Unnatural Neglect: The Underrepresentation of Natural Goods in India’s GI Registry

Unnatural Neglect: The Underrepresentation of Natural Goods in India’s GI Registry | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Unnatural Neglect: The Underrepresentation of Natural Goods in India’s GI Registry Hashim Mohammed S This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6767265/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract India’s Geographical Indications (GI) framework has seen remarkable expansion since the enactment of the GI Act, 1999, registering over 650 goods across diverse categories such as handicrafts, agricultural products, and food items. However, this study highlights a striking underrepresentation of natural goods, which constitute only three of the 658 GIs registered as of March 2025 amounting to less than 0.5%. Through a category-wise analysis of the official GI registry, this paper uncovers the structural neglect of natural goods within the current institutional and legal ecosystem. It identifies key barriers including narrow legal interpretation, lack of producer organization, and policy blind spots. The paper further presents a list of potential candidates such as Jaisalmer Limestone, Marakkanam Salt, Cuddapah stone etc. that possess strong geographical and cultural identity yet remain unrecognized. By comparing national practices with global GI regimes and proposing targeted policy reforms, the study calls for a recalibration of India’s GI landscape to include geologically and ecologically distinctive resources. Expanding GI protection to natural goods not only strengthens cultural and material heritage but also promotes inclusive development and sustainable use of natural resources. Intellectual Property Law Entrepreneurship Cultural Studies Geographical Indications Natural Goods Intellectual Property India Cultural Heritage Figures Figure 1 Introduction Geographical Indications (GIs) have emerged as a potent form of intellectual property, offering protection to goods that possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics essentially attributable to their geographic origin 1 . In India, the enactment of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 signalled a decisive shift toward safeguarding traditional knowledge, artisanal excellence, and regional distinctiveness 2 . Since the first GI registration in 2004, India has built one of the world’s most expansive GI portfolios, spanning diverse categories such as agricultural goods, handicrafts, manufactured items, and food stuffs 3 . As of March 2025, a total of 658 GIs has been registered, reflecting a robust institutional ecosystem supporting producers and communities 2 . However, a striking imbalance characterizes India’s GI landscape: only three natural goods (class 14 and 19 of classification of goods) Makrana Marble (Rajasthan), Chunar Balua Patthar (Uttar Pradesh), and Ambaji White Marble (Gujarat) have been registered under this regime. This accounts for a mere 0.45% of the total registered GIs, a marginal figure in a country renowned for its geological and ecological diversity. From the granite-rich hills of Karnataka to the laterite plateaus of Kerala, and from Himalayan rock salt beds to unique riverine sands, India's natural environment is a source of identity, livelihood, and heritage. Yet, these resources remain conspicuously absent from the GI framework. This underrepresentation raises critical questions: Why are natural goods so sparsely registered despite clear eligibility under the Act? Is there a structural, institutional, or conceptual gap that prevents their inclusion? Could expanding the GI scope to better encompass natural goods enhance conservation, branding, and community participation? This paper addresses these questions through a systematic investigation of the category-wise and state-wise distribution of GIs in India. Drawing on official registry data and legal provisions under the GI Act, it highlights the legal invisibility and policy neglect faced by natural goods. The study also proposes a set of potential candidates for GI recognition and recommends reforms to enable a more inclusive and balanced GI ecosystem. By foregrounding the legal and cultural marginality of natural goods, this research calls for a re-examination of the GI framework in India one that goes beyond crafts and crops to recognize the geological identity and heritage value of India’s natural resources. Literature Review The academic and policy discourse around Geographical Indications (GIs) in India has largely revolved around two dominant categories: agricultural products and handicrafts. Several studies have examined the socio-economic impact of GI registration on rural producers, artisans, and agrarian communities 4 , 5 , 6 . These works argue that GIs function not merely as legal markers but as tools of rural development, enabling branding, market differentiation, and community empowerment. GI Law and Category Definitions The foundational legal basis for GIs in India is the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which mirrors India's compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. Under Section 2(f), the Act defines “goods” to include agricultural, natural, or manufactured goods, as well as food stuff and handicrafts. However, the interpretation and operationalization of the Act have been heavily skewed toward visible and export-oriented categories, particularly agricultural commodities like Darjeeling Tea and Basmati Rice, and crafts like Kanjeevaram Sarees or Mysore Sandalwood 7 . Natural goods though explicitly mentioned in the Act have remained peripherally interpreted, with little jurisprudence or administrative precedence to support their registration. As WIPO (2013) points out, the inclusion of natural goods in GI regimes requires not only legal recognition but also robust documentation of geographical distinctiveness and traditional usage, which often remains underdeveloped for such goods 8 . Category-Wise GI Trends in India Empirical studies of GI registrations in India reveal a stark concentration in the handicraft and agricultural domains. According to reports by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), these two categories account for over 75% of all registered GIs. Studies by Bhattacharya, N. S. (2022) and Dey (2021) corroborate this finding, noting that the GI ecosystem in India has largely been driven by state agencies, artisan cooperatives, and agricultural marketing boards 9 , 10 . These institutions have legal capacity and market incentives to pursue GI tags, unlike mining communities or ecological stakeholders involved with natural goods. There is limited literature addressing natural goods as a distinct category, reflecting both academic and administrative neglect. A rare exception is the documentation of Makrana Marble, whose GI registration has been noted in industrial and architectural conservation literature 11 . However, these discussions tend to be descriptive rather than analytical, lacking a systematic critique of why so few natural goods have been registered despite their cultural and economic significance. Comparative Perspectives and International Practice Globally, countries like France, Italy, and Portugal have extended GI protections to a variety of natural goods, including volcanic spring water, granite, mineral salts, and river sands 12 . India’s GI system, by contrast, has not witnessed such expansion. The underrepresentation of natural goods may therefore be symptomatic of a regulatory culture that privileges market-friendly and easily certifiable goods, sidelining those that do not fit neatly into agrarian or artisanal frameworks. Policy Gaps and Institutional Invisibility Despite government efforts to promote GIs under schemes such as ODOP (One District One Product) and the GI Promotion and Marketing Scheme, there is no dedicated policy initiative aimed at identifying or registering natural goods. Nor are there institutional mechanisms like producer groups or geological cooperatives that could apply for GI registration for stone, mineral, or salt-based products. Scholars like Sinha (2020) and Prasad (2022) have called for a broadening of the GI framework to include natural heritage and ecological commodities, but this remains a nascent discussion in both policy and academic circles 13 , 14 . Methodology This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining structured data extraction from official GI records with qualitative evaluation grounded in legal interpretation and policy analysis. The primary data source for the study was the official document “Registered Geographical Indications of India as on 31-12-2024” , published by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Government of India. This document contains detailed listings of all GI registrations from April 2004 through March 2025, including product names, categories, registration numbers, and the states or regions of origin. The dataset covers a total of 658 registered items. To analyse the distribution of GIs across categories, each listed product was manually classified into one of the five categories explicitly defined in Section 2(f) of the GI Act, 1999—namely, Agricultural Goods, Handicrafts, Manufactured Goods, Food Stuffs, and Natural Goods. In cases where the category was not explicitly labelled in the official document, classification was inferred through product attributes, historical usage, and supplementary sources such as GI Journal entries, DPIIT press releases, and state government archives. Quantitative analysis was conducted using Python, including frequency distributions, category-wise breakdowns, and visualizations such as pie charts. Special attention was given to the “Natural Goods” category, where both absolute and proportional representation were evaluated. To assess the gap between registered and potentially registerable natural goods, the study further employed qualitative screening based on cultural-geographical criteria. A shortlist of unregistered yet geographically distinctive natural products was developed using secondary sources such as geological reports from the Indian Bureau of Mines, state mining directories, heritage conservation inventories, and research papers. Criteria for selection included: uniqueness of the material in its place of origin, cultural and historical relevance, existing traditional knowledge or community engagement, and potential for sustainable extraction. Products such as Jaisalmer Yellow Limestone, Cuddapah stone, Shahabad stone etc. were identified through this process. Lastly, the findings from both the quantitative and qualitative phases were interpreted through a doctrinal and policy-oriented lens. Key legal provisions of the GI Act were revisited, and the Indian framework was compared with international practices to highlight institutional and interpretive gaps. This methodological structure ensured that the study not only provided a descriptive account of the underrepresentation of natural goods but also situated the analysis within a broader legal and policy context. Results and Analysis The analysis of India’s Geographical Indications (GI) registry, comprising 658 entries as of March 2025, reveals a stark imbalance in the representation of product categories. The data show a pronounced dominance of handicrafts, which account for 312 registrations (47.4%), followed by agricultural goods with 202 registrations (30.7%). Manufactured goods and food stuffs make up smaller shares, with 54 (8.2%) and 43 (6.5%) entries respectively. In sharp contrast, natural goods despite being a statutorily recognized category under Section 2(f) of the GI Act are represented by only three entries, constituting less than 0.5% of all registrations Fig. 1 . This disproportionate distribution suggests a structural neglect of natural goods within the GI ecosystem. All three natural goods Makrana Marble from Rajasthan, Chunar Balua Patthar from Uttar Pradesh, and Ambaji White Marble from Gujarat are Indian. These goods are predominantly stone-based and tied to architectural heritage, underscoring the limited interpretation of natural goods as primarily mineral or construction materials. The temporal analysis of GI registrations indicates a generally increasing trend across categories since the implementation of the GI Act in 2004. Handicrafts and agricultural products have seen consistent growth, especially following the introduction of promotional schemes and state-level interventions. However, the trend for natural goods remains stagnant. The registrations of Makrana Marble (2009), Chunar Balua Patthar (2015), and Ambaji Marble (2017) are isolated events with no follow-up entries in the subsequent years. Despite policy expansion in recent years to include more regions and districts, particularly from the Northeast and tribal areas, the natural goods category has not witnessed any comparable momentum. In terms of individual profiles, the three registered natural goods demonstrate both geographical specificity and historical-cultural value. The first among these is Makrana Marble , extracted from the Makrana region in Rajasthan. Geologically one of the oldest marble deposits in India, Makrana Marble is renowned for its fine texture, brilliant white color, and resistance to water seepage 15 . Its historical significance is unmatched it was used in constructing the Taj Mahal, the Dilwara Temples, and the Victoria Memorial. The marble’s natural polish, purity, and structural strength have earned it a prominent place in both domestic architecture and world heritage monuments. The GI registration, granted in 2009, protects not only the marble itself but also the identity of the Makrana quarrying community. The second natural good is Chunar Balua Patthar , a pinkish to reddish sandstone native to the Chunar region in Mirzapur district, Uttar Pradesh 16 . Registered as a GI in 2015, this stone has been historically prized for its use in fort construction, including the Chunar Fort and architectural components of the Red Fort. Its distinct characteristics ease of carving, soft grain, and weather resistance make it ideal for both utilitarian and ornamental use. The stone has deep cultural associations in eastern Uttar Pradesh, where local artisans and masons have long shaped it into both religious and civic structures. The GI protection seeks to preserve not only the stone’s geographic identity but also the artisanal practices that have developed around it. The third GI-recognized natural product is Ambaji White Marble , quarried from the Ambaji region in Banaskantha district, Gujarat 17 . This marble, registered in 2017, is known for its bright white tone, fine crystalline structure, and smooth natural finish. Often used in the construction of temples and high-end interior designs, Ambaji marble is seen as Gujarat’s answer to Rajasthan’s Makrana marble, offering a similar aesthetic and strength profile with regional distinctiveness. It holds religious and cultural importance in western India, particularly in temple architecture, and is extracted and processed by a community of skilled quarry workers and sculptors. The GI status aims to bolster the regional identity of this high-value natural material and support its sustainable use in traditional and contemporary architecture. To assess the gap between existing and potential natural goods under the GI framework, the study identified a set of geologically unique and culturally embedded products that meet the eligibility criteria but remain unregistered. Some of it is discussed below: Jaisalmer Yellow Limestone (Rajasthan) Jaisalmer Yellow Limestone is a golden-hued sedimentary rock found in and around the city of Jaisalmer in Rajasthan. This stone is known for its striking warm color, which ranges from pale yellow to deep honey-gold, and its historic role in defining the architectural identity of the region 18 . Prominent structures such as the Jaisalmer Fort, Patwon Ki Haveli, and Nathmal Ki Haveli are constructed from this stone, earning Jaisalmer the nickname "The Golden City." The stone is easy to carve, possesses good compressive strength, and weathers beautifully in desert climates 18 . Its local extraction and long-standing association with regional artisanship make it an ideal candidate for GI registration, which could help preserve the cultural and material heritage of the Thar desert architecture. Kota Stone (Rajasthan) Kota Stone, a fine-grained variety of limestone, is found in the Kota and Jhalawar districts of Rajasthan. It is one of the most popular flooring stones in India due to its toughness, slip resistance, and ability to take a high polish. Unlike marble, it has a non-glossy finish that makes it ideal for public and residential buildings alike. Kota Stone has been used extensively in railway platforms, government buildings, temples, and homes. Its regional specificity, combined with its historical use and durability, positions it as a strong contender for GI registration. Formal protection under GI would not only affirm its geographic identity but also benefit the local mining and processing communities that depend on its production. Shahabad Stone (Karnataka) Shahabad Stone is a durable limestone quarried in the Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) region of Karnataka. It is widely used for flooring, paving, and roofing, especially in the southern and western parts of India. The stone has a natural grayish-blue tone and smooth texture, and it becomes increasingly lustrous with use and polishing over time 19 . Known for its cooling effect in warm climates, Shahabad Stone has been part of traditional South Indian construction for generations. Its uniqueness lies in its geological formation and the regional extraction practices followed by communities in northern Karnataka. GI registration could provide legal and economic recognition to this culturally embedded natural material. Kadappa Black Stone (Andhra Pradesh) Kadappa Stone is a type of black limestone primarily found in the Cuddapah district of Andhra Pradesh. It is distinguished by its deep charcoal colour, fine grain, and exceptional density. The stone is widely used in both rural and urban architecture, particularly for flooring, kitchen slabs, and wall cladding 17 . Because of its strength and availability, it is also used in temples and other sacred structures in the region. Kadappa Stone’s long-standing association with South Indian architecture, its geographic specificity, and traditional modes of processing align well with the GI registration framework. Recognizing it as a GI could help formalize its regional branding and offer protections to small-scale quarry workers and processors. Marakkanam Salt (Tamil Nadu) Marakkanam Salt is a coastal solar-evaporated salt harvested in the town of Marakkanam in Tamil Nadu, located between Chennai and Pondicherry. Produced through traditional salt pan techniques, this salt is known for its crystalline purity and minimal chemical processing 20 . It holds historical significance as part of India's salt-producing coastline and is still harvested by traditional salt workers using age-old methods. The salt is also closely tied to regional livelihoods and has ecological significance in the form of salt pan wetland ecosystems that support migratory birds. Despite its cultural and economic importance, Marakkanam Salt remains unrecognized under the GI system. A GI tag could help preserve the artisanal method of production and protect the socio-ecological landscape it sustains. Discussion The institutional marginalization of natural goods within India’s Geographical Indications (GI) framework is a striking anomaly when viewed in the context of the country’s otherwise expansive and evolving GI ecosystem. Since the implementation of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, India has emerged as a global leader in the number and diversity of GI registrations. Yet, despite the inclusion of natural goods as a legally recognized category under Section 2(f) of the Act, only three items Makrana Marble (Rajasthan), Chunar Sandstone (Uttar Pradesh), and Ambaji White Marble (Gujarat ) have received GI protection in this category as of March 2025. This represents an exceptionally low share—less than 0.5%—of the total 658 registered goods, indicating a systemic gap in recognition, documentation, and advocacy for this category. This limited representation is not merely a statistical outlier; it is indicative of a deeper conceptual and procedural oversight in how GIs are understood, administered, and promoted in India. While handicrafts and agricultural products have enjoyed consistent institutional support through state handicraft boards, agricultural marketing federations, and targeted central schemes, natural goods have suffered from a lack of similar organizational infrastructure. There exists no dedicated body or framework at either the state or national level that actively identifies and promotes natural products for GI registration. As a result, despite the geological and environmental richness of the Indian subcontinent, a wide array of region-specific natural materials including unique varieties of limestone, sandstone, salts and clays remain absent from the GI registry. This underrepresentation is also symptomatic of a narrow interpretive culture surrounding the GI Act. Although the legislation provides for the registration of “natural goods,” there has been little juridical elaboration or administrative precedent to define what constitutes a natural product in the GI context. In practice, the category has been treated as an incidental or residual domain, activated only when stone or mineral products are historically monumental or commercially prominent enough to cross into national visibility. The registrations of Makrana Marble and Ambaji Marble , for instance, were not the result of proactive government drives but of local stakeholders asserting claims that resonated with architectural heritage narratives. Other equally distinctive yet less celebrated natural goods have languished in legal and institutional ambiguity. Moreover, the visibility and valorisation of GIs in public discourse and policy circles have been heavily shaped by the export potential and cultural appeal of agricultural commodities and artisanal crafts. Products like Darjeeling Tea, Alphonso Mango, Pochampally Ikat, and Kanjeevaram Sarees have captured the imagination of policymakers and the market alike, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of support and promotion. Natural goods, which often reside at the intersection of geological formation and utilitarian value, lack the same symbolic capital and market-friendly narratives. Consequently, they are frequently overlooked in national GI exhibitions, promotional campaigns, and subsidy schemes. The absence of natural goods in such initiatives reinforces their marginality and deprives local communities of both recognition and economic opportunity. Another important aspect of this underrepresentation is its geographical and developmental implication. Many of the regions with unrecognized natural goods—such as the salt pans of Gujarat, the sandstone belts of Bundelkhand, and the laterite-rich coasts of Kerala and Goa are also areas with economically vulnerable communities that rely on these resources for livelihoods. The GI system, if applied effectively to natural goods, could function as a developmental tool that legitimizes traditional knowledge, stabilizes income, and promotes sustainable extraction practices. By contrast, the current absence of legal protection exposes these communities to market exploitation, commodification without credit, and ecological degradation driven by unregulated mining or overuse. There is also a missed opportunity in terms of environmental stewardship and conservation. A GI, by definition, ties a product to its ecological and cultural landscape, offering a potential mechanism for promoting place-based sustainability. For instance, solar-evaporated salts from Marakkanam or the sand quarries of the Ganga could be managed more sustainably if linked to a certification framework that discourages overextraction and recognizes traditional ecological knowledge. However, in the absence of GI recognition, such natural ecosystems are increasingly subjected to extractive economies with no institutional incentive for conservation or community control. On an international level, this imbalance also sets India apart from comparative GI regimes, such as those of the European Union, where natural goods ranging from volcanic waters to mineral-rich soils are not only acknowledged but actively marketed under Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) frameworks. These examples illustrate how natural products can be integrated into national branding strategies and heritage protection policies. India’s failure to do so suggests not just a gap in legal infrastructure but a broader epistemic bias against material goods that do not conform to agrarian or artisanal models. In summary, the near invisibility of natural goods in the GI registry reflects a structural neglect, undergirded by weak institutional advocacy, narrow interpretive paradigms, and insufficient linkage between natural resources and cultural valuation. It is not the absence of qualifying goods but the absence of a systemic orientation that has led to this exclusion. Addressing this requires not only legal reform but also a paradigmatic shift in how we understand and promote geographical identity one that embraces geological and ecological materials as equally valid expressions of territorial heritage. Policy Recommendations To address the entrenched underrepresentation of natural goods within India's Geographical Indications (GI) framework, a multi-pronged policy response is imperative one that moves beyond rhetorical inclusivity and builds substantive institutional pathways for recognition, registration, and promotion of these goods. The first step in this direction is the establishment of a dedicated Natural GI Mission under the auspices of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). Such a mission should be tasked with identifying, documenting, and facilitating GI applications for geologically distinctive materials ranging from region-specific stones and salts to naturally occurring sands, soils, and clays that are integral to local identities and livelihoods. This initiative must operate in collaboration with state governments, geological bodies, and cultural institutions to create a robust inventory of qualifying goods, prioritizing regions historically excluded from GI benefits. Simultaneously, there is a need to expand the legal interpretation and operational definition of 'natural goods' under Section 2(f) of the GI Act. While the statute already provides for their inclusion, the administrative and legal apparatus has rarely exercised this provision proactively. A formal clarification perhaps through rules or guidance notes issued by the GI Registry should explicitly affirm that natural goods include extractive materials such as limestone, sandstone, laterite, sea salt, and other non-manufactured geological resources. This clarification would help overcome interpretive inertia and provide greater confidence to potential applicants. In addition, efforts must be directed toward organizing and mobilizing producer communities who are associated with natural goods but often lack the institutional capacity to initiate and sustain GI applications. Unlike weavers or farmers, quarry workers, salt pan laborers, and sand miners are rarely part of cooperatives or formal associations. Public agencies, NGOs, and academic institutions can play a catalytic role in this process by facilitating community-level consultations, preparing documentation, and acting as co-applicants or technical support organizations in the GI filing process. Without such intermediary support, the procedural complexity of GI registration is likely to remain an insurmountable barrier for informal producers. Moreover, existing schemes such as One District One Product (ODOP) and the GI Promotion and Marketing Scheme should be explicitly revised to include and prioritize natural goods. Districts with geological specialties such as Jaisalmer (yellow limestone), Kalaburagi (Shahabad stone), or Marakkanam (solar salt) should be incentivized to develop value chains around these products, including support for branding, certification, and export facilitation. Such inclusion would not only correct the current categorical imbalance but also provide new opportunities for economic diversification in resource-rich but infrastructure-poor districts. A national-level digital database of potential natural goods should also be developed and maintained. This repository should include geo-tagged locations, extraction techniques, cultural associations, and environmental characteristics, and should serve as a ready reference for researchers, planners, and applicant groups. This database could also feed into larger platforms such as the India GI Map and be used for tourism promotion, heritage preservation, and sustainable development planning. Additionally, strategic partnerships with institutions such as the Geological Survey of India (GSI), INTACH, and state archaeology departments can help in identifying materials that possess both geological uniqueness and historical-cultural significance. Such inter-agency collaboration would enrich the GI framework and align it with broader heritage and conservation goals. Finally, greater investment is needed in academic and legal research that examines the role of natural goods in regional economies, explores comparative international practices, and builds jurisprudence around their protection. This includes funding for interdisciplinary research, publication of case studies, and support for policy innovation in underexplored areas of GI law. Together, these policy measures can transform the current landscape of natural goods recognition from one of exclusion and ambiguity to one of visibility, legitimacy, and sustainability. They will help realize the original intent of the GI Act not merely as a tool for market access, but as an instrument for protecting the rich tapestry of India’s geographic, cultural, and material diversity. Conclusion This study has revealed a critical and persistent gap within India's Geographical Indications (GI) framework namely, the near-total absence of natural goods from the country's otherwise expansive registry of protected products. Despite being explicitly included in the GI Act, 1999, natural goods account for just three of the 658 registered items as of March 2025, making them the most underrepresented category by a significant margin. This imbalance cannot be dismissed as an oversight or anomaly; rather, it reflects deeper structural issues, including a limited institutional imagination, a narrow interpretive approach to the law, and a lack of targeted policy mechanisms for identifying and registering natural materials tied to regional geography. The implications of this exclusion are far-reaching. Economically, it deprives communities engaged in the quarrying, extraction, and traditional use of natural resources such as stones, salts, and clays of the legal recognition and market visibility that GI status can confer. Culturally, it erases the material heritage of regions whose identities are intimately linked with their geological features. Environmentally, it fails to harness the potential of GIs as tools for promoting place-based sustainability and resource stewardship. Taken together, these missed opportunities weaken the ability of the GI system to fulfill its foundational promise: to protect goods whose qualities and reputations are inextricably linked to their place of origin. At a time when the GI regime in India is gaining international attention and institutional momentum, expanding its scope to meaningfully include natural goods is both urgent and necessary. The examples of Makrana Marble, Chunar Balua Patthar, and Ambaji White Marble demonstrate that the legal and cultural framework exists to support such registrations. What is needed now is a deliberate and systematic effort to extend this recognition to the many other natural goods that remain outside the fold. Whether it is the golden limestone of Jaisalmer, the artisanal salt of Marakkanam , or the Shahabad Stone of Kalaburgi, these materials embody not just economic potential but also ecological wisdom, spiritual continuity, and territorial identity. The paper calls for a recalibration of policy, legal interpretation, and institutional support to ensure that natural goods are no longer marginalized within the GI ecosystem. Only by doing so can India’s GI regime truly reflect the country’s immense and multifaceted geographic diversity. A GI system that includes its rocks, salts, and sands alongside its teas, textiles, and fruits is not only more inclusive it is also more just, more representative, and more aligned with the spirit of territorial heritage that GIs are meant to uphold. References Singhal S (2008) Geographical indications and traditional knowledge. J Intellect Property Law Pract 3(11):732. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpn160 Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Registered Geographical Indications of India as on 31-12-2024, Government of India (2024) Retrieved from https://ipindia.gov.in Raza A, Malik K, Oriakhogba D (2024) Two decades of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999: A review of 547 registered Geographical Indications. J Intellect Property Rights 29(6):525–533. https://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v29i6.9105 Das K (2009) Socioeconomic implications of protecting geographical indications in India, SSRN Working Paper Series https://ssrn.com/abstract=1587352 Menapace L, Moschini G (2012) Quality certification by geographical indications, trademarks and firm reputation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 39(4):539–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr053 Gangjee D (2017) Proving provenance? Geographical indications certification and its ambiguities. World Dev 98:12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.035 Gangjee D (2007) Quibbling siblings: Conflicts between trademarks and geographical indications. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82(3):1253–1291 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geographical Indications: An Introduction (2013) Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/ Bhattacharya NS (ed) (2022) Geographical indication protection in India: The evolving paradigm . Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0696-6 Dey N (2021) Geographical indications and rural development in India: Policy gaps and governance challenges. J Rural Stud 84:321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.03.009 Sharma A, Jain M (2018) Makrana marble and the architectural history of India: From local resource to national symbol. Herit J 6(2):134–146 European IPH (2025) Geographical indications in the European Union (Fact Sheet No. EA-01-24-063-EN-N). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2826/1753075 Sinha R (2020) Reimagining GI policy for India’s ecological resources. Policy Brief. Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi Prasad R (2022) Reframing the role of geographical indications in India’s rural economy: Lessons from the margins. Indian J Reg Stud 13(1):44–59 Garg S, Kaur P, Pandit MK, Fareeduddin, Kaur G, Kamboj A, Thakur SN (2019) Makrana marble: A popular heritage stone resource from NW India. Geoheritage 11(3):909–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-00343-0 Sen S, Kaur P, Saini J, Kaur G, Mishra M (2022) Kaimur Sandstone of Vindhyan Supergroup: A prevalent prehistoric and ancient monumental heritage stone from Son Valley of Central India. Geoheritage 14(62). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00687-8 Indian Bureau of Mines, Marble. In Indian Minerals Yearbook 2015: Part III – Mineral Reviews (54th ed., Advance Release), Government of India, Ministry of Mines (2016) Retrieved from https://ibm.gov.in Kaur G, Kaur P, Ahuja A, Singh A, Saini J, Agarwal P, Bhargava ON, Pandit M, Goswami RG, Acharya K, Garg S (2020) Jaisalmer Golden Limestone: A heritage stone resource from the desert of western India. Geoheritage 12(53). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00475-2 Nagarajan R, Armstrong-Altrin JS, Nagendra R, Kasilingam RK (2012) Geochemistry of Neoproterozoic limestones of the Shahabad Formation, Bhima Basin, Karnataka, Southern India. Arab J Geosci 5(6):1317–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-011-0319-z Nithin A, Sundaramanickam A, Surya P, Sathish M, Soundharapandiyan B, Balachandar K (2021) Microplastic contamination in salt pans and commercial salts – A baseline study on the salt pans of Marakkanam and Parangipettai, Tamil Nadu, India. Mar Pollut Bull 165:112101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112101 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6767265","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":463030484,"identity":"2df80b26-50a8-432c-86c3-38f7a0928baf","order_by":0,"name":"Hashim Mohammed S","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hashim","middleName":"Mohammed","lastName":"S","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-28 10:45:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6767265/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6767265/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83584648,"identity":"367bce7b-22da-4806-bc49-fd168ed22757","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-29 03:20:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100551,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCategory wise distribution of Registered GIs in India.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"output32.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6767265/v1/7c009230955cbf48ae067d9c.png"},{"id":83584651,"identity":"18edd580-c464-4b3c-948f-32d7b0c3a401","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-29 03:20:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":546850,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6767265/v1/a8d24b2c-964f-441a-bdad-b7a464566e08.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnnatural Neglect: The Underrepresentation of Natural Goods in India’s GI Registry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGeographical Indications (GIs) have emerged as a potent form of intellectual property, offering protection to goods that possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics essentially attributable to their geographic origin\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In India, the enactment of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 signalled a decisive shift toward safeguarding traditional knowledge, artisanal excellence, and regional distinctiveness\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Since the first GI registration in 2004, India has built one of the world\u0026rsquo;s most expansive GI portfolios, spanning diverse categories such as agricultural goods, handicrafts, manufactured items, and food stuffs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. As of March 2025, a total of 658 GIs has been registered, reflecting a robust institutional ecosystem supporting producers and communities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, a striking imbalance characterizes India\u0026rsquo;s GI landscape: only three natural goods (class 14 and 19 of classification of goods) \u003cem\u003eMakrana Marble\u003c/em\u003e (Rajasthan), \u003cem\u003eChunar Balua Patthar\u003c/em\u003e (Uttar Pradesh), and \u003cem\u003eAmbaji White Marble\u003c/em\u003e (Gujarat) have been registered under this regime. This accounts for a mere 0.45% of the total registered GIs, a marginal figure in a country renowned for its geological and ecological diversity. From the granite-rich hills of Karnataka to the laterite plateaus of Kerala, and from Himalayan rock salt beds to unique riverine sands, India's natural environment is a source of identity, livelihood, and heritage. Yet, these resources remain conspicuously absent from the GI framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis underrepresentation raises critical questions: Why are natural goods so sparsely registered despite clear eligibility under the Act? Is there a structural, institutional, or conceptual gap that prevents their inclusion? Could expanding the GI scope to better encompass natural goods enhance conservation, branding, and community participation?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper addresses these questions through a systematic investigation of the category-wise and state-wise distribution of GIs in India. Drawing on official registry data and legal provisions under the GI Act, it highlights the legal invisibility and policy neglect faced by natural goods. The study also proposes a set of potential candidates for GI recognition and recommends reforms to enable a more inclusive and balanced GI ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy foregrounding the legal and cultural marginality of natural goods, this research calls for a re-examination of the GI framework in India one that goes beyond crafts and crops to recognize the geological identity and heritage value of India\u0026rsquo;s natural resources.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe academic and policy discourse around Geographical Indications (GIs) in India has largely revolved around two dominant categories: agricultural products and handicrafts. Several studies have examined the socio-economic impact of GI registration on rural producers, artisans, and agrarian communities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These works argue that GIs function not merely as legal markers but as tools of rural development, enabling branding, market differentiation, and community empowerment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGI Law and Category Definitions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe foundational legal basis for GIs in India is the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which mirrors India's compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. Under Section 2(f), the Act defines \u0026ldquo;goods\u0026rdquo; to include agricultural, natural, or manufactured goods, as well as food stuff and handicrafts. However, the interpretation and operationalization of the Act have been heavily skewed toward visible and export-oriented categories, particularly agricultural commodities like Darjeeling Tea and Basmati Rice, and crafts like Kanjeevaram Sarees or Mysore Sandalwood\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNatural goods though explicitly mentioned in the Act have remained peripherally interpreted, with little jurisprudence or administrative precedence to support their registration. As WIPO (2013) points out, the inclusion of natural goods in GI regimes requires not only legal recognition but also robust documentation of geographical distinctiveness and traditional usage, which often remains underdeveloped for such goods\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCategory-Wise GI Trends in India\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies of GI registrations in India reveal a stark concentration in the handicraft and agricultural domains. According to reports by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), these two categories account for over 75% of all registered GIs. Studies by Bhattacharya, N. S. (2022) and Dey (2021) corroborate this finding, noting that the GI ecosystem in India has largely been driven by state agencies, artisan cooperatives, and agricultural marketing boards\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These institutions have legal capacity and market incentives to pursue GI tags, unlike mining communities or ecological stakeholders involved with natural goods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is limited literature addressing natural goods as a distinct category, reflecting both academic and administrative neglect. A rare exception is the documentation of Makrana Marble, whose GI registration has been noted in industrial and architectural conservation literature\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, these discussions tend to be descriptive rather than analytical, lacking a systematic critique of why so few natural goods have been registered despite their cultural and economic significance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eComparative Perspectives and International Practice\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlobally, countries like France, Italy, and Portugal have extended GI protections to a variety of natural goods, including volcanic spring water, granite, mineral salts, and river sands\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndia\u0026rsquo;s GI system, by contrast, has not witnessed such expansion. The underrepresentation of natural goods may therefore be symptomatic of a regulatory culture that privileges market-friendly and easily certifiable goods, sidelining those that do not fit neatly into agrarian or artisanal frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePolicy Gaps and Institutional Invisibility\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite government efforts to promote GIs under schemes such as ODOP (One District One Product) and the GI Promotion and Marketing Scheme, there is no dedicated policy initiative aimed at identifying or registering natural goods. Nor are there institutional mechanisms like producer groups or geological cooperatives that could apply for GI registration for stone, mineral, or salt-based products. Scholars like Sinha (2020) and Prasad (2022) have called for a broadening of the GI framework to include natural heritage and ecological commodities, but this remains a nascent discussion in both policy and academic circles\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining structured data extraction from official GI records with qualitative evaluation grounded in legal interpretation and policy analysis. The primary data source for the study was the official document \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Registered Geographical Indications of India as on 31-12-2024\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e, published by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Government of India. This document contains detailed listings of all GI registrations from April 2004 through March 2025, including product names, categories, registration numbers, and the states or regions of origin. The dataset covers a total of 658 registered items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo analyse the distribution of GIs across categories, each listed product was manually classified into one of the five categories explicitly defined in Section 2(f) of the GI Act, 1999\u0026mdash;namely, Agricultural Goods, Handicrafts, Manufactured Goods, Food Stuffs, and Natural Goods. In cases where the category was not explicitly labelled in the official document, classification was inferred through product attributes, historical usage, and supplementary sources such as GI Journal entries, DPIIT press releases, and state government archives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative analysis was conducted using Python, including frequency distributions, category-wise breakdowns, and visualizations such as pie charts. Special attention was given to the \u0026ldquo;Natural Goods\u0026rdquo; category, where both absolute and proportional representation were evaluated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the gap between registered and potentially registerable natural goods, the study further employed qualitative screening based on cultural-geographical criteria. A shortlist of unregistered yet geographically distinctive natural products was developed using secondary sources such as geological reports from the Indian Bureau of Mines, state mining directories, heritage conservation inventories, and research papers. Criteria for selection included: uniqueness of the material in its place of origin, cultural and historical relevance, existing traditional knowledge or community engagement, and potential for sustainable extraction. Products such as Jaisalmer Yellow Limestone, Cuddapah stone, Shahabad stone etc. were identified through this process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, the findings from both the quantitative and qualitative phases were interpreted through a doctrinal and policy-oriented lens. Key legal provisions of the GI Act were revisited, and the Indian framework was compared with international practices to highlight institutional and interpretive gaps. This methodological structure ensured that the study not only provided a descriptive account of the underrepresentation of natural goods but also situated the analysis within a broader legal and policy context.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Results and Analysis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of India\u0026rsquo;s Geographical Indications (GI) registry, comprising 658 entries as of March 2025, reveals a stark imbalance in the representation of product categories. The data show a pronounced dominance of handicrafts, which account for 312 registrations (47.4%), followed by agricultural goods with 202 registrations (30.7%). Manufactured goods and food stuffs make up smaller shares, with 54 (8.2%) and 43 (6.5%) entries respectively. In sharp contrast, natural goods despite being a statutorily recognized category under Section 2(f) of the GI Act are represented by only three entries, constituting less than 0.5% of all registrations \u003cb\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/b\u003e. This disproportionate distribution suggests a structural neglect of natural goods within the GI ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll three natural goods \u003cem\u003eMakrana Marble\u003c/em\u003e from Rajasthan, \u003cem\u003eChunar Balua Patthar\u003c/em\u003e from Uttar Pradesh, and \u003cem\u003eAmbaji White Marble\u003c/em\u003e from Gujarat are Indian. These goods are predominantly stone-based and tied to architectural heritage, underscoring the limited interpretation of natural goods as primarily mineral or construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe temporal analysis of GI registrations indicates a generally increasing trend across categories since the implementation of the GI Act in 2004. Handicrafts and agricultural products have seen consistent growth, especially following the introduction of promotional schemes and state-level interventions. However, the trend for natural goods remains stagnant. The registrations of \u003cem\u003eMakrana Marble\u003c/em\u003e (2009), \u003cem\u003eChunar Balua Patthar\u003c/em\u003e (2015), and \u003cem\u003eAmbaji Marble\u003c/em\u003e (2017) are isolated events with no follow-up entries in the subsequent years. Despite policy expansion in recent years to include more regions and districts, particularly from the Northeast and tribal areas, the natural goods category has not witnessed any comparable momentum.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of individual profiles, the three registered natural goods demonstrate both geographical specificity and historical-cultural value. The first among these is \u003cb\u003eMakrana Marble\u003c/b\u003e, extracted from the Makrana region in Rajasthan. Geologically one of the oldest marble deposits in India, Makrana Marble is renowned for its fine texture, brilliant white color, and resistance to water seepage\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Its historical significance is unmatched it was used in constructing the Taj Mahal, the Dilwara Temples, and the Victoria Memorial. The marble\u0026rsquo;s natural polish, purity, and structural strength have earned it a prominent place in both domestic architecture and world heritage monuments. The GI registration, granted in 2009, protects not only the marble itself but also the identity of the Makrana quarrying community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second natural good is \u003cem\u003eChunar Balua Patthar\u003c/em\u003e, a pinkish to reddish sandstone native to the Chunar region in Mirzapur district, Uttar Pradesh\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Registered as a GI in 2015, this stone has been historically prized for its use in fort construction, including the Chunar Fort and architectural components of the Red Fort. Its distinct characteristics ease of carving, soft grain, and weather resistance make it ideal for both utilitarian and ornamental use. The stone has deep cultural associations in eastern Uttar Pradesh, where local artisans and masons have long shaped it into both religious and civic structures. The GI protection seeks to preserve not only the stone\u0026rsquo;s geographic identity but also the artisanal practices that have developed around it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third GI-recognized natural product is \u003cem\u003eAmbaji White Marble\u003c/em\u003e, quarried from the Ambaji region in Banaskantha district, Gujarat\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This marble, registered in 2017, is known for its bright white tone, fine crystalline structure, and smooth natural finish. Often used in the construction of temples and high-end interior designs, Ambaji marble is seen as Gujarat\u0026rsquo;s answer to Rajasthan\u0026rsquo;s Makrana marble, offering a similar aesthetic and strength profile with regional distinctiveness. It holds religious and cultural importance in western India, particularly in temple architecture, and is extracted and processed by a community of skilled quarry workers and sculptors. The GI status aims to bolster the regional identity of this high-value natural material and support its sustainable use in traditional and contemporary architecture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the gap between existing and potential natural goods under the GI framework, the study identified a set of geologically unique and culturally embedded products that meet the eligibility criteria but remain unregistered. Some of it is discussed below:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eJaisalmer Yellow Limestone (Rajasthan)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJaisalmer Yellow Limestone is a golden-hued sedimentary rock found in and around the city of Jaisalmer in Rajasthan. This stone is known for its striking warm color, which ranges from pale yellow to deep honey-gold, and its historic role in defining the architectural identity of the region\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Prominent structures such as the Jaisalmer Fort, Patwon Ki Haveli, and Nathmal Ki Haveli are constructed from this stone, earning Jaisalmer the nickname \"The Golden City.\" The stone is easy to carve, possesses good compressive strength, and weathers beautifully in desert climates\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Its local extraction and long-standing association with regional artisanship make it an ideal candidate for GI registration, which could help preserve the cultural and material heritage of the Thar desert architecture.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eKota Stone (Rajasthan)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKota Stone, a fine-grained variety of limestone, is found in the Kota and Jhalawar districts of Rajasthan. It is one of the most popular flooring stones in India due to its toughness, slip resistance, and ability to take a high polish. Unlike marble, it has a non-glossy finish that makes it ideal for public and residential buildings alike. Kota Stone has been used extensively in railway platforms, government buildings, temples, and homes. Its regional specificity, combined with its historical use and durability, positions it as a strong contender for GI registration. Formal protection under GI would not only affirm its geographic identity but also benefit the local mining and processing communities that depend on its production.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eShahabad Stone (Karnataka)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eShahabad Stone is a durable limestone quarried in the Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) region of Karnataka. It is widely used for flooring, paving, and roofing, especially in the southern and western parts of India. The stone has a natural grayish-blue tone and smooth texture, and it becomes increasingly lustrous with use and polishing over time\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Known for its cooling effect in warm climates, Shahabad Stone has been part of traditional South Indian construction for generations. Its uniqueness lies in its geological formation and the regional extraction practices followed by communities in northern Karnataka. GI registration could provide legal and economic recognition to this culturally embedded natural material.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eKadappa Black Stone (Andhra Pradesh)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eKadappa Stone is a type of black limestone primarily found in the Cuddapah district of Andhra Pradesh. It is distinguished by its deep charcoal colour, fine grain, and exceptional density. The stone is widely used in both rural and urban architecture, particularly for flooring, kitchen slabs, and wall cladding\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Because of its strength and availability, it is also used in temples and other sacred structures in the region. Kadappa Stone\u0026rsquo;s long-standing association with South Indian architecture, its geographic specificity, and traditional modes of processing align well with the GI registration framework. Recognizing it as a GI could help formalize its regional branding and offer protections to small-scale quarry workers and processors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMarakkanam Salt (Tamil Nadu)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarakkanam Salt is a coastal solar-evaporated salt harvested in the town of Marakkanam in Tamil Nadu, located between Chennai and Pondicherry. Produced through traditional salt pan techniques, this salt is known for its crystalline purity and minimal chemical processing\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It holds historical significance as part of India's salt-producing coastline and is still harvested by traditional salt workers using age-old methods. The salt is also closely tied to regional livelihoods and has ecological significance in the form of salt pan wetland ecosystems that support migratory birds. Despite its cultural and economic importance, Marakkanam Salt remains unrecognized under the GI system. A GI tag could help preserve the artisanal method of production and protect the socio-ecological landscape it sustains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe institutional marginalization of natural goods within India\u0026rsquo;s Geographical Indications (GI) framework is a striking anomaly when viewed in the context of the country\u0026rsquo;s otherwise expansive and evolving GI ecosystem. Since the implementation of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, India has emerged as a global leader in the number and diversity of GI registrations. Yet, despite the inclusion of natural goods as a legally recognized category under Section 2(f) of the Act, only three items \u003cem\u003eMakrana Marble (Rajasthan), Chunar Sandstone (Uttar Pradesh), and Ambaji White Marble (Gujarat\u003c/em\u003e) have received GI protection in this category as of March 2025. This represents an exceptionally low share\u0026mdash;less than 0.5%\u0026mdash;of the total 658 registered goods, indicating a systemic gap in recognition, documentation, and advocacy for this category.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis limited representation is not merely a statistical outlier; it is indicative of a deeper conceptual and procedural oversight in how GIs are understood, administered, and promoted in India. While handicrafts and agricultural products have enjoyed consistent institutional support through state handicraft boards, agricultural marketing federations, and targeted central schemes, natural goods have suffered from a lack of similar organizational infrastructure. There exists no dedicated body or framework at either the state or national level that actively identifies and promotes natural products for GI registration. As a result, despite the geological and environmental richness of the Indian subcontinent, a wide array of region-specific natural materials including unique varieties of limestone, sandstone, salts and clays remain absent from the GI registry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis underrepresentation is also symptomatic of a narrow interpretive culture surrounding the GI Act. Although the legislation provides for the registration of \u0026ldquo;natural goods,\u0026rdquo; there has been little juridical elaboration or administrative precedent to define what constitutes a natural product in the GI context. In practice, the category has been treated as an incidental or residual domain, activated only when stone or mineral products are historically monumental or commercially prominent enough to cross into national visibility. The registrations of \u003cem\u003eMakrana Marble and Ambaji Marble\u003c/em\u003e, for instance, were not the result of proactive government drives but of local stakeholders asserting claims that resonated with architectural heritage narratives. Other equally distinctive yet less celebrated natural goods have languished in legal and institutional ambiguity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the visibility and valorisation of GIs in public discourse and policy circles have been heavily shaped by the export potential and cultural appeal of agricultural commodities and artisanal crafts. Products like \u003cem\u003eDarjeeling Tea, Alphonso Mango, Pochampally Ikat, and Kanjeevaram Sarees\u003c/em\u003e have captured the imagination of policymakers and the market alike, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of support and promotion. Natural goods, which often reside at the intersection of geological formation and utilitarian value, lack the same symbolic capital and market-friendly narratives. Consequently, they are frequently overlooked in national GI exhibitions, promotional campaigns, and subsidy schemes. The absence of natural goods in such initiatives reinforces their marginality and deprives local communities of both recognition and economic opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother important aspect of this underrepresentation is its geographical and developmental implication. Many of the regions with unrecognized natural goods\u0026mdash;such as the salt pans of Gujarat, the sandstone belts of Bundelkhand, and the laterite-rich coasts of Kerala and Goa are also areas with economically vulnerable communities that rely on these resources for livelihoods. The GI system, if applied effectively to natural goods, could function as a developmental tool that legitimizes traditional knowledge, stabilizes income, and promotes sustainable extraction practices. By contrast, the current absence of legal protection exposes these communities to market exploitation, commodification without credit, and ecological degradation driven by unregulated mining or overuse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is also a missed opportunity in terms of environmental stewardship and conservation. A GI, by definition, ties a product to its ecological and cultural landscape, offering a potential mechanism for promoting place-based sustainability. For instance, solar-evaporated salts from Marakkanam or the sand quarries of the Ganga could be managed more sustainably if linked to a certification framework that discourages overextraction and recognizes traditional ecological knowledge. However, in the absence of GI recognition, such natural ecosystems are increasingly subjected to extractive economies with no institutional incentive for conservation or community control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn an international level, this imbalance also sets India apart from comparative GI regimes, such as those of the European Union, where natural goods ranging from volcanic waters to mineral-rich soils are not only acknowledged but actively marketed under Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) frameworks. These examples illustrate how natural products can be integrated into national branding strategies and heritage protection policies. India\u0026rsquo;s failure to do so suggests not just a gap in legal infrastructure but a broader epistemic bias against material goods that do not conform to agrarian or artisanal models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the near invisibility of natural goods in the GI registry reflects a structural neglect, undergirded by weak institutional advocacy, narrow interpretive paradigms, and insufficient linkage between natural resources and cultural valuation. It is not the absence of qualifying goods but the absence of a systemic orientation that has led to this exclusion. Addressing this requires not only legal reform but also a paradigmatic shift in how we understand and promote geographical identity one that embraces geological and ecological materials as equally valid expressions of territorial heritage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePolicy Recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address the entrenched underrepresentation of natural goods within India's Geographical Indications (GI) framework, a multi-pronged policy response is imperative one that moves beyond rhetorical inclusivity and builds substantive institutional pathways for recognition, registration, and promotion of these goods. The first step in this direction is the establishment of a dedicated Natural GI Mission under the auspices of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). Such a mission should be tasked with identifying, documenting, and facilitating GI applications for geologically distinctive materials ranging from region-specific stones and salts to naturally occurring sands, soils, and clays that are integral to local identities and livelihoods. This initiative must operate in collaboration with state governments, geological bodies, and cultural institutions to create a robust inventory of qualifying goods, prioritizing regions historically excluded from GI benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimultaneously, there is a need to expand the legal interpretation and operational definition of 'natural goods' under Section 2(f) of the GI Act. While the statute already provides for their inclusion, the administrative and legal apparatus has rarely exercised this provision proactively. A formal clarification perhaps through rules or guidance notes issued by the GI Registry should explicitly affirm that natural goods include extractive materials such as limestone, sandstone, laterite, sea salt, and other non-manufactured geological resources. This clarification would help overcome interpretive inertia and provide greater confidence to potential applicants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, efforts must be directed toward organizing and mobilizing producer communities who are associated with natural goods but often lack the institutional capacity to initiate and sustain GI applications. Unlike weavers or farmers, quarry workers, salt pan laborers, and sand miners are rarely part of cooperatives or formal associations. Public agencies, NGOs, and academic institutions can play a catalytic role in this process by facilitating community-level consultations, preparing documentation, and acting as co-applicants or technical support organizations in the GI filing process. Without such intermediary support, the procedural complexity of GI registration is likely to remain an insurmountable barrier for informal producers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, existing schemes such as One District One Product (ODOP) and the GI Promotion and Marketing Scheme should be explicitly revised to include and prioritize natural goods. Districts with geological specialties such \u003cem\u003eas Jaisalmer (yellow limestone), Kalaburagi (Shahabad stone), or Marakkanam (solar salt)\u003c/em\u003e should be incentivized to develop value chains around these products, including support for branding, certification, and export facilitation. Such inclusion would not only correct the current categorical imbalance but also provide new opportunities for economic diversification in resource-rich but infrastructure-poor districts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA national-level digital database of potential natural goods should also be developed and maintained. This repository should include geo-tagged locations, extraction techniques, cultural associations, and environmental characteristics, and should serve as a ready reference for researchers, planners, and applicant groups. This database could also feed into larger platforms such as the India GI Map and be used for tourism promotion, heritage preservation, and sustainable development planning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, strategic partnerships with institutions such as the Geological Survey of India (GSI), INTACH, and state archaeology departments can help in identifying materials that possess both geological uniqueness and historical-cultural significance. Such inter-agency collaboration would enrich the GI framework and align it with broader heritage and conservation goals. Finally, greater investment is needed in academic and legal research that examines the role of natural goods in regional economies, explores comparative international practices, and builds jurisprudence around their protection. This includes funding for interdisciplinary research, publication of case studies, and support for policy innovation in underexplored areas of GI law.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTogether, these policy measures can transform the current landscape of natural goods recognition from one of exclusion and ambiguity to one of visibility, legitimacy, and sustainability. They will help realize the original intent of the GI Act not merely as a tool for market access, but as an instrument for protecting the rich tapestry of India\u0026rsquo;s geographic, cultural, and material diversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has revealed a critical and persistent gap within India's Geographical Indications (GI) framework namely, the near-total absence of natural goods from the country's otherwise expansive registry of protected products. Despite being explicitly included in the GI Act, 1999, natural goods account for just three of the 658 registered items as of March 2025, making them the most underrepresented category by a significant margin. This imbalance cannot be dismissed as an oversight or anomaly; rather, it reflects deeper structural issues, including a limited institutional imagination, a narrow interpretive approach to the law, and a lack of targeted policy mechanisms for identifying and registering natural materials tied to regional geography.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implications of this exclusion are far-reaching. Economically, it deprives communities engaged in the quarrying, extraction, and traditional use of natural resources such as stones, salts, and clays of the legal recognition and market visibility that GI status can confer. Culturally, it erases the material heritage of regions whose identities are intimately linked with their geological features. Environmentally, it fails to harness the potential of GIs as tools for promoting place-based sustainability and resource stewardship. Taken together, these missed opportunities weaken the ability of the GI system to fulfill its foundational promise: to protect goods whose qualities and reputations are inextricably linked to their place of origin.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt a time when the GI regime in India is gaining international attention and institutional momentum, expanding its scope to meaningfully include natural goods is both urgent and necessary. The examples of \u003cem\u003eMakrana Marble, Chunar Balua Patthar, and Ambaji White Marble\u003c/em\u003e demonstrate that the legal and cultural framework exists to support such registrations. What is needed now is a deliberate and systematic effort to extend this recognition to the many other natural goods that remain outside the fold. Whether it is the \u003cem\u003egolden limestone\u003c/em\u003e of Jaisalmer, the artisanal \u003cem\u003esalt of Marakkanam\u003c/em\u003e, or the \u003cem\u003eShahabad Stone\u003c/em\u003e of Kalaburgi, these materials embody not just economic potential but also ecological wisdom, spiritual continuity, and territorial identity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe paper calls for a recalibration of policy, legal interpretation, and institutional support to ensure that natural goods are no longer marginalized within the GI ecosystem. Only by doing so can India\u0026rsquo;s GI regime truly reflect the country\u0026rsquo;s immense and multifaceted geographic diversity. A GI system that includes its rocks, salts, and sands alongside its teas, textiles, and fruits is not only more inclusive it is also more just, more representative, and more aligned with the spirit of territorial heritage that GIs are meant to uphold.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSinghal S (2008) Geographical indications and traditional knowledge. J Intellect Property Law Pract 3(11):732. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpn160\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jiplp/jpn160\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepartment for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Registered Geographical Indications of India as on 31-12-2024, Government of India (2024) Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ipindia.gov.in\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ipindia.gov.in\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaza A, Malik K, Oriakhogba D (2024) Two decades of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999: A review of 547 registered Geographical Indications. J Intellect Property Rights 29(6):525\u0026ndash;533. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.56042/jipr.v29i6.9105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.56042/jipr.v29i6.9105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDas K (2009) Socioeconomic implications of protecting geographical indications in India, \u003cem\u003eSSRN Working Paper Series\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ssrn.com/abstract=1587352\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ssrn.com/abstract=1587352\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMenapace L, Moschini G (2012) Quality certification by geographical indications, trademarks and firm reputation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 39(4):539\u0026ndash;566. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr053\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/erae/jbr053\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGangjee D (2017) Proving provenance? Geographical indications certification and its ambiguities. World Dev 98:12\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.035\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.035\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGangjee D (2007) Quibbling siblings: Conflicts between trademarks and geographical indications. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82(3):1253\u0026ndash;1291\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geographical Indications: An Introduction (2013) Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhattacharya NS (ed) (2022) \u003cem\u003eGeographical indication protection in India: The evolving paradigm\u003c/em\u003e. Springer Nature Singapore. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0696-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-981-19-0696-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDey N (2021) Geographical indications and rural development in India: Policy gaps and governance challenges. J Rural Stud 84:321\u0026ndash;329. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.03.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.03.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma A, Jain M (2018) Makrana marble and the architectural history of India: From local resource to national symbol. Herit J 6(2):134\u0026ndash;146\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean IPH (2025) \u003cem\u003eGeographical indications in the European Union\u003c/em\u003e (Fact Sheet No. EA-01-24-063-EN-N). Publications Office of the European Union. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2826/1753075\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2826/1753075\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSinha R (2020) Reimagining GI policy for India\u0026rsquo;s ecological resources. Policy Brief. Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrasad R (2022) Reframing the role of geographical indications in India\u0026rsquo;s rural economy: Lessons from the margins. Indian J Reg Stud 13(1):44\u0026ndash;59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarg S, Kaur P, Pandit MK, Fareeduddin, Kaur G, Kamboj A, Thakur SN (2019) Makrana marble: A popular heritage stone resource from NW India. Geoheritage 11(3):909\u0026ndash;925. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-018-00343-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12371-018-00343-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSen S, Kaur P, Saini J, Kaur G, Mishra M (2022) Kaimur Sandstone of Vindhyan Supergroup: A prevalent prehistoric and ancient monumental heritage stone from Son Valley of Central India. Geoheritage 14(62). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00687-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12371-022-00687-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIndian Bureau of Mines, Marble. In Indian Minerals Yearbook 2015: Part III \u0026ndash; Mineral Reviews (54th ed., Advance Release), Government of India, Ministry of Mines (2016) Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ibm.gov.in\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ibm.gov.in\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaur G, Kaur P, Ahuja A, Singh A, Saini J, Agarwal P, Bhargava ON, Pandit M, Goswami RG, Acharya K, Garg S (2020) Jaisalmer Golden Limestone: A heritage stone resource from the desert of western India. Geoheritage 12(53). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00475-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12371-020-00475-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNagarajan R, Armstrong-Altrin JS, Nagendra R, Kasilingam RK (2012) Geochemistry of Neoproterozoic limestones of the Shahabad Formation, Bhima Basin, Karnataka, Southern India. Arab J Geosci 5(6):1317\u0026ndash;1328. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-011-0319-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12517-011-0319-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNithin A, Sundaramanickam A, Surya P, Sathish M, Soundharapandiyan B, Balachandar K (2021) Microplastic contamination in salt pans and commercial salts \u0026ndash; A baseline study on the salt pans of Marakkanam and Parangipettai, Tamil Nadu, India. Mar Pollut Bull 165:112101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112101\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112101\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Geographical Indications, Natural Goods, Intellectual Property, India, Cultural Heritage","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6767265/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6767265/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIndia\u0026rsquo;s Geographical Indications (GI) framework has seen remarkable expansion since the enactment of the GI Act, 1999, registering over 650 goods across diverse categories such as handicrafts, agricultural products, and food items. However, this study highlights a striking underrepresentation of natural goods, which constitute only three of the 658 GIs registered as of March 2025 amounting to less than 0.5%. Through a category-wise analysis of the official GI registry, this paper uncovers the structural neglect of natural goods within the current institutional and legal ecosystem. It identifies key barriers including narrow legal interpretation, lack of producer organization, and policy blind spots. The paper further presents a list of potential candidates such as \u003cem\u003eJaisalmer Limestone, Marakkanam Salt, Cuddapah stone\u003c/em\u003e etc. that possess strong geographical and cultural identity yet remain unrecognized. By comparing national practices with global GI regimes and proposing targeted policy reforms, the study calls for a recalibration of India\u0026rsquo;s GI landscape to include geologically and ecologically distinctive resources. Expanding GI protection to natural goods not only strengthens cultural and material heritage but also promotes inclusive development and sustainable use of natural resources.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Unnatural Neglect: The Underrepresentation of Natural Goods in India’s GI Registry","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-29 03:19:59","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6767265/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7feaed18-376d-4e85-a9dd-045e0d7ef526","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":49166379,"name":"Intellectual Property Law"},{"id":49166380,"name":"Entrepreneurship"},{"id":49166381,"name":"Cultural Studies"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-29T03:19:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-29 03:19:59","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6767265","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6767265","identity":"rs-6767265","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}