any
effort to purchase genuine product
>90% confident about originality of purchased product and 73% make any
effort to purchase genuine product
87% confident about originality of purchased product but 54% make any
effort to purchase genuine product
Same
product
produced elsewhere
in the country and
similar duplicates in
the country is the
major competition
Similar duplicates in
the country and same
product
produced
elsewhere in the
country is the major
competition
Same
product
produced elsewhere
in the country and
competitive
export
from other countries
is
the
major
competition
Same
product
produced elsewhere
in the country is the
major competition
483
Observation
Import of
similar
product and
difference
between
imported and
domestic
product
Import of the
products
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
All
agricultural
products
Around 72%
producers feel that
main competition is
domestic. Some
producers feel that
their products face
competition. Like
from being
produced elsewhere
in the country, or
there are different
products but sold
with the same name
with the deceptive
similarity. Some
others voiced on
competition from
similar products
imported in the
country.
Producers not much
aware
About 62% feel that
products face competition
but main competition is
domestic. The import and
export market is in few
products under GI type-I
&III. Across the products,
also these two groups face
most competition
II
Producers not much
aware
Not aware. But mostly feel
that imported product is of
inferior quality
III
Producers not much
aware
Not aware. But mostly feel
that imported product is of
inferior quality
IV
All
agricultural
products
No import
Institutional stakeholders
are not aware. But mostly
feel that imported product
is of inferior quality
I
No import
About
50%
producers
responded
to
difference between
domestic
and
imported product.
But mostly feel that
imported product is
of inferior quality
--
II
--
I
Not aware. But mostly feel
that imported product is of
inferior quality
Import of grapes and apple
from various developed
nations. Litchi from china
No import usually
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
About 59% traders
feel that products face
competition but main
competition
is
domestic.
Same
product
produced
elsewhere in the
country and similar
duplicates in the
country is the major
competition
Traders
are
not
aware. But mostly
feel that imported
product is of inferior
quality
Traders
are
not
aware. But mostly
feel that imported
product is of inferior
quality
Traders are little
aware. Except few, all
feel that imported
product is of inferior
quality
No import
About 80% traders
feel that imported
products are inferior
in quality
No
information
available
No
information
available
484
Observation
Export and
trade option of
the products
(Opinion of
traders)
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
III
--
IV
--
All
agricultural
products
I
--
II
III
IV
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Cardamom
from
Gautemala, Nilgiri tea
from Srilanka
No import
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
No
information
available
No
information
available
No
information
available
The
knowledge
of
institutional stakeholders
is poor in this area
Suited for domestic consumption & export. Trade preference- almost equal
to both domestic and export with more emphasis on domestic
Suited for export & domestic consumption. Trade preference- almost equal
to both domestic and export with more emphasis on domestic
Suited for export. Trade preference- almost equal to both domestic and
export with more emphasis on export
Suited for domestic consumption. Trade preference- almost equal to both
domestic and export with more emphasis on domestic
Most commodities suited for domestic consumption but some have export
potential also
All
agricultural
products
Observed impacts after registration
Observed
changes after
registrationon market
(Opinion of
producers)
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
Expect changes
Expect better conditions
Expect more returns
Positive
Opinion based on empirical data only as only 1 product registered at time
of survey. Others voiced expectations which were all positive
Observed
changes after
registrationlivelihoods &
overall socioeconomic
conditions
(Opinion of
producers)
Observed
All
changes after
agricultural
registrationproducts
enhanced
premium felt
by producers
Willingness to pay
No shifting
Expect better conditions
Expect more returns
positive
Opinion based on empirical data only as only 1 product registered at time
of survey. Others voiced expectations which were all positive. Believe in
better conditions in post registration
Willingness
for
registration
and payment
thereof
Varied in amt but
all agree to pay
Lower
amount
preferred
Willing to pay
higher amt
I
II
III
The number of producers, who felt the enhanced premium is very low
(only 09), they felt increase between 5-10% over prevailing cost.
--
74% intend for reg.
--
75% intend for reg.
--
61% intend for reg.
485
Observation
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
IV
Not willing to pay
very high price
Willing to pay.
--
Out
of
08
respondents,
7
opine of payment,
but it is between Rs
250-500
High –10-15% or
more
--
All
agricultural
products
Money paid
by producers
for
registration
All
agricultural
products
Willingness to
pay for
expected
enhanced
premium
I
II
Moderate15%
up
III
Mostly up to 10%
of
of
to
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
The funding for GI
registration has come from
different
sources.
Producers
also
contributed. Banks also
agree to pay for it
--
--
--
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
71% intend for reg.
Comparatively
intention
of
registration is more in
agricultural products
probably
because
chances of getting
genuine product are
lesser in comparison
to
non-agricultural
products. Consumers
have
lesser
willingness for GI
type-III
--
About
60%
consumers are ready
to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below. 25% ready to
pay 10-15% also.
About 30% traders
agree for enhanced
premium, mostly 1015%
more
than
prevailing price
About
60%
consumers are ready
to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below. About 30%
traders agree for
enhanced premium,
mostly 5-10% more
than prevailing price
About
60%
consumers are ready
to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below. About 30%
traders agree for
enhanced premium,
mostly <10% more
than prevailing price
486
Observation
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
IV
Moderate15%
to
--
All
agricultural
products
Mostly
expect
mostly between 5 to
15%.
--
up
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
About
60%
consumers are ready
to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below. About 30%
traders agree for
enhanced premium,
mostly agree for 15%
premium or below.
About
60%
consumers are ready
to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below. About 30%
traders agree for
enhanced premium,
mostly agree for 15%
premium or below on
cost & sale price.
Suggestions on policy implications
Production
characteristics
(Opinion of
producers)
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
Production
constraints
(Opinion of
producers)
Earnings and
income
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
Mostly feel- production trend is stationary and few more have started
producing
Mostly feel- production trend is not declining and producers’ number is
almost same
Mostly feel- production trend is increasing and few more have started
producing
Mostly feel- production trend is increasing and few more have started
producing
Mostly feel- production trend is increasing except few such as Tellicherry
black pepper, Pokkalir rice and Coorg orange etc. Few more producers are
added except in some products as Dusseri mango, harshil apple, navara
rice, basmati rice and pokkali rice etc.
Agronomic hindrances, low marketing infrastructure, labor scarcity
Agronomic hindrances, marketing insecurity
Agronomic hindrances, marketing insecurity
Difficulty in getting quality input and financial constraints
Agronomic hindrances, market insecurity and labor scarcity are the major
constraints
Income varied from
high, moderate and
low
Incomes moderate
--
Moderate
no.
traders satisfied
--
High to moderate
gains
average
--
Low no. of traders
satisfied
Moderate
no.
of
traders satisfied
Low no. of traders
satisfied
--
of
487
Observation
Financial and
infrastructure
needs- for
increasing
production
(Opinion of
producers)
Awareness of
producers and
stakeholders
about GI
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
All
agricultural
products
I
II
Most producers
get average income
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
I
II
III
IV
All
agricultural
products
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
--
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
Moderate
no.
of
traders satisfied
Approach financial agencies; formalities deter
Response not forthcoming
Better response perceived by the few who approached
No one approached any agency
Producers say it can be increased. Those who approached the financial
agency for help feel discouraged by formalities and response too.
Awareness varied
on process
Uniqueness known
Uniqueness known,
good
evidences
available, awareness
too better
Uniqueness
only
known
All
aware
of
uniqueness of their
products but few
aware
of
registration process
Role of
agenciesdevelopment
and
strengthening
of producers’
associations
All
agricultural
products
Future
prospects of
the product
I
Only
60%
producers feel that
any kind of a
producers’
association
is
available and 73%
producers are not
member of any type
of
producers’
association
--
II
--
III
--
IV
--
Moderate awareness
Very low awareness
Very low awareness
Extremely aware of
importance
of
traditional character
and reputation but
very low awareness
about GI
No awareness at all
The awareness is low
about GI implications.
Only 16 per cent could
firmly say that their
product is registered as GI.
About 25% did not know
anything about status of
their product
--
Most products- future is
bright and likely to
improve
Fair number of productsfuture is bright and likely
to improve
Most products- future is
bright and likely to
improve
Most products- future is
bright and likely to
improve
--
Most products- future
is very bright
Most products- future
is bright
Most products- future
is bright
Most products- future
is very bright
488
Observation
Constructive
measures to
make
production
viable and
improve
future
prospects
Status of
marketing and
suggestions
for
improvement
Suggestions
for
improvement
to increase
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
All
agricultural
products
--
Moderately products have
bright future and which is
likely to improve
I
--
II
--
III
--
IV
--
Production
improvements,
harvest
improvements
Production
improvements.
policy support
Production
improvements,
standardization
Production
improvements.
policy support
All
agricultural
products
--
Improvement
in
production
and
post
harvest,
government
policy support alongwith
standardization
would
bring change
I
--
Highly not satisfactory
II
--
Moderately satisfactory
III
--
IV
--
Moderately
satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
All
agricultural
products
--
I
II
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
level
postlevel
Highlights
of
opinion
of
consumers (C) /
traders (T)
Moderately products
have bright future and
which is likely to
improve
Production
level
improvements.
Publicity of product
level
Govt.
Production
level
improvements. TQM
level
quality
level
Govt.
not
TQM,
publicity
product
Equal emphasis on
production
level
improvements, govt.
policy
support,
publicity of product
Most traders feel that
production
level
improvements
and
TQM
(standardization,
maintenance
and
assurance of quality)
required
Highly
not
satisfactory
Moderately
satisfactory
Moderately
satisfactory
Moderately
satisfactory
Approximately half
of the traders are not
satisfied with the
present
mode.
Organized
and
regulated
markets
with TQM are highly
required.
More
than
half
of
respondents
are
not
satisfied with the present
mode. The GI type IV are
with low income but
satisfied
with
mode
because no middle-men in
the
supply
chain.
Suggestion to improve
include organized market
and marketing institutional
support from government
C-Easy availability and wide publicity
T- Quality standardization, easy availability
C-Quality standardization and innovative changes keeping traditional basis
T- Easy availability and wide publicity
489
Observation
GI type
High lights
opinion
producers
sale
(Opinion of
Consumers-C,
traders-T)
III
C-Quality standardization and reasonable price
T- Quality standardization and reasonable price
C- Wide publicity and easy availability
T- Quality standardization, wide publicity with innovative changes
C-Quality standardization, wide publicity, easy availability in reasonable
price
T- Quality standardization & wide publicity required most
Opinion of institutional stakeholders - Scientific experimentations are
required to establish uniqueness. Very less has been done for technical
intervention to reduce or stop infringement and also to take initiatives for
GI facilitation.
Opinion of institutional stakeholders - The concerned departments and
agencies have not normally taken the responsibility in a proactive manner.
The process was mostly individual’s efforts, the institutionalized system
has not been developed.
Scientific
endeavors in
product
development
Endeavors by
depts. and
agencies
responsible or
concerned
with GI
registration
Endeavors by
financial
institutions
IV
All
agricultural
products
All
agricultural
products
All
agricultural
products
All
agricultural
products
of
of
Highlights of opinion of
institutional stakeholders
Highlights
opinion
consumers
traders (T)
of
of
(C) /
Opinion of institutional stakeholders- Biggest reason for not financing is
lack of a designated scheme and also absence of institutional efforts from
producers’ and link organizations. Banks clearly for TQM probably that
will lead to good recovery. In almost all products institutionalized system
has not been evolved that lead to fair availability of credit and finance
490
Annexure-XIV: Action framework- Facts as per non-agricultural GI Types
Observation
GI type
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion
of
institutional
stakeholders
Highlights of opinion of
consumers (C)/ traders
(T)
Marketing operations
Storage
methods and
problems
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Packing
methods and
problems
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Grading
methods
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Mode of sale
and satisfaction
level
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
Most products made daily and not stored for long; even if stored these are not for too
long and in simple cartons with no special methods; products have short shelf- life
Storage in most is not a problem as they are made on order; in other cases products
are stored in card boxes; producers in general do not face much problem. Problems of
space or wet weather faced in some cases
No special requirements for storing ; space a constraint in some
Most products in this category stored in simple paper containers or wrapped in
papers; problems of ensuring moisture and dust free conditions
Storage for most products are simple methods. Most of producers were not aware of
major problems. This is because the production in most products is demand driven.
However, some of producers voiced space as a problem with lack of accessible space
or facilities leading to deterioration of packing material.
No particular method for packaging; products packed usually for short term. Only
one product, Bikeneri bhujjia, rasagula is packed for international market conforming
to requirements for exporting.
Conventional methods most popular. Few products like thanjavur plate are packed in
glass containers
Most producers had standard packaging devices and used them for their products
Most producers pack their products to ensure the longevity of their produce in terms
of keeping quality of colors and designs. Recent attempts to reach urban markets have
necessitated the producers to invest in more attractive packaging material enhancing
their input costs
Most producers opined that they face no problems. This is to be viewed keeping the
fact that producers are not aware of latest trends in packaging technology as the
products cater to local market. If the products are to reach international markets, the
producers need to become aware of more modern trends in packing technology and
the increase in costs for those
Not much of grading done
Grading done on physical or qualitative traits
Grading done on quality traits
Grading done on quality traits
Knowledge and awareness on importance of qualitative traits was high despite the
fact that most of products are traditional and of small scale nature. Grading of
products if done is mostly on qualitative traits. Grading in rest of the cases is done
based on other parameters like physical traits. But the area of concern is on those
products where no grading is done Therefore, challenge is to initiate some grading
mode which would help bring more professional level to the products and also
maintain the traditional attributes
Sale is mostly to local markets or wholesalers with 12 percent also selling to
mahajan. The other avenues like exporters, govt, processing agencies are very
negligible. Encouraging sale through cooperative society or processing agency might
help build more market and induce strict quality parameters
Mostly the sale is direct to wholesalers, middlemen, local market, and exporters in
this category. Sale through government agency and cooperative is very low, which
needs attention considering the type of products like handicrafts in this group.
491
Observation
GI type
VII
VIII
Mode of
purchase by
traders
Spectrum of
region-wise
sale of product
(Opinion of
institutional
stakeholders)
Contribution of
uniqueness to
sale
Trend of sale
Price decision
and trend of
unit price
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion Highlights of opinion of
of
institutional consumers (C)/ traders
stakeholders
(T)
Sale through local market, wholesalers, middlemen, exporters is most prevalent in
this category. There is a need to enhance share to exporters through strengthening
sale through cooperative society
Producers aware of need of strategy for sale. With demand in market, need to explore
profitable routes of sale.
Various modes of sales being adopted. Direct sale to local shops most preferred.
Wholesalers are other source for sales. Govt agencies or cooperative societies need to
more visible as buying centers.
Mostly producers group, other sources with equal emphasis
Either direct or producers group with equal emphasis
Mostly direct but also middle-men and producers group with equal emphasis
Mostly direct followed by producers group
Mostly direct followed by producers group and middle-men. In non-agricultural
products direct purchase is more than in agricultural products.
80% sale within area of GI claim
53% sale within area of GI claim, 44% in other parts
58% sale within area of GI claim, 36% in other parts
72% sale within area of GI claim
66% sale within area of GI claim, 20% exports
--
More than 85% feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
More than 85% feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
More than 85% feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
More than 90% feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
More than 86% feel
uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
VI
--
VII
--
VIII
--
All nonagricultural
products
--
V
VI
VII
----
Mostly increasing
Mostly increasing
Mostly increasing
VIII
--
Moderately increasing
All nonagricultural
products
V
--
62% increasing, 20%
declining
No collective bargaining
--
VI
Most
producers
individually
sell
--
About
16%
feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
About
21%
feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
About
24%
feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
About
38%
feel
uniqueness contribute to
better sale value
Less number of traders
(even lesser than in
agricultural products) feel
that uniqueness contribute
to better sale value
Mostly increasing
Mostly increasing
Mostly
stationary
or
increasing little
Mostly
stationary
or
increasing little
About 53% traders feel
increasing,
36%
feel
stationary
Very less bargain by
customers
Moderate
bargain
by
customers
492
Observation
GI type
High lights of opinion of
producers
VII
More
organized
in
comparison to other groups.
Most
producers
sell -Very high bargain by
individually and take price
customers
offered.
The prices of product for -Customers
moderately
sale are mostly decided
bargain while purchasing
either through individual
from the trader. Except
bargain or purchasers offer a
textiles, the bargaining is
price to which producers had
lesser in non-agricultural
to agree. The trend of unit
products in comparison to
price is almost of increasing
agricultural products
side during 2004-06 except
few products like paithani
saree, kutch embroidery,
Srikalahasti saree, etc.
Producers increment-32%
Retailers-25%
Producer-16%
Retailer-28%
Producers increment-16%; Wholesaler- 15%; Retailer-19%; Middle-men- 17%
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Price
increments in
supply chain
(Opinion of
institutional
stakeholders)
Constraints in
production and
marketing
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Highlights of opinion
of
institutional
stakeholders
--
Highlights of opinion of
consumers (C)/ traders
(T)
Less bargain by customers
Difficulty in quality inputs, competition
High competition
High competition
improper transportation is acute constraint
The most important constraints are hindrances from high competition, finance,
difficulty in getting inputs, scarcity of skilled workers, insecure markets, lack of govt
policy, agronomic/natural factors, market insecurity leading to low profitability,
labour scarcity and low marketing infrastructure.
Inspection, quality control & quality assurance
Inspection,
quality control
at various
stages of
production
V
VI
Inspection by producers in
informal manner; only in
two products, strict code
developed
and
being
adhered through professional
standards
Inspection informal in most
cases
VII
Quality assurance methods
being now adopted
VIII
Inspection done in semiformal manner
Informally
advice,
no
method exist
on-site
formal
--
Informally
on-site
advice, communication,
no formal method exist
Formal
methods,
scientific evidences and
mandatory
standards
available
Informally done by
mostly producers
---
--
493
Observation
GI type
All nonagricultural
products
Govt defined
quality
assurance
methods and
advice given
for quality
improvement
(Opinion of
institutional
stakeholders)
Technical
guidelines for
production
codes
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
Maintenance
and monitoring
of codes of
production
practices
Traders’ view
to maintain
product quality
All nonagricultural
products
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion Highlights of opinion of
of
institutional consumers (C)/ traders
stakeholders
(T)
There are methods of About 23 % that it is -inspection
and
quality done
informally
control in non-agricultural through on-site advice,
products but needs to be training
and
more professional to help communication. 19%
better quality production. say no formal methods
Inspection by qualified are available. Through
personnel rare and difficult semi-formal method the
to be undertaken due to lack inspections are done by
of trained personnel
the producers.
Either no formal method or done by producers at raw material acquisition
Either no formal method or done by producers at raw material acquisition
Regulation of production practices & inputs, or compliance to standards
Either no formal method or done by producers at raw material acquisition
Producers’ regulated raw material testing is major method of quality assurance
The producers do not have any formalized practices. Rather most have their code
developed through years of practice or by tradition. There are no maintenance and
monitoring systems.
Phulkari products have specific code developed by efforts of producers themselves.
The producers do not have any formalized practices. Rather most have their code
developed through years of practice or by tradition. There are no maintenance and
monitoring systems.
The producers do not have any formalized practices. Rather most have their code
developed through years of practice or by tradition. There are no maintenance and
monitoring systems.
The producers do not have any formalized practices. Rather most have their code
developed through years of practice or by tradition. There are no maintenance and
monitoring systems.
Moderate no. of producers feel- not follow tech. Guidelines of govt, monitoring by
purchaser
High no. producers feel-no quality control mechanism available, no inspection
mechanism, Very high no. producers feel -maintenance of production code by self
control
High quality production practice and inputs and involvement of technically efficient
human resources
Involvement of technically efficient human resources and High quality production
practice and inputs
High quality production practice and inputs and facilitation & enforcement of quality
standards
Good practices at processing units and high quality production practice and inputs,
and also facilitation & enforcement of quality standards
Special emphasis on high quality production practice and inputs. Fairly well
importance to the involvement of technically efficient human resources
494
Observation
GI type
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion
of
institutional
stakeholders
Highlights of opinion of
consumers (C)/ traders
(T)
Perceived changes after registration
Presumed
results of nonregistration
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
VII
VIII
Expected
changes after
registration- on
market
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Expected
changes after
registrationenhanced
premium as
expected by
producers and
traders
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Most producers feel that
same name or to losses
Most producers feel that
same name or to losses
Most producers feel that
same name or to losses
Most producers feel that
same name or to losses
Most producers feel that
same name or to losses
non registration can lead to sale of spurious products under
non registration can lead to sale of spurious products under
non registration can lead to sale of spurious products under
non registration can lead to sale of spurious products under
non registration can lead to sale of spurious products under
Producers believe that there
would
be
significant
increase in sale, or unit
price, expansion in markets
and less competition
Producers believe that there
would
be
significant
increase in sale, or unit
price, expansion in markets
and less competition
Producers believe that there
would
be
significant
increase in sale, or unit
price, expansion in markets
and less competition
Producers believe that there
would
be
significant
increase in sale, or unit
price, expansion in markets
and less competition
Most producers believe that
there would be significant
increase in sale, or unit
price, expansion in markets
and less competition.
<15%
<10%
Mostly <10%
Mostly 10-15%
Mostly <10%
Improvement in product
standardization, grading
and producers’ income
--
Overall socio-economic
improvement
of
producers, increase in
number of producers
and production
Improvement in product
standardization, grading
--
Improvement in product
standardization, grading
and producers’ and
traders’ income
--
Improvement in product
standardization, grading
and producers’ and
traders’ income
--
------
------
--
495
Observation
GI type
Expected
changes after
registrationlivelihoods &
overall socioeconomic
conditions
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Expected
changes after
registrationconsumers’
expectations
V
VI
VII
VIII
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion
of
institutional
stakeholders
About 17% feel that About 60% feel that
producers will shift from producers will not shift
other livelihood activities. from other livelihood
And 50% feel that there will activities. And 64% feel
be overall improvement in that there will be
socio-economic conditions overall improvement in
of producers, if other socio-economic
protection system followed
conditions of producers
About 44% feel that About 46% feel that
producers will shift from producers will shift
other livelihood activities. from other livelihood
And 54% feel that there will activities. And 97% feel
be overall improvement in that there will be
socio-economic conditions overall improvement in
of producers, if other socio-economic
protection system followed
conditions of producers
About 33% feel that About 36% feel that
producers will shift from producers will not shift
other livelihood activities. from other livelihood
And 74% feel that there will activities. And 65% feel
be overall improvement in that there will be
socio-economic conditions overall improvement in
of producers, if other socio-economic
protection system followed
conditions of producers
About 46% feel that About 35% feel that
producers will shift from producers will not shift
other livelihood activities. from other livelihood
And 84% feel that there will activities. And 81% feel
be overall improvement in that there will be
socio-economic conditions overall improvement in
of producers, if other socio-economic
protection system followed
conditions of producers
About 37% feel that About 35% feel that
producers will shift from producers will not shift
other livelihood activities. from other livelihood
And 70% feel that there will activities. And 78% feel
be overall improvement in that there will be
socio-economic conditions overall improvement in
of producers, if other socio-economic
protection system followed
conditions of producers
Product standardization- highly expected
Grading- highly expected
Increase in consumers- moderately expected
Product standardization- extremely expected
Grading- moderately expected
Increase in consumers- moderately expected
Product standardization- moderately expected
Grading- moderately expected
Increase in consumers- moderately expected
Product standardization- moderately expected
Grading- moderately expected
Increase in consumers- less expected
Highlights of opinion of
consumers (C)/ traders
(T)
--
--
--
--
--
496
Observation
Visualized
benefits at time
of GI
registration
GI type
All nonagricultural
products
All nonagricultural
products
Perceived impact on market
Duplicates and V
similar
products
Consumers’
efforts to
purchase
genuine
product
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion Highlights of opinion of
of
institutional consumers (C)/ traders
stakeholders
(T)
High expectations in product standardization and grading. Moderate expectations in
increase in consumers
--
Enhancing
regional
social and cultural
benefits was the main
motivation
factor,
followed by market
organization
--
Most producers agree that no
duplicates are available
Significant number feel
that duplicates are not
there.
But
almost
similar products from
other areas/states are
threat
Moderate number feel
that duplicates from
other areas/states are
threat
T- T- Large number feel
that duplicates are in the
market
C-less no. feel quality
assurance led to purchase
VI
Duplicates are available
VII
Duplicates are available
Moderate number feel
that duplicates from
other areas/states are
threat
VIII
Not many duplicates
All nonagricultural
products
Producers were divided
about the existence of
similar but not genuine
products that are sold in the
market with the same name.
Being rural based, most
producers were not aware of
possibility of duplicates for
their products.
Significant number feel
that duplicates are not
there.But almost similar
products from other
areas/states are threat
Moderate number feel
that much duplicates
are not there. But
almost similar products
from other areas/states
are
threat.
The
administrative measures
alongwith high quality
standards
and
IP
protection can alleviate
the problem
V
All are confident about originality of purchased product
purchase genuine product
>90% confident about originality of purchased product and 73% make any effort to
purchase genuine product
>94% confident about originality of purchased product and 71% make any effort to
purchase genuine product
>95% confident about originality of purchased product and 88% make any effort to
purchase genuine product
VI
VII
VIII
T- Moderate number feel
that duplicates are not in
the market
C-very less no. feel quality
assurance led to purchase
T- Moderate number feel
that duplicates are in the
market
C-moderate
no.
feel
quality assurance led to
purchase
T- Moderate number feel
that duplicates are in the
market
C-very less no. feel quality
assurance led to purchase
Moderate
number
of
traders feel that duplicates
are in the market but
serious threat is from the
similar products from
other states/regions. Threat
from
duplicates
and
similar products is more in
non-agricultural products.
Consumers
feel
that
quality assurance is not the
main reason of purchase
and 58% make any effort to
497
Observation
GI type
All nonagricultural
products
Competitiontypes and
sources
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Import of
similar product
and difference
between
imported and
domestic
product
V
VI
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion Highlights of opinion of
of
institutional consumers (C)/ traders
stakeholders
(T)
Around 96% are confident about originality of purchased product and 77% make any
effort to purchase genuine product. In comparison to agricultural products more
consumers are confident about the originality of product and also more consumers
make any special effort to purchase genuine
Little aware of competition Similar duplicates in Same product produced
faced
by
them
in the country and same elsewhere in the country
international or domestic product
produced and similar duplicates in
markets.
elsewhere
in
the the country is the major
country
competition
Aware of competition faced Similar duplicates in Similar duplicates in the
by them in international or the country and same country
and
similar
domestic markets.
product
produced products imported is the
elsewhere
in
the major competition
country
along-with
imported products
Little aware of competition Same product produced Similar duplicates in the
faced
by
them
in elsewhere
in
the country and same product
international or domestic country and similar produced elsewhere in the
markets.
duplicates
in
the country is the major
country
competition
Aware of competition faced Same product produced Same product produced
by them in international or elsewhere
in
the elsewhere in the country
domestic markets.
country and similar and similar duplicates in
duplicates
in
the the country is the major
country
competition
Very few producers are About 82% feel that About 76% feel that
aware of competition faced products
face products face competition
by them in international or competition but main but main competition is
domestic markets. Some competition
is domestic. Same product
voiced concern on spurious domestic. The imported produced elsewhere in the
and
similar
material being sold as their product
main country
product or entry of imported competition in GI type duplicates in the country is
products
VII, VI & VIII. Export the major competition
in
nonmarket is competition Competition
for GI Type- VII, VI agricultural products is
and also VIII for some more than agricultural
extant.
Competition in nonagricultural products is
more than agricultural
Threat
perceived
from Mostly feel no import
No import
competition from similar
products imported in the
country is fairly low
Threat
perceived
from Imported product differ Traders are little aware.
competition from similar in quality and cheaper
But mostly feel that
products imported in the
imported product is of
country is fairly high
different
quality
but
indigenous
product’s
traditional nature is highly
valued
498
Observation
GI type
High lights of opinion of
producers
VII
Threat
perceived
competition from
products imported
country is fairly high
Threat
perceived
competition from
products imported
country is fairly high
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Import of the
products
V
VI
VII
Export and
trade option of
the products
(Opinion of
traders)
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
from
similar
in the
Highlights of opinion
of
institutional
stakeholders
Imported product differ
in quality and cheaper
from
similar
in the
Imported product differ
in quality and cheaper
The threat perceived from
competition from similar
products imported in the
country is fairly high. Most
producers’ (33%) believe
that imported products are of
inferior quality, the other
reasons including less price
of imports and their quality
are of less significance.
---
About 20% feel no
import. Some feel that
processing of imported
is different. Imported
product differ in quality
and cheaper
Highlights of opinion of
consumers (C)/ traders
(T)
Traders are little aware.
But mostly feel that
imported product is of
different quality
Traders are little aware.
But mostly feel that
imported product is of
different
quality
and
cheaper also
Traders are little aware.
But mostly feel that
imported product is of
different
quality
and
cheaper also
No import
No information available
Toys
from
China, No information available
furniture from Italy,
Indonesia,
Turkey,
Malaysia
-Soap, manufacturing oil No information available
and clay pottery from
China. Glass ware from
Japan. Pottery from
Indonesia
and
Bangladesh
-Clothing from China
No information available
-The
import
from No information available
various countries is a
real threat
Suited for local consumption, few products for export also. Trade preference- almost
equal to both domestic and export with more emphasis on domestic
Suited for export & domestic consumption. Trade preference- almost equal to both
domestic and export with more emphasis on export
Suited for domestic consumption. Trade preference- almost equal to both domestic
and export with more emphasis on domestic
Suited for domestic consumption & Export. Trade preference - almost equal to both
domestic and export with more emphasis on export
Most commodities suited for domestic consumption but some have export potential
also
All nonagricultural
products
Observed impacts after registration
Observed
changes after
registration- on
market
V
VI
Change has been observed by several producers with increase in production in post
GI registration
Change has been observed by several producers with increase in production in post
GI registration
499
Observation
GI type
(Opinion of
producers)
VII
VIII
Observed
changes after
registrationlivelihoods &
overall socioeconomic
conditions
(Opinion of
producers)
Observed
changes after
registrationenhanced
premium felt
by producers
(Opinion of
producers)
Other observed
changes
(Opinion of
producers)
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion Highlights of opinion of
of
institutional consumers (C)/ traders
stakeholders
(T)
Change has been observed by several producers with increase in production in post
GI registration
Change has been observed by several producers with increase in production in post
GI registration
Post registration change has been observed by several producers with increase in
production in post GI registration. Most producers also felt respondents that there will
be increase in price and profit after GI registration
Registration had brought important or would ring change in socio-economic
conditions of producers
Registration had brought important or would ring change in socio-economic
conditions of producers
Registration had brought important or would ring change in socio-economic
conditions of producers
Registration had brought important or would ring change in socio-economic
conditions of producers
About 50% of producers said that they have shifted from other livelihood activities to
production of RGI. Almost all believe that registration had brought important or
would ring change in socio-economic conditions of producers
Enhanced premium to the product.
Enhanced premium to the product.
Not much enhanced premium to the product.
Enhanced premium to the product.
There was a mixed reaction to enhanced premium to the product. While 50% felt it
enhanced, others felt it did not as of now
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
Willingness to pay
Prefer to pay upto Rs 500 as fees for registration
Prefer to pay upto Rs 500 as fees for registration
Prefer to pay even Rs 1000 but not more
Prefer to pay upto Rs 500 as fees for registration
Prefer to pay; varied amount but mostly Rs 500/-
Willingness for
registration and
payment
thereof
Producers
intended
for
registration. Very
Producers
intended
for
registration. Very
Producers
intended
for
registration. Very
Producers
intended
for
registration. Very
Large number of producers
intended for registration.
Very small fraction was
unwilling for registration).
Most producers willing to
pay for registration though
high fees were not favored.
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
--
40% intend for reg.
--
67% intend for reg.
--
45% intend for reg.
--
61% intend for reg.
The funding for GI
registration has come
from different sources.
Producers
also
contributed. Banks also
agree to pay for it
Consumers’ intention for
registration is more in
handicraft and textile
500
Observation
GI type
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion
of
institutional
stakeholders
--
Highlights of opinion of
consumers (C)/ traders
(T)
--
Money paid by
producers for
registration
Willingness to
pay for
expected
enhanced
premium
All nonagricultural
products
V
Out of 09 respondents, 5
opine of payment, but it is
between Rs 250-500
<15%
--
About 60% consumers are
ready to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below. About 20% traders
agree
for
enhanced
premium, mostly agree for
10% premium
About 71% consumers are
ready to pay. Mostly agree
for 05% premium or
below. About 23% traders
agree
for
enhanced
premium, mostly agree for
10% premium
About 75% consumers are
ready to pay. Mostly agree
for 05% premium or
below. About 22% traders
agree
for
enhanced
premium, mostly agree for
10% premium
About 88% consumers are
ready to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below. About 35% traders
agree
for
enhanced
premium, mostly agree for
10% premium
About 77% consumers are
ready to pay. Mostly agree
for 10% premium or
below preferably below
5%. Comparative to agric.
products, more consumers
are willing to pay but
lesser premium amount.
About 80% traders agree
for enhanced premium,
mostly agree for 15% or
less premium on cost and
sale price.
VI
<10%
--
VII
Mostly <10%
--
VIII
Mostly 10-15%
--
All nonagricultural
products
Mostly <10%
--
Suggestions on policy implications
Production
characteristics
(Opinion of
producers)
V
VI
VII
VIII
Increasing trends showing above 50%.
Increasing trends showing above 60%.
Increasing trends showing above 60%.
Increasing trends showing above 60%.
501
Observation
GI type
All nonagricultural
products
Production
constraints
(Opinion of
producers)
Earnings and
income
Financial and
infrastructure
needs- for
increasing
production
(Opinion of
producers)
Awareness of
producers and
stakeholders
about GI
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion Highlights of opinion of
of
institutional consumers (C)/ traders
stakeholders
(T)
In the opinion of producers the trend of production in last three years had been either
increasing or stationary for most of products except few where it was either stationary
or decreasing such as- panjabi jooti, kancheepuram silk, banarsi saree, bhadoi carpet
etc.
Storage and lack of knowledge on modern technologies
Storage and lack of knowledge on modern technologies
Storage and lack of knowledge on modern technologies
Storage and lack of knowledge on modern technologies
Major constraints are for storage and lack of knowledge on modern technologies for
packing.
Good income
--
VI
Good income
--
VII
Good income
--
VIII
Producers feel income is -of traders
poor
Nearly 50% of the producers -of traders
feel that earning from
enterprise is good
Few approach banks for aid. Mostly from money lenders in villages
Approached for aid.
Approached for aid.
Many have approached for aid. Administrative formalities deter them from
approaching banks
Adequate finance from nationalized banks and other institutions would increase
production. Producers felt the response was not too good and had many formalities.
The production can be increased, if better marketing infrastructure is made available
Most producers are aware of Good awareness
Extremely
aware
of
uniqueness of their products
importance of traditional
but many are not aware of
character and reputation
GI systems and benefits they
but very low awareness
can get
about GI
Most producers are aware of Very low awareness
Extremely
aware
of
uniqueness of their products
importance of traditional
but many are not aware of
character and reputation
GI systems and benefits they
but moderate awareness
can get
about GI
Most producers are aware of Good awareness
Extremely
aware
of
uniqueness of their products
importance of traditional
but many are not aware of
character and reputation
GI systems and benefits they
but very low awareness
can get
about GI
Most producers are aware of Moderate awareness
Extremely
aware
of
uniqueness of their products
importance of traditional
but many are not aware of
character and reputation
GI systems and benefits they
and also high awareness
can get
about GI
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
VI
VII
VIII
Low
no.
satisfied
Low
no.
satisfied
Low
no.
satisfied
Moderate no.
satisfied
Low
no.
satisfied
of
traders
of
traders
of
traders
502
Observation
GI type
All nonagricultural
products
Role of
agencies in
development
and
strengthening
of producers’
associations
Other
interventionsmarket
expansion
strategies
(Opinion of
producers)
Future
prospects of
the product
Constructive
measures to
make
production
viable and
improve future
All nonagricultural
products
High lights of opinion of
producers
Highlights of opinion Highlights of opinion of
of
institutional consumers (C)/ traders
stakeholders
(T)
Most producers are aware of The awareness is low Extremely
aware
of
uniqueness of their products about GI implications importance of traditional
but many are not aware of but
better
than character and reputation
GI systems and benefits they agricultural products. but awareness about GI
can get
Only 20 per cent could not much except sector of
firmly say that their textiles
product is registered as
GI. About 15% did not
know anything about
status of their product
Opinion of producers-Only 54% producers feel that any kind of a producers’
association is available and 56% producers are not member of any type of producers’
association. Membership is more in non-agric. products than in agric. products
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
V
Favoured less to change technology
Associations and governmental help
Amicable for change
Favoured product diversification
In all types, larger market potentiality and need to increase number of varieties of
products were more favoured by the respondents
VI
--
VII
--
VIII
--
All nonagricultural
products
--
V
--
VI
--
--
Fair
number
of
products- future is
bright and likely to
improve
Fair
number
of
products- future is
bright and likely to
improve
Fair
number
of
products- future is
bright and likely to
improve
Most products- future is
bright and likely to
improve
Fairly products have
bright future and which
is likely to improve.
The situation is better in
agricultural products
Production
level
improvements.
Govt.
policy support
Production
level
improvements.
Govt.
policy support
Fair number of productsfuture is bright and likely
to improve
Fair number of productsfuture is bright and likely
to improve
Fair number of productsfuture is bright and likely
to improve
Fair number of productsfuture is very bright and
likely to improve
Fairly products have bright
future and which is likely
to improve. The situation
is better in agricultural
products
Govt. policy support.
Production
level
improvements
Production
level
improvements.
Govt.
policy support.
503
Observation
GI type
High lights of opinion of
producers
prospects
VII
--
VIII
--
All nonagricultural
products
--
Status of
marketing and
suggestions for
improvement
V
VI
VII
VIII
All nonagricultural
products
------
Suggestions for
improvement
to increase sale
(Opinion of
Consumers-C,
traders-T)
V
VI
VII
VIII
Scientific
endeavors in
product dev.
Endeavors by
agencies
responsible or
concerned with
GI registration
Endeavors by
financial
institutions
All nonagricultural
products
All nonagricultural
products
All nonagricultural
products
All nonagricultural
products
Highlights of opinion
of
institutional
stakeholders
Production
level
improvements.
Govt.
policy support with
quality assurance
Production
level
improvements.
Good
marketing practices
Improvement
in
production
and
government
policy
support alongwith good
marketing
practices
would bring change
Highlights of opinion of
consumers (C)/ traders
(T)
Production
level
improvements.
Govt.
policy support.
Production
level
improvements.
Govt.
policy support.
Most traders feel that
production
level
improvements and govt.
policy support required.
The requirements felt are
different
than
agric
products
Moderately satisfactory
Moderately satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Moderately satisfactory
A little less than half of
traders not satisfied with
the present mode. They
want effective publicity
and policy support
Moderately satisfactory
Highly satisfactory
Fairly satisfactory
Moderately satisfactory
A little less than half of
respondents are not
satisfied
with
the
present mode. They
want effective publicity
and TQM
C-Wide publicity, reasonable price
T- Wide publicity, innovative changes
C- Innovative changes, reasonable price
T-TQM, Wide publicity
C- Quality standardization, reasonable price
T- TQM, wide publicity with reasonable price
C- Quality standardization, innovative changes
T- Quality standardization, innovative changes
C- Quality standardization, reasonable price & innovative changes
T- Quality standardization, wide publicity & innovative changes
Opinion of institutional stakeholders- Scientific experimentations are required to
establish uniqueness. Very less has been done for technical intervention to reduce or
stop infringement and also to take initiatives for GI facilitation.
Opinion of institutional stakeholders- In few states, the concerned departments and
agencies have taken initiatives. Various central government supported organizations
have taken proactive manner. The process was institutionalized to some extent.
Opinion of institutional stakeholders- Biggest reason for not financing is lack of a
designated scheme and also absence of institutional efforts from producers’ and link
organizations. Banks clearly for TQM probably that will lead to good recovery. In
some products and GI types such as type VIII the financial system has been
institutionalized.