The decline of Nanjangud Rasabale banana shows that a geographical indication tag can protect a name without guaranteeing that the farming system behind it will survive. Once cultivated across more than 200 acres around Devarasahalli near Nanjangud, the traditional Karnataka variety had fallen to about 50 acres by 2005 and has declined further since then, according to a report published by Prajavani.
The immediate concern is not only the shrinking area under cultivation. It is the weakening of the local institutions intended to keep the variety alive: a government-supported development centre, a growers’ association and the production and marketing systems linked to its GI registration. The issue places Nanjangud Rasabale within a larger question facing traditional crops across India: what happens after a crop receives legal recognition, but before that recognition is converted into active cultivation, reliable certification and market support?
Nanjangud Rasabale is one of several traditional crops associated with specific places in Karnataka. The list cited in the report includes Mysuru jasmine, Kodagu orange, Udupi Gulla brinjal, Devanahalli pomelo, Kamalapur red banana, Mysuru betel leaf and Hadagali jasmine. These crops are not defined only by their commercial use. Their characteristics have developed over generations through the interaction of local soil, climate, farmer knowledge and community practices.
That relationship gives traditional varieties an urban and regional significance beyond the farm. The report describes their presence in temple offerings, festivals, weddings, pilgrimages and local cuisine. Their value therefore sits across several systems at once: agriculture, food culture, rural income, local identity and the supply chains that connect producing areas to towns and cities.
The reported fall in Nanjangud Rasabale cultivation is especially significant because it reflects the vulnerability of a crop that already has a recognised geographic identity. A GI tag is intended to associate a product with a defined region and its distinctive qualities. It can prevent misuse of the name and create a framework through which local producers can retain intellectual and economic value from the product.
Between 2005 and 2010, Karnataka’s horticulture department developed a programme to secure GI registration for more than 15 traditional horticultural varieties, according to the report. The programme also envisaged registered growers’ associations that could manage production, certification and marketing. In principle, such an arrangement could give farmers a direct role in protecting the identity of the crop and receiving economic benefits from its recognised status.
Nanjangud Rasabale was among the varieties for which this institutional pathway was created. Following its GI registration, a variety development centre was established at the Mysuru Kukkarahalli horticulture farm, and a growers’ association was formally constituted. These steps addressed two distinct needs. The development centre was expected to support the biological and production side of the crop, while the association was meant to connect growers with collective management, certification and markets.
The report now raises concerns about the continuity of both arrangements. Information from local staff, as cited by Prajavani, indicates that variety development and expansion activities are no longer taking place at the centre. The growers’ association is also described as not being in a position to function actively. The report does not provide a current acreage figure or explain the precise administrative reasons for the suspension of activities, but it identifies a clear institutional gap between the original conservation plan and the current condition of the variety.
This gap is important because the survival of a traditional crop cannot be secured by registration alone. A recognised name must be supported by planting material, farmer participation, technical assistance, quality control and a market that rewards the characteristics for which the variety is known. If one part of that chain weakens, the legal protection of the name may remain while the cultivation base contracts.
The Nanjangud case also illustrates the difference between conserving a crop in a formal sense and keeping it in active agricultural circulation. A variety may be documented, registered and associated with a place, yet still become difficult to find if fewer farmers plant it. Reduced cultivation can limit the availability of planting material, weaken farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer and make collective certification harder to sustain. The supplied report does not quantify these effects, but the fall from more than 200 acres to approximately 50 acres by 2005 establishes the direction of change.
The institutional design described in the report placed growers’ organisations at the centre of the GI system. That is significant because local associations can potentially represent farmers in production planning, certification and market negotiations. They can also provide a mechanism for coordinating decisions that individual farmers may not be able to manage alone. When such an organisation becomes inactive, the crop loses an important bridge between government programmes and farm-level practice.
The development centre represents a similar link. Its purpose was not simply to store the name of the variety, but to support its development and expansion. The report’s observation that these activities are currently not taking place raises questions about monitoring, staffing, funding and accountability. The supplied material does not establish which of these factors is responsible, and it would be inaccurate to assign a cause without further documentation. What it does establish is that the continuity of the support structure is now a central concern.
The proposed banana fair in Mysuru is therefore being presented as more than a promotional event. Sahaja, the organisation hosting the two-day fair at Nanjangud Bahaddur Chhatra on November 14 and 15, is expected to bring together banana farmers, scientists, officials, environmental workers and market specialists. The report argues that the gathering should develop a specific strategy for conserving and developing Nanjangud Rasabale, with Sahaja taking a coordinating role.
Such a forum could connect the groups that are often separated in crop-conservation programmes. Farmers hold practical knowledge of cultivation and local conditions. Scientists can contribute to variety development and technical assessment. Officials control or influence public horticulture programmes and institutional facilities. Market specialists can examine how a recognised product reaches consumers and whether its distinct identity is reflected in returns to growers. Environmental workers can place the crop within the broader question of agricultural biodiversity.
The key issue, however, is whether a meeting can produce an operating mechanism rather than only a declaration of intent. The report calls for the revival of collective activity and the local growers’ organisation. That emphasis is important because the earlier programme already contained several elements of a conservation framework: GI registration, a development centre and an official association. The present challenge is to restore activity and coordination around those elements.
The case also exposes a broader weakness in how public programmes are often evaluated. Registration is a visible milestone and can be reported as an achievement. Long-term conservation is less visible. It requires regular follow-up, active local participation and evidence that the crop is being cultivated, certified and sold. Without those checks, the administrative success of obtaining a GI tag can coexist with the agricultural decline of the variety.
For cities such as Mysuru, the issue is connected to the food systems that supply them. Traditional crops reach urban consumers through farmers, traders, markets, institutions and cultural events. When production declines, urban residents may lose access to a locally distinctive food, while rural producers lose an opportunity to sustain a crop linked to their region. The report does not provide price, demand or income data, so the economic scale of that loss cannot be calculated from the available evidence. The connection between rural cultivation and urban food culture, however, is explicit in the crop’s use in local ceremonies and cuisine.
The evidence currently confirms three points. Nanjangud Rasabale cultivation has contracted sharply from its earlier spread around Devarasahalli. The variety received GI recognition alongside a development centre and growers’ association. And the report now identifies a lack of active development work and a weakened growers’ organisation as obstacles to its revival. What remains unestablished is the variety’s current cultivated area, the present number of growers, the operational status of the GI association in official records and the funding or staffing available at the development centre.
Those details will determine whether the conservation effort can move from concern to implementation. The November banana fair is the next publicly identified opportunity for farmers, researchers, officials and market stakeholders to discuss that transition. The larger lesson from Nanjangud Rasabale is that protecting a crop’s identity is only the beginning; preserving its place in the landscape depends on whether the institutions created around it continue to function.
