Meeta Punjabi
Dairy consultant
New Delhi
Over the span of three decades, India has transformed from a country of acute milk shortage to the world’s leading milk producer, with production exceeding 100 million tonnes in 2006. This phenomenal success is attributed to a Government initiative known as Operation Flood (1970–1996) and its intense focus on dairy development activities. In that initiative, rural milk shed areas were linked to urban markets through the development of a network of village cooperatives for procuring and marketing milk. And milk production and productivity were enhanced by ensuring the availability of veterinary services, artificial insemination (AI), feed and farmer education. The investment paid off, promoting production gains of 4–5 percent per annum.
However, that growth has slumped to less than 3 percent in recent years, raising cause for concern. The slowdown is attributed to the decline in investment in the dairy sector since the end of the Operation Flood initiative. Central and state government allocation for dairy development has diminished in the past two five-year plans.
Dairy is currently the top-ranking commodity in India, with the value of output in 2004 at 1.179 billion rupees (US$39 million), which is almost equal to the combined output value of rice and wheat. Despite the importance of the dairy sector in overall GDP, it receives less government budgeting than the agriculture sector. Further, there has been no concentrated investment in the development of value-added or innovative products, nor any serious effort to support and modernize the informal sector.
In light of the increasing demand driven by the growing population, higher incomes and more health consciousness, the slowdown in dairy industry growth is severely worrisome. Based on estimates by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), the demand for milk is likely to reach 180 million tonnes by 2022. To supply the market, an average incremental increase of 5 million tonnes per annum over the next 15 years is required – a doubling of the average incremental rate achieved over the past 15 years. In the absence of sufficient increased production, India will need to rely on the world market for imports. And because of the huge volume required, it will affect global milk prices. Thus, focusing on areas for local dairy development is critical.
Traditionally, the policy environment has favoured the expansion of cooperatives, which ultimately crowded out the private sector. However, liberalization of the sector in recent years has encouraged private investment in dairying. In 2002, the Milk and Milk Products Order (MMPO) ushered in major policy changes friendly to the private sector and a momentum of activity that is likely to increase dramatically in the coming years. Large Indian and multinational corporations, such as Reliance, Pepsi and Coca-Cola, are planning significant investments.
Nowadays, both the private sector and the cooperatives drive the value chains. Because of the many unsuccessful cooperatives in the country, other models of dairy farmer organizations are being explored, such as mutually aided cooperative societies (MACS) and producer companies.
Millions of small and marginal farmers in dairying who own two to three animals and produce an average of 5 litres comprise a critical portion of India’s dairy industry. Livestock development in general and dairy development activities in particular are key components of pro-poor development strategies because livestock distribution is much more equitable than land distribution. Thus, changes in the dairying environment have important implications for the smallholder farmers and for poverty reduction.
The following characterizes India’s dairy farming and its relevance to inclusive growth:
To assess the dairy sector’s competiveness, a performance analysis looked at five factors: demand conditions, market structure, factor conditions, related supporting industries, and government and the enabling environment.21
Demand conditions
Demand for dairy products in India is likely to grow significantly in the coming years, driven by more consumers, higher incomes and greater interest in nutrition. Consumption of processed and packaged dairy products is increasing in urban areas. Because of the increasing competition from the private sector, several national and international brands have entered the market and expanded consumers’ expectation of quality – although only among a small proportion of the population. In many parts of the country, people still prefer unpacked and unprocessed milk delivered by a local milkman because of its taste and the perception of freshness. The price elasticity for milk is high, thus demand for milk is very sensitive to price changes.
Table 1: Demand conditions |
|
Market size and growth |
Market growth is due to high per capita consumption, increasing population and health consciousness |
Consumption patterns |
Consumption of processed and packaged dairy products is increasing in urban areas |
Consumption patterns |
Unpackaged milk is still preferred because of taste and price |
Sophistication of consumers |
Consumer awareness on product quality is increasing but in a very small portion of the population |
Receptivity to new products |
Mostly urban consumers have a very low but increasing interest in new products |
Price elasticity |
Price elasticity is high |
Impact of market opening on demand |
Consumers now have a variety of quality products |
Market structure
Until 2002, cooperatives traditionally were the dominant players in the formal sector. With liberalization of the dairy industry, private investment has increased quite significantly. However, the organized sector’s share in milk procurement is very low because a large proportion of the milk and milk products are sold through the informal channel (Table 3). The informal demand absorbs approximately 41 percent of the milk and milk products produced in the country, accounting for about 75 percent of the marketable surplus of milk. The formal channel, with its packaged milk and dairy products, accounts for only about 25 percent of the marketable surplus, which is about 15 percent of production.
Table 2: Market Structure |
|
Performance |
Still large share of produce; 85% of marketable surplus goes through informal channel |
Quality of milk through informal channel is an issue and to some extent in formal channel as well |
|
Competitive structure |
Little competition to cooperatives because private sector was not allowed in the sector until recently |
Entry of supermarkets in retailing of milk is increasing the competitive structure |
|
Governance (value chain type) |
Governance of cooperative structures is constaining efficiency and expansion |
Role of "lead" or organizing firms |
Role of lead agency has been hampered by government interference in cooperatives |
Farmer organization |
Immense scope for improving management and governance through farmer organizations |
Marketing chain capacity and efficiency |
Scope for enhancing efficiency of distribution |
Distribution channels |
Cooperatives have a well-developed distribution channel in urban areas |
How market signals are conveyed or distorted |
Government and political interference in price setting, limits prices being determined by market forces. |
The informal sector consists of the village milk vendors who procure loose milk from farmers and sell it in urban and peri-urban areas directly to consumers, small private processors or hotels. The milk vendors also may sell processed products, such as paneer or separated cream. The quality of the vendors’ milk and milk products is not guaranteed. Largely sold in loose form, it is often adulterated with several additives to control spoilage.
Table 3: Flow of milk through different channels |
|||
Share of marketable surplus |
% of production |
Total production |
Use |
100% |
100 |
||
45% |
45 |
Home consumption |
|
55% |
55 |
Marketable surplus sold in urban and rural markets (informal and formal) | |
34.5% |
19% |
19 |
Sold in urban markets as loose unpackaged milk |
40% |
22% |
22 |
Sold as processed products through informal markets |
14.5% |
8% |
8 |
Sold as packaged milk through formal markets |
12.7 % |
7 % |
7 |
Sold as packaged milk products through formal markets |
Cooperatives are the central players in the formal dairy sector. The cooperatives have a three-tier structure – i) primary societies at the village level, ii) unions at the district level and iii) federations at the state level. Currently, there are 14 federations in India.
The success of the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF), known for its Amul brand and its Amul model of cooperative, is acclaimed. However, there is a perception that cooperative organizations generally have failed in other parts of the country. A less recognized fact is that the cooperatives in other states are organized differently than the GCMMF cooperatives. The GCMMF cooperatives operate as a true representative of farmers and are run by professionally qualified managers. In most other states, the cooperatives are managed by civil servants, function more as government bodies and are weak representatives of farmers.
Of the 14 major state cooperatives in the country, 10 have state government equity, of which 6 have government equity in excess of 51 percent. Twelve of the 14 cooperatives have government officers as managing directors who are appointed by the state government. It is not uncommon for these officials to change up to three times a year. Because of such governance, cooperatives are mere parastatals and do not work in the true spirit of cooperatives – with elected farmer representatives and professionals who run the organization. This governance structure influences the functioning of the entire chain, from the state federation to the village societies and thus significantly impacts farmers’ involvement in the chain.
The primary differences between the GCMMF cooperatives and other state cooperatives are price and services. In Gujarat, the price paid to farmers is based on fat content; there is regular testing of milk each farmer supplies. In most of the other states, there is hardly any testing of milk. In other state cooperatives, the village society president wields a lot of power and typically decides the prices paid to farmers. Reportedly, farmers with some degree of influence receive higher prices while those without receive lower remuneration. Being the lead organizations, the cooperatives also set a benchmark for prices paid by other buyers, such as local vendors and private dairies, who tend to pay 50 paise or 1 rupee ($ .02) more than that paid by the cooperatives. Thus, if the farmgate price paid by the cooperative is low, other players also pay a low price.
For most of the private dairies, agents procure the milk from farmers. Some private dairies have established village societies for milk collection that follow the cooperative model. However, this model requires much larger investment and is not economically feasible, considering that cooperatives receive considerable development support from the government (such as feed subsidies). It is not uncommon for private dairies to make loans to farmers, which is a key reason for the somewhat large share of milk directed to this channel.
Factor conditions
Factor conditions for dairying entail the quality of animals, human resources and technical skills, land availability, capital, credit, infrastructure and other inputs relevant to the value chain, as the following explains.
The quality of animals is critical in determining its milk productivity and hence overall production. Currently, low productivity per animal hinders development of the dairy sector. Despite being the world’s largest milk producer, India’s productivity per animal is very low, at 987 kg per lactation, compared with the global average of 2 038 kg per lactation.
The low productivity is a result of ineffective cattle and buffalo breeding programmes, limited extension and management on dairy enterprise development, traditional feeding practices that are not based on scientific feeding methods, and limited availability and affordability of quality feed and fodder. In addition, the limited supply of quality animals is exacerbated by policies limiting interstate movement of animals. Indigenous cattle and buffalo make up 45 percent of the country’s total milch population, in contrast to the cross-bred cows at 10 percent.
Animal health and breeding services provision, veterinary infrastructure development and vaccinations are the responsibility of the state government. These services have traditionally been provided for free or at a very subsidized rate. In the past few years, there has been increasing awareness that the state pays heavily to offer these services, which are easily available to farmers (Ahuja et al.). Consequently, many states have instituted partial or full-cost recovery fees for providing the services.
Table 4: Factor conditions | |
Herd |
|
Herd inventory |
Very large number of indigenous animals with low productivity and a small portion of cross-breeds |
Breed |
Lack of policy focus on strengthening indigenous breeds |
Very poor awareness of quality feed, which hinders productivity | |
Feed |
Farmers not interested in quality feed because of the low price of milk |
Increasing feed costs | |
Veterinary medicine |
Availability is not an issue |
Veterinary medicine costs |
Duplicate or cheap medicines |
Human capacity |
|
Farmer technical capacity |
Knowledge and new techniques are not accessible |
Support services technical capacity |
Accessibility to good quality veterinary services is an issue in many parts of the country |
Organization and managerial capacity |
Organizational and managerial capacity of farmer cooperatives is very poor |
Entrepreneurial capacity |
Entrepreneurial capacity is hindered by a low capacity to take risks |
Credit or finance market |
|
Formal credit mechanisms |
Access to formal credit mechanisms is very poor |
Informal credit mechanisms |
Accessible but at very high interest |
External economies |
|
Transmission of learning |
Very poor extension support services, leading to very poor knowledge transfer |
Social capital and trust |
Strong social capital and trust in the villages, which can sustain dairy farmer organizations if properly managed |
In addition to the State Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, the milk cooperatives and NGOs (BAIF, JK Trust) provide services in many states. So do trained private sector AI technicians, although for a fee. As well, state livestock development agencies are being set up as autonomous bodies to offer services in animal breeding in the form of procurement, production and distribution of breeding inputs (such as semen and liquid nitrogen), training and promotional activities.
Despite these initiatives, the availability of services remains limited. Currently, AI services cover only 15 percent of the breedable animals. Cattle and buffalo breeding programmes have been initiated but have not had the desired impact because of a lack of coordination between the different state departments. And extension activities in dairy management are woefully lacking. Farmers have not been able to take advantage of the potential of their animals because they lack information on feeding and management practices. Extension, especially for women involved in livestock rearing, would enhance dairy production considerably.
Crop residues are the single largest bulk feed material available to farmers for feeding livestock, specifically ruminants. They include coarse straws, fine straws, leguminous straws, pulses straws and sugarcane tops. Fodder from common property resources is another major source of feed for animals. But lack of efficient management of common property resources is a major constraint in availability of these resources for fodder. The area under cultivated fodder production is limited only to 5 percent of the total cultivable land. In the states of Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat and some parts of Rajasthan, land use for green fodder production is estimated at 10 percent or more. There is a need for restructuring the land use strategy to elevate the overall proportion of cultivable lands for fodder production.
Concentrates used for fodder include coarse grains, such as maize, sorghum, bajra and other millets, and other cereal by-products, such as rice bran/polish and various oil meals, including groundnut cake, mustard cake, coconut cake, soybean meal, cotton seed meal and sesame cake. The escalating price of feed ingredients is a major cause for concern. In many states, cooperatives are involved in producing feed concentrate and selling to farmers at subsidized rates.
Scarcity of fodder resources is likely to be a major constraint in the development of the dairy sector unless adequate measures are undertaken to augment them. Another important issue regarding feed is the lack of regulations to ensure quality. In the absence of a coherent policy, all kinds of substandard feeds are available in the market.
Formal/informal credit: Lack of access to credit to expand the herd is a critical problem for farmers. There is little access to formal credit through the cooperatives. Informal credit is available from private traders and agents of private companies, but the interest rate is very high. And these loans may or may not be linked to dairy activity. When taking a loan from a trader, the farmer is then tied to selling the milk to that trader, often at a low rate. The Working Group Report on Animal Husbandry emphasizes the low or non-availability of credit as a primary constraint in livestock sector activity, indicating that: “Public sector lending is abysmally very low. The commercial banks are not favourably disposed to providing credit to livestock farmers and the cooperative credit system is very weak, resulting in excessive dependence of livestock farmers on informal sources [and] usually at exorbitant interest rates. Efforts should be put on correcting these distortions and ensure timely availability of inputs and services, including credit to livestock.”
Vaccines/medicines: The Government and the private sector are involved in producing medicines and vaccines. However, quality control is a critical issue. An important policy question is whether the government should be involved in the manufacturing and production of vaccines or should it instead take on a regulatory role to ensure quality and availability at a reasonable price.
Related supporting industries
Strong supporting industries are critical for the development of any industry. In the case of dairying, the National Dairy Research Institute pursues research and education in all aspects of dairying: microbiology, chemistry, technology, engineering, animal genetics and breeding, livestock production and management, animal nutrition, animal physiology, dairy economics and dairy extension education.
Table 5: Related and supporting industries |
|
Processing capacity |
Lack of processing capacity in the country, including primary processing by bulk chilling |
Processing capacity |
There are government subsidies on bulk chilling and processing infrastructure |
Transportation and distribution |
Because of low productivity, transportation costs for procurement are high |
Dairy farmer services |
Availability of health and breeding services could be enhanced; extension is almost non-existent |
Specialized finance and credit |
Exists on paper but is very difficult to access |
Relevant research capacity and use |
Good research capacity |
Processing capacity: At present, there are 678 registered dairy processing units processing 12–15 percent, or 26.63 tonnes, of the milk produced in the country each year. Of the total units registered under the MMPO, 403 are private dairies processing around 11.83 tonnes per year, whereas 212 cooperative dairies process 10.36 tonnes per year. The remaining 63 government plants process 4.44 tonnes per year. These dairy plants are registered in the different states of India. There is immense scope to increase the processing capacity and direct a greater share of milk and milk products through the formal channel.
Primary processing is another factor in need of critical attention to ensure the quality of milk through the supply chain. In addition to the Clean Milk Programme and other rural development schemes, the Government has provided subsidies for bulk chilling and processing infrastructure to support the dairy industry. But credit remains a problem; specialized credit exists on paper but is difficult to access for dairying. There is significant private sector investment in feed manufacturing and the manufacturing of medicines and vaccines.
Government and the enabling environment
The dairy sector in India has traditionally been highly regulated. The government projects and programmes in place for enhancing dairy development include subsidies for developing infrastructure for milk processing and testing. The Clean Milk Production Programme is a centrally sponsored scheme that is being implemented by the State Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries with several objectives: i) the creation and strengthening of necessary infrastructure for the production of quality milk and milk products at the farm level up to the points of consumption; ii) improvement of milking techniques; and iii) training to enhance awareness on the importance of hygienic milk production. Several other rural development initiatives support dairying, such as through the District Rural Development Agency and women’s self-help groups.
An area of government support that has not been capitalized on so far is the investment in promoting the nutritional aspects of milk, particularly pasteurized milk versus loose milk. Detailed information about policy regulations regarding the dairy sector in India is available online at www.indiandairy.com.
The policy history
Until 1991, the dairying sector was licensed under the Industries Development and Regulation Act (IRDA, 1951). This resulted in preferential treatment given to milk cooperatives that were outside the purview of the legislation. In 1991, the dairy sector was swept up in the move to liberalize the economy. Consequently, the IRDA was replaced by the Milk and Milk Product Order in 1992, which contained the following provisions:
Amendments were made to MMPO in 2002 to further liberalize the sector and encourage dairy entrepreneurs from the private sector. The milk shed concept was abandoned, allowing for milk supplies to be procured from any area.
Traditionally, the cooperatives have not had much competition from the private sector. In the liberalized environment characterized by open procurement of milk, there is incentive for private players to invest in the sector. Consequently, many agencies, organizations and agents have started buying milk. But a major difference is that they are not backward investing in dairy development activities through the offering of producer services. In the coming years, the lack of involvement in dairy development by the various players is likely to constrain further growth of the industry.
In this environment, dairy farmer organizations and cooperatives will have a strong role to play in supporting dairy development activities. If they were to establish higher prices to farmers, for instance, the private sector and other players would be forced to pay at least that much as well.
Policy and regulatory issues
Agriculture is a state responsibility in India, and the State Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, within the Ministry of Agriculture, is responsible for the dairy activities. Consequently, the focus of the activities and budgetary allocation is biased towards agriculture rather than livestock.
Table6: Enabling environment | |
National sector regulation |
|
Key regulatory actors (ministries) |
Department of Animal Husbandry is under the Ministry of Agriculture, hence focus on livestock is underemphasized, particularly in light of the high value of the sector. |
Price regulation |
Rice setting by cooperatives |
Food safety |
Regulated through the Milk and Milk Products Order |
Informal regulations |
Very difficult to control quality in traditional channels |
Huge premium on fat content of milk compared with formal regulations; thus buffalo milk fetches much higher price | |
Formal sector support |
|
Domestic sector (national) |
Approaches being taken to modernize the sector |
Subsidy support |
Various subsidies available for milk processing and testing infrastructure |
Inward investment promotion |
Very little investment on the promotion of health or quality of milk |
Provincial/local |
|
Key regulatory actors (ministries) |
State Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries is the implementing agency at the state level |
Informal regulation & transparency |
Lack of milk testing equipment and thus transparency, leading to low payments |
Formal sector support |
Availability of veterinary services; paravets are working with the Department of Animal Husbandry. Dairying and Fisheries |
Formal sector support |
Availability of services in remote areas through the government |
Donor/NGO roles |
Donor agencies are very actively involved in livestock sector development |
There are several issues related to milk pricing policies that require serious review and reconsideration. Because cooperatives are mostly managed by civil servants, there is some government influence in determining milk prices. But the state cooperatives are supposed to base the price paid to farmers on the fat and solid-not-fat (SNF) content of milk. In the case of the better-managed cooperatives in Gujuart, the system works that way.22 However, it is less the practice elsewhere. As noted previously, the village society president often wields a lot of power and determines the price randomly, without testing the fat or SNF content.
Also as previously mentioned, the cooperative price becomes the benchmark price for other buyers (vendors and private dairy agents) and when it is low, so are the other prices paid. Thus there is no incentive for farmers to sell to the other buyers; only about 15 percent of the milk is sold this way for the marketing of packaged milk and milk products. Policy efforts should focus on enforcing testing as the basis for milk pricing. This can be achieved by ensuring availability of testing machines at all milk collection centres, educating farmers to sell milk only based on testing and setting up policy norms for all players in the sector to collect milk only when it has been tested.
Another important aspect of milk pricing is the huge premium on the fat content compared to the non-fat solid content. Thus buffalo milk fetches a much higher price than cow milk, which has lower fat content.
Within the framework of the competitiveness drivers and issues, the smallholder dairy sector’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats have been assessed. The strengths and weaknesses are factors that are directly controllable, while opportunities and threats derive from the external environment. As evident in Table 7, there are a large number of weaknesses in the sector, implying considerable scope for interventions. This SWOT analysis entailed matching each of these elements with an appropriate action.
Table 7: SWOT analysis of performance drivers
Strengths |
How to build on them |
|
|
Weaknesses |
How to correct them |
|
|
Opportunities |
How to pursue them |
|
|
Threats |
How to avert them |
|
|
The following section presents analysis and comparisons of four dairy enterprise models in India. Chosen for the analysis: i) a private dairy operating in Andhra Pradesh, ii) the Orissa State Cooperative as an example of a weak functioning cooperative, iii) the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation as an example of a strong functioning cooperative and iv) a mutually aided cooperative society as an alternative model. Models such as producer companies (emerging as a new generation cooperative) are still in a developing stage.
Table 8: Model features |
Private dairy |
State cooperative |
GCMMF |
MACS |
Number of farmers involved |
150 000 |
224 000 |
2 700 000 |
|
Average litresof milk procured per day |
700 000 |
322 000 |
|
60 000 |
Litres of milk processed at dairy plant per day |
|
|
10 200 000 |
|
Number of primary cooperatives |
3 500 |
3 800 |
13 141 |
|
As previously noted, cooperatives have been successful only in some parts of the country. This is largely because the cooperative law falls under the state policy and is formulated differently in different states. In states such as Gujarat, where the model succeeds, the cooperative is headed by elected managers and managed by professionals. In many other states, civil servants manage the cooperative, which results in a lot of government interference in the day-to-day functioning and leads to a lack of democracy and hence no sense of ownership or responsibility at the village level.
Three key differences distinguish the Gujarat (GCMMF) cooperatives from the other states: i) an oversight board elected by farmer members; ii) professionals employed by the cooperatives to manage the cooperatives and iii) the cooperatives have autonomy and freedom in their operating policies from interference by government and politicians (Tushar Shah et al.).
To address the governance issues related to cooperative management, the MACS Act was passed in 1995. It de-linked the district level cooperative from the state level, giving autonomy to district and village mutually aided societies. However, only the state of Andhra Pradesh has implemented the legislation.
Changing from the cooperative model to the society model has many associated bureaucratic problems. To overcome the hassles, the concept of producer companies was introduced as a way of transforming cooperatives to work more efficiently as representatives of farmers. However, while promising, it is a relatively new idea that needs more time to develop. Meanwhile, with the liberalization of dairy sector, private sector dairies have emerged as prominent players in the dairy industry.
i) A private dairy
The private dairy selected for the comparative analysis is an ISO 9001-certified dairy headquartered in Andhra Pradesh. The company set up there in 1992 after the MMPO opened the door to private dairies, and it now trades on the Indian stock exchange. Milk collection is about 7 lakh litres per day from 150 000 households in 3 500 villages in 3 states, although the major operations are in Andhra Pradesh. The company serves three main metropolitan areas with fresh milk (Hyderabad, Chennai and Bangalore) and is about to enter Mumbai. It also markets a wide range of products, including milk, curd, butter milk, pedha and paneer as well as new items such as flavoured yoghurt and flavoured milk to cater to the changing tastes of the young generation. The company has several chilling and bulk cooling units across its collection region in Andhra Pradesh to ensure quality of milk through the chain.
The company obtains its milk supply through village agents who have personal relationships with the farmers; it does not get directly involved with farmers. Depending on the social structure of the village, there may be more than one agent per village. The agents collect the milk and deliver to the company. The two parties have negotiated a price, but the company is not involved with what price the agent pays the farmers (although it is slightly above what the cooperatives pay in the state). Agents often provide loans to farmers to maintain their loyalty; typically, the agent competes with agents of other private companies for a farmers’ milk supply. Company employees are previous dairy cooperative employees who have enormous experience in this area. Collection areas depend on milk density and areas in which the district cooperative is less active and access to markets is efficient.
ii) The Orissa State Cooperative
The state cooperative is a dairy cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Society Act (1962). Currently, milk collected from 3 800 village societies and 224 000 farmers within 12 district unions totals about 322 000 litres per day. There has not been much competition with the private sector in this region because of low productivity and little dairy development, although private sector investment in the dairy sector is on the rise.
iii) Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation
The Anand Milk Union Limited (Amul) cooperative formed in 1946; but it has become a brand name managed by the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF). The GCMMF consists of 13 district unions, involving 13 141 village dairy cooperative societies and nearly 2.7 million farmer members. With an aggregate milk processing capacity of 10.2 million litres per day, it is Asia ’s biggest dairy business venture. The marketing network encompasses 3 000 wholesale distributors and over 500 000 retail outlets, giving GCMMF a national reach that very few fast-moving consumer goods companies can boast. GCMMF has been exporting UHT -processed milk, ghee, skimmed and whole milk powder, butter, cheese and indigenous milk products to the China , Hong Kong , Singapore and the USA , among others.
Structure
GCMMF’s Amul model of dairy development is a three-tiered structure, with the dairy cooperative societies at the village level federated under a milk union at the district level and a federation of member unions at the state level. Farmer members milk their cows twice daily (morning and evening). GCMMF collects the milk twice a day, makes regular payments to the farmer members and provides them with cattle feed, fodder, animal breeding and veterinarian services.
Anyone who owns a cow or a buffalo and makes a one time payment of 11 rupees (10 rupees for the share certificate and 1 rupee for registration) can become a member of the village cooperative society. The applicant must agree to provide a set minimum quantity of milk, generally between 600 and 700 litres, to the society each year. The farmer members elect a managing committee that then chooses a chairman. The managing committee appoints a secretary to discharge the society’s administrative functions.
At the second tier, there is a district level union that processes the milk procured from individual societies. Each of the 13 unions has a board of directors chosen by an electoral college drawn from the chairpersons of its affiliated societies. The union board in turn elects its chairman.
The final tier is constituted by the GCMMF, which is responsible for marketing the milk procured and processed into various value-added products at the union dairies. All the products are sold under the Sagar or Amul umbrella brands. The federation’s board consists of the chairpersons of all 13 district unions. They elect the federation chairperson and appoint the managing director, who is accountable to the nearly 2.7 million strong Amul dairy society members.
Elected representatives of the farmer members make policy decisions at all three levels, which are then implemented by professional managers and skilled personnel employed by the farmer members. This structure eliminates all middlemen. By placing the farmer members in command, in essence, of the dairy cooperative involves them in the development process.
This cooperative structure is democratic, and the farmers are in control, from the milking of their animals to the final marketing by the federation. For every rupee that GCMMF earns, roughly 75 paise goes to the farmers. The mandate is clear – production by the masses, for the masses, at its efficient best.
The farmer members democratically govern the entire cooperative structure to ensure that the higher tier organizations are geared to serve the purpose of the lower levels and that the gains at all levels flow ultimately back to the farmers in a significant measure. The core feature of this structure is farmer involvement in decision-making at all three stages – procurement, processing and marketing of milk and milk products. The value addition at procurement and processing stages can be realized only with effective marketing of products, thus making it an essential feature for success.
Services provided to farmer members
The dairy unions affiliated to GCMMF provide various inputs that contribute to enhancing the productivity and quality standards, such as:
It is this integrated approach to dairying and addressing farmers’ needs at all levels that gives the Amul model its uniqueness. And it is why every third litre of milk from a cow or buffalo in Gujarat is processed in a GCMMF union dairy.
iv) MACS in Andhra Pradesh (AP)
Dairy activities started at the district level in 1971. The originally chosen district union was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act (1964). After the introduction of the MACS Act (1995), the district union opted for registration as a MACS to acquire better functional autonomy for servicing its farmer members. The union is currently collecting 60 000 litres of milk per day from 650 villages, though it likely to increase up to 100 000 litres in the next two to three years.
The MACS have a two-tier operation: at the village and district levels. A village society with elected officers manages operations at the lower level; an elected board of directors managers the district society. The village and district societies each registered separately, and each has the freedom to use its own profits.
The union provides its members with a range of services required for dairy development activity:
The following compares performance criteria for the four dairy value chains to determine how they are likely to endure against future competition.
Demand conditions
The GCMMF has a wide range of traditional products as well as several new products catering to the demands of the new generation, such as sugar-free ice cream. It is one of the largest selling brands of dairy products, with a presence in all parts of the country. The private dairy also has a range of modern products catering to the young generation, such as flavoured yoghurt. The Andhra Pradesh MACS largely sells traditional products, such as milk, to urban consumers as well as rural markets through village societies (small packets, 250 ml). The Orissa State Cooperative also largely sells milk and a few traditional products.
Market structure and governance
The competitive structure for the four models varies. Dairy is a regional industry with regional dairies serving the local market, especially in the case of packaged milk. There is more scope for inter-regional trade.
The GCMMF competes with other multinational companies, such as Nestlé and Britannia, with certain products but leads among dairy products in India. The private dairy is a leading brand in the city of Hyderabad. However, the state of Andhra Pradesh has a well-developed dairy industry with several private dairies present in the state and rigorous competition among them. The Andhra Pradesh MACS largely sells packaged milk to the nearby areas and thus encounters less competition in marketing its products. And as mentioned earlier, Orissa finds very little competition to its packaged dairy products because there are hardly any private players in the state.
The supply chain is closely linked to the governance structure of the chain. For instance, the GCMMF network is very strong, with farmer involvement at all levels in the chain. Thus it is difficult for private players to procure milk directly from farmers. It is a similar situation within the Andhra Pradesh MACS. In Orissa, however, the cooperative network is not very strong and the president of the village society wields a lot of power; farmer involvement in decision-making at all levels is virtually non-existent. This has created keen competition from milk vendors in milk procurement in that area. The private dairy in Andhra Pradesh experiences intense competition from several private dairies in milk collection. But most of these companies do not deal directly with farmers. Milk is collected through village agents. There is no involvement of any company in any dairy development activity, and thus the companies compete with each other for milk collection.
The GCMMF collects its milk through village societies, with the cooperative setting the price. But it pays one of the highest prices in the country; milk collection is done in a transparent manner (based on testing fat and SNF content). The MACS society also has similar norms (for testing fat and SNF content) for milk collection. The MACS has the freedom to decide the price paid to farmers for their milk because they have autonomy in setting prices. Societies making profits through the sale of milk products can give higher returns to farmers because they do not have to follow the cooperative price. The prices paid that the Andhra Pradesh MACS declares at the district union are higher than the cooperative prices.
The Orissa State Cooperative collects its milk supply through a village society run by the president who wields a lot of power; its farmers’ price is relatively low compared with the GCMMF. In most cases, there is no testing for fat and SNF content on which prices should be based. Average prices are fixed for cow and buffalo milk; however, influential people in community get better prices. In the case of the private dairy, milk purchases are done through the agent, with prices based on competition with agents of other companies and the declared cooperative price. A large number of societies have electronic milk testing machines and more are acquiring them.
Factor conditions
Livestock assets are likely to be better where organizations serving the area are involved in dairy development activities. The GCMMF has been providing good AI services, which has enhanced the quality of buffalo in the area. The Andhra Pradesh MACS have created a good network of services by involving the State Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries and NGOs working in its area. With efficient services and involvement in breed development, the quality of herd is likely to improve in the near future.
The GCMMF as well as the Andhra Pradesh MACS provide their farmers with feed, animal medicines and vaccines and breeding services. In the Orissa State Cooperative, feed is made available at a subsidized rate through the village society. The society is also involved in providing health and breeding services; however, the farmers still need to largely rely on the state government to provide health and breeding services, which are somewhat inadequate. There is no facility for loans; however, medicines are available at cost, although supply tends to be a problem. Because the private dairy collects milk through agents, it is not directly involved with the farmers for service provision. The agents sometimes extend loans to farmers, which ensures marketing commitment by producers. These are general loans not specifically used for dairy activities, and the interest rate typically is quite high.
Milk productivity depends on the level of extension support provided to farmers. The GCMMF provides ongoing extension activities, including training sessions and exposure visits for women. The Andhra Pradesh MACS are also involved in extension to some extent. The Orissa State Cooperative offers hardly any extension activity; the private dairy does not involve itself in extension services at all.
Related and supporting industries
The GCMMF has created good processing and primary processing infrastructure. Its plants are ISO certified and meet all the quality requirements. The private dairy processing plant also is ISO certified; however, the primary processing at the village level is not very strong. The Andhra Pradesh MACS have developed adequate processing facilities and plan to expand significantly in the coming years. Milk quality was an issue previously for the Orissa State Cooperative, but the situation has improved in recent years.
The GCMMF is the most organized in meeting future growth because of its investing in dairy development activities, such as ensuring the availability of feed and fodder and veterinary services. It is in a position to increase its procurement in the coming years. Also, in terms of development, the GCMMF leads the country in modern products, such as sugar-free ice cream.
The private dairy is not involved in dairy development activity and is only focusing on milk procurement. Faced with increasing competition, it will have to move to newer areas for expansion. Because of low involvement of farmers in the Orissa Cooperative, the private sector will find it easy to move into milk procurement in its area. The lack of variety and quality of its products will make it difficult for Orissa to compete with the private sector.
If the MACS model becomes popular, procurement will be affected. MACS involvement in dairy development activity will help the model grow and expand the milk procurement. It is geared to face competition from the private sector because of close links with farmers at the village level.
Dairy has a lot of potential to improve rural incomes, nutrition and women empowerment, and hence is a very critical area for investment. A well-developed industry will enable millions of farmers to capitalize on the emerging opportunities and make a significant impact on rural incomes. On the flip side, weak efforts towards dairy development also can have a significant but negative impact on the dairy industry. The growth rate has been sluggish over the past few years. With an increase in demand on one hand and sluggish supply on the other, there is a likely shortfall in demand in the coming years.
Major areas of intervention in the dairy sector have been highlighted in this review. Carrying out interventions requires resources and commitment from key actors – government, NGOs, development agencies and the National Dairy Development Board – to partner and work together.
A comprehensive policy addressing the critical issues is required for the robust growth of the sector. The following highlights those issues:
Two very significant factors for the growth of the dairy sector are dairy development activities and milk prices paid to farmers. In the liberated policy environment, any player can procure milk in any region. This is a very different situation from the earlier concept of milk sheds, which limited the agency or organization procuring milk to a particular area. Hence, earlier it made sense for agencies and organizations to invest in dairy development activities.
But the freedom for procurement has thwarted the incentive for private companies to invest in dairy development activities. However, private sector investment in procurement is increasing. What is clear is that while the number of buyers is increasing, little is being done to develop the sector. In this situation, farmer-owned organizations (such as cooperatives, producer companies, common interest groups and women’s self-help groups) have to be strengthened at the grassroots level and linked to service and input providers.
Dairy farmer organizations can be used as a platform to address issues regarding availability of all inputs, including feed, fodder, breeding, veterinarian services, medicines, vaccines, credit and insurance. As is evident from the examples presented previously, the GCMMF has been the most successful in meeting the input requirements of farmers. However, this model has not been successful in other states because of issues with the basic organization of cooperatives.
Dairy cooperatives in several states function as parastatals and lack the spirit of cooperative organization with farmer involvement in ownership and decision-making. Alternative models of dairy farmer organizations – such as the MACS, producer companies, women’s self-help groups – also need to be explored. International agencies and donor groups need to be directed towards creating political will to strengthen dairy cooperatives and to set them up.
A very important aspect of dairy development is the price paid to farmers. Currently in many states, the milk price is set by the cooperatives; this price is used by all other players to set their prices, typically by paying 50 paise or 1 rupee more than the cooperative price in that area. The farmer’s price for milk ranges from 9 to 11 rupees for cow milk and 13 to 14 rupees for buffalo milk (a key comparison is a litre of bottled water, which costs 10–12 rupees then why are milk prices so low? The GCMMF pays the highest prices in the country. In the areas where the Andhra Pradesh MACS have set up, their prices are higher than the cooperative prices (MACS have the freedom to declare their own prices). It is evident that where dairy farmer organizations are strong, farmer prices are higher.
Low productivity per animal is another factor hindering development of the dairy sector. Many issues related to low productivity have been discussed – an inadequate cattle and buffalo breeding programme, extension and management on dairy enterprise and feeding practices, and availability of quality feed and fodder. Another important aspect related to low productivity is the lack of quality animals for farmers to purchase. A major hindrance to the availability of quality animals in dairy developing areas is the policy regarding interstate movement of animals.
Finally, it is important to discuss the hygienic issues. Milk quality concerns go beyond the farm level and require assurance of safe milk at all stages, including within the informal sector. Through the formal channel, cooperatives, private dairies or any other form of dairy farmer organization, quality can be addressed through training and education on clean milk practices, including the use of bulk coolers. It is also important to develop diagnostic facilities for milk testing, including infrastructure and human resources, that enable constant monitoring for quality. At the processing level, plant certification will help to enhance consumer confidence.
Milk quality in the informal markets is an important issue. As noted, 70–85 percent (based on different estimates) of milk is obtained and sold through the informal channel. In recent years, initiatives have focused on working with and providing training to traders. In Kenya, for instance, licensing has been used to formalize the traditional sector. In India as well, the Capitalisation of Livestock Programme Experiences programme, along with the International Livestock Research Institute, have undertaken some initiatives in this direction.
In the current situation, traders collecting milk at the farm then deliver it and milk products to urban and peri-urban areas. Each trader buys only small amounts of milk. There is scope to organize the traders into groups and create joint facilities where they can test, process and store their milk supplies. These trader facilities could serve as wholesale or bulk suppliers for hotels, chaiwalas (tea sellers) and small sweetshops. These initiatives can help to address the quality issues in the informal sector and also create employment opportunities in the non-farm sector.
An argument against working with traders is that formal sector involvement in dairying is increasing and eventually there will be no room for informal players. However, looking at the current reality, it will be several years before this materializes. In the meantime, the informal sector should not be ignored and organizing informal traders should be pursued.
Annex I: Overview of dairy marketing channels in India
Annex II: Income from dairy enterprise
Income from dairy enterprise per month (two-animal farm)
Economic analysis |
Financial analysis |
|
Feed cost |
2 000 |
1 400 |
Labour cost |
750 |
|
Medicine cost |
60 |
60 |
Total cost |
2 810 |
1 460 |
Total revenue |
2 160–3 360 |
2 160–3 360 |
Net income |
-(650)–550 |
700–1 900 |
Source: Punjabi |
Annex III: Milk price chart
GCMMF |
Orissa State Coop |
MACS |
Private dairy (heritage) |
|||||
COW |
Buffalo |
Cow |
Buffalo |
Cow |
Buffalo |
Cow |
Buffalo |
|
Farmer price |
9–9.5 |
260/kg |
|
225+ some amount |
||||
Agent price |
10 |
Get |
92–105 + incentive |
240+ incentive |
||||
Consumer price |
||||||||
Source: Punjabi |
Annex Table 1: Identifying critical issues in the dairy chain
Stage |
Priority |
Agent |
Issues |
Policy environment |
Developing livestock policy |
Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries |
Lack of a coherent livestock development policy |
Services |
Disease control/ health/breeding/extension services |
Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries |
Inadequate coverage of veterinarian and breeding services |
Inputs |
Feed supply |
Cooperative |
Quality/cost of feed |
Formal credit for animal purchase |
Banks/financial institution |
Very poor access to formal credit at the farm level |
|
Informal loans for animal purchase or other dairy needs |
Trader |
Very high rate of interest; farmer has to sell milk at low price to the trader if he/she has borrowed money from the trader |
|
Production |
Dairy
farming |
Farmer |
Poor management and feeding practices because of lack of information in the absence of extension activities. |
Marketing/ |
Collection of milk from farmers through village society, processing and marketing of milk in cities and urban areas |
Cooperative society |
Lack of coverage of villages |
Purchase milk from farmers and selling milk and processed products to consumers |
Trader |
No transparency in milk pricing | |
Purchase of milk from farmers through village agents, processing and selling milk |
Private dairy |
No transparency in pricing of milk | |
Retailing |
Selling of milk and milk products processed by cooperatives and private dairies |
Retailers |
21 The first four factors were drawn from the diamond model; see Dr Michael E. Porter, 1985. Competitive advantage creating and sustaining superior performance. The fifth factor is from an adaptation of a model for agro industry value chains by Carlos Da Silva; see Carlos Da Silva and Hildo M. de Souza Filho. 2007. Guidelines for rapid appraisals of agrifood chain performance in developing countries. FAO publication. Rome.
22 Gujarat farmers receive the highest share of consumer prices compared to any other state in the country.