Staff Reporter :
The recent Geographic Indications (GI) certification awarded to India for the Sundarbans’ honey has sparked significant concerns, given that the majority of the Sundarbans territory lies within Bangladesh.
This issue was highlighted by Dr. Debapriya Bhattacharya, a distinguished fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), during a media briefing at the CPD office in the capital on Wednesday.
Dr. Bhattacharya, an eminent economist, addressed this new concern, which has arisen amidst the waning controversy over the GI awarded to India for the Tangail Saree.
India filed an application for the GI certification of Sundarbans’ honey in 2021. The GI was approved on January 2, 2024, declaring India as the sole and unique producer of honey from the Sundarbans, as announced by a tweet from the West Bengal Forest Department. The West Bengal Forest Development Corporation Limited had applied for GI rights on July 12, 2021.
Dr. Bhattacharya emphasised that Bangladesh produces significantly more honey in the Sundarbans than India, highlighting a major discrepancy. “How can India promote the honey of the Sundarbans as a unique product in the international arena?” he questioned.
In his presentation, Dr. Bhattacharya pointed out that Bangladesh is the primary extractor of the Sundarbans’ honey, with an estimated 200–300 metric tonnes of honey being harvested annually from the forest. In contrast, according to India’s GI application, India produces only 111 metric tonnes per year.
Bangladesh’s Department of Patent, Designs, and Trademarks (DPDT) has listed 31 Geographical Indication (GI) products as of April 30, 2024. However, this list does not include the Sundarbans’ honey.
Despite the district administration of Bagerhat filing an application for the GI tag of Sundarbans honey on August 7, 2017, there has been no development since then, according to the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).
The CPD marked this as an astonishing example of administrative dereliction of duty, where the GI of Sundarbans honey in Bangladesh has remained unsecured.
Although trans-border GI conflicts are not necessarily common, they have occurred around the world, especially when producers from different countries claim GI protection for similar products with overlapping geographical areas or historical connections.
The CPD noted that these are not likely to be the last incidents between Bangladesh and India.
CPD expected that the issue of trans-border GIs would be discussed during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s recent summit-level visit to India, but it was not addressed.
The private think tank suggests that to protect trans-border GIs effectively, Bangladesh and India need to adopt a collaborative approach based on shared understanding and mutual consultations.
Additionally, Bangladesh needs to prepare a comprehensive and adequate list of GI products, identifying those with explicit export potential, particularly focusing on shared GI items with India.