Asia has witnessed remarkable growth in its production and consumption of milk and dairy products in recent years and this trend is almost certain to continue.
Indeed, the Asia-Pacific region has overtaken Europe as the world’s largest milk producer, with India alone producing one in every five glasses of milk.
This increased consumption of dairy products in Asia and the Pacific is playing a vital role in improving child nutrition and boosting the livelihoods of smallholder farmers across the region — as the latter are the source of production for the vast amount of milk and dairy products that we consume.
By the end of 2015, the Asia-Pacific region as a whole had achieved the Millennium Development Goal to reduce hunger and undernutrition by half in the past quarter century. Clearly, the increased consumption of dairy products in the region is one factor which has contributed to the overall success in improving nutrition, particularly among children.
Bangladesh runs a successful school milk pilot scheme implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and it had made a difference in the overall well-being of the children who had received 200 ml of milk each school day.
School milk programmes
Other countries in the region, such as Thailand, have long-running national school milk programmes which have served as useful models in other countries. China, India, Japan and Vietnam also have experience with school milk programmes at various levels.
Milk is rich in minerals like calcium, magnesium and zinc, among others. The wide range of vitamins and amino acids present in milk are important building blocks for cells, bones, and muscles.
So as we work towards a world of zero hunger, milk and dairy products will continue to be among the important foods to help address undernutrition. With 490 million people still undernourished in the Asia-Pacific region, we must intensify our efforts and collaboration with the dairy sector for milk and dairy processes to become even more coordinated and productive.
And there is a clear business case to do so.
Between 1980 and 2013, milk production in the Asia-Pacific region grew at a rate of almost 4.5 per cent per annum against the global average of 1.5 per cent. By 2013, milk production in the Asia-Pacific region had reached 290 million tonnes — 38 per cent of global production — or more than a third of all milk produced in the world.
In fact, dairy is among the top three commodities produced in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of gross value worth more than U.S. $110 billion annually. During the next decade, it is expected that global production of milk will increase by more than 120 million tonnes and two-thirds of this increase will come from the Asia-Pacific region.
The FAO is working with stakeholders in the dairy sector on a Strategic Development Framework in Asia and developing an action plan for implementation and improved collaboration among countries in the region as development of the dairy sector progresses. Value chains will need to improve and we will also need to see improvements in productivity and competitiveness while introducing ways to reduce negative environmental impacts, because with increasing scarcity of, and competition for, natural resources, the sector must produce more efficiently and sustainably.
It is expected that the private sector will play an increasingly important role in attracting private investment. But at the same time, we must ensure that millions of smallholder farmers scattered across the region, including millions of women who contribute to this growing dairy sector, are treated fairly and that everyone involved is properly rewarded for their efforts. Improving the ability of smallholders to organise themselves and attain greater bargaining power in the market place must be a core element of our work as we move forward.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.