Geographical indications (GIs) have emerged as important policy tools for linking traditional heritage with modern economic growth, particularly in developing countries. In Bangladesh, the GI of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 2013 marked a significant step towards recognising products whose value and reputation are intrinsically tied to their geographic origin. Since 2016, Bangladesh has registered 60 products under its sui generis framework, including jamdani, muslin, hilsa, Khirsapat mango and Rajshahi silk. These registrations demonstrate progress in cultural preservation and intellectual property protection. However, the broader economic and developmental objectives of the GI framework remain largely unrealised. The country’s GI regime continues to face challenges in commercialisation, producer participation, institutional coordination and international protection, which together hinder its transformation from a legal instrument into a sustainable economic driver.
The case of jamdani illustrates the gap between heritage recognition and market realisation. As the first GI-registered product and a UNESCO-recognised Intangible Cultural Heritage, jamdani symbolises national pride and craftsmanship. Yet the weavers behind this heritage receive little economic benefit. Weak post-registration strategies, the absence of coordinated commercialisation plans and inadequate enforcement have left many producers trapped in poverty. Most weavers earn between BDT 5,000 and 7,000 per month, while cheap, machine-made Indian versions of jamdani flood local markets due to insufficient quality control and border monitoring. This situation has created what experts call a “paper GI”—a legal recognition without tangible economic gain.
By contrast, the experience of hilsa demonstrates that coordinated, multidimensional policy interventions can yield real outcomes.
The hilsa sector now generates over USD 3 billion annually, accounting for 1.15 per cent of Bangladesh’s GDP and supporting nearly three million livelihoods. Its success was built not merely on GI recognition but on earlier government-led conservation efforts, breeding bans and livelihood diversification.
The contrast between jamdani and hilsa highlights a key lesson: GIs generate economic impact only when embedded in an ecosystem of regulation, sustainability and producer capacity.
Institutional gaps have further constrained Bangladesh’s GI potential. Nearly 90 per cent of all GI registrations have been initiated by government organisations, such as the deputy commissioners’ offices, the Bangladesh Handloom Board and the Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation (BSCIC), while only 10 per cent come from private associations or producers. This top-down model undermines community ownership and weakens local incentives for quality control and branding.
The Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (DPDT), which oversees the GI system, operates without a dedicated GI unit or formal advisory council. Limited staffing, poor inter-ministerial coordination and the absence of laboratory and testing facilities further weaken implementation. Moreover, Bangladesh’s exclusion from international protection systems such as the Lisbon Agreement and its Geneva Act leaves it exposed to transboundary disputes. The recent conflict over India’s registration of the “Tangail saree of Bengal” exemplifies this risk. Without stronger legal preparedness and diplomatic engagement, Bangladesh risks losing both economic and cultural ground in shared heritage domains.
The post-least developed country (LDC) transition introduces another structural challenge. With Bangladesh graduating from the LDC category, direct export cash incentives—long used to support sectors such as agriculture, handicrafts and processed food—will no longer be permitted under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. This shift particularly affects agro-based GI sectors, which account for roughly 60 to 70 per cent of all GI registrations. Between financial year (FY) 2023 and 2025, incentive rates on key GI products such as agar-attar and handicrafts have been reduced by up to 60 per cent.
To maintain competitiveness and rural livelihoods, Bangladesh must adopt indirect incentive mechanisms compatible with WTO disciplines, including low-cost financing, production-linked incentives, laboratory support for quality testing and expanded research and development (R&D) funding. These measures can help ensure that GI producers remain viable in global markets even as direct subsidies are phased out.
International experience shows that GIs offer far more than heritage protection. Countries such as India, Vietnam, China, and Italy have established robust institutional systems that connect producers to global value chains. India has over 600 registered GIs and promotes them through embassies and export councils. Vietnam has nearly 1,900 GIs, contributing around 12 per cent to its gross domestic product (GDP), while China’s hybrid system—combining sui generis and trademark protection—covers more than 9,000 products and generates over USD 130 billion in value. By contrast, Bangladesh’s 60 registered GIs yield around USD 1 billion in export earnings.
The way forward lies in building a comprehensive GI ecosystem that combines legal, institutional and market dimensions. A national GI policy supported by an inter-ministerial advisory council is needed to coordinate action among key ministries and agencies. The Trademark Act should be amended to include provisions for collective and certification marks, ensuring stronger quality assurance and market credibility.
A national commercialisation and marketing strategy is essential to position GI products in high-value markets through branding, traceability and producer-led fairs. Bangladesh should pursue international negotiations to accede to the Lisbon Agreement and establish bilateral GI recognition with neighbouring countries to prevent transboundary conflicts. Strengthening producer associations and extending Bangladesh Bank’s cottage, micro, small and medium enterprise (CMSME) refinancing schemes to GI-based enterprises—especially women-led groups—can enhance local ownership and sustainability.
A national GI policy to coordinate actions among key ministries and agencies, along with a national commercialisation and marketing strategy, is essential to position GI products in high-value markets through branding, traceability systems and producer-led fairs.
Ultimately, GIs are more than tools of intellectual property—they represent pathways to inclusive growth and cultural diplomacy. If supported by coherent policies, institutional collaboration and producer empowerment, GIs can become vital instruments for export diversification and rural transformation. Moving beyond mere registration to full commercialisation will allow Bangladesh to turn its heritage assets into global brands, doubling export earnings and improving millions of rural livelihoods. In doing so, the country can redefine “Made in Bangladesh” not just as a mark of origin, but as a symbol of authenticity, quality and shared prosperity.
Ferdaus Ara Begum
CEO, BUILD