Stories Through Data week 7.
Characters: Dr. Meera Rawat, Joint Director (Planning), and Vikram Singh Negi, Deputy Director (Field Operations), Uttarakhand Dairy Development Department
Morning sunlight streamed through the conference room as Dr. Meera Rawat, Joint Director (Planning), spread twenty-two years of data across the table. Vikram Singh Negi, Deputy Director (Field Operations), opened his field notebook.
“Vikram, observe our cooperatives’ journey,” Meera began. “From 101 tonnes daily in 2002 to 212 tonnes today—108% growth through district cooperative societies.
Milk Procurement Journey
Vikram studied the curve. “Farmer numbers grew just 12%, yet we doubled output. Cooperatives drove genuine productivity improvement.”
“Precisely. The Secretary Sir wants evidence-based options. Our cooperative structure remains our strength—how do we best support it?”
Meera opened Bardach’s framework. “The challenge: cooperatives face aging infrastructure, rising costs. Cost per kilogram rose from Rs 3.37 to Rs 21.69—we must improve efficiency.”
“Chilling centers need modernization,” Vikram noted. “Farmers request better feed and silage access.”
She projected investment patterns.
Investment Analysis
“Infrastructure budgets grew from Rs 11 crores to Rs 152 crores—1,287% increase. Cost per member reached Rs 2,519 monthly. We need strategic choices for maximum cooperative impact.”
Meera revealed three alternatives, evaluated through Bardach’s multi-criteria framework—assessing economic efficiency, equity, sustainability, political feasibility, and administrative capacity.
Policy Alternatives Analysis
“Status Quo maintains current investment. Scores 45 on economic efficiency—familiar but constrained. High political feasibility at 85, administrative ease at 80, but only 50 on sustainability. Not transformative enough for future needs.”
“Enhanced Feed and Silage Subsidies provide direct input support. Scores 60 on efficiency, impressive 75 on equity—helps all farmers including marginal producers. Political feasibility 75 as farmers support subsidies. However, sustainability only 55—recurring subsidies create dependency without building permanent capacity.”
“Infrastructure investment approach?”
“Infrastructure Modernization—upgrading cooperative chilling centers, procurement vehicles, collection networks. Scores highest: 80 on efficiency, 85 on sustainability. Modern infrastructure reduces long-term costs, improves milk quality through better cold chain, strengthens cooperative competitiveness. Composite score 74, versus 64 for status quo and 67 for subsidies.”
“Trade-offs?”
“Infrastructure scores lower on political feasibility at 65—requires substantial upfront capital—and administrative ease at 55 due to implementation complexity. However, creates permanent productive assets unlike recurring subsidy expenditure.”
She displayed projections.
Infrastructure Impact Projection
“With Rs 40 crores infrastructure investment by 2030, we project 350 tonnes daily—65% growth. Enhanced chilling enables procurement from remote areas. Improved collection reduces wastage, increasing member incomes. Historical pattern shows infrastructure investment correlates with sustained procurement growth.”
“Implementation timeline?”
“Phased over five years. Year one: upgrade five critical chilling centers in high-production districts. Year two: modernize procurement vehicles, establish collection points in underserved areas. Years three through five: systematic coverage of remaining cooperative infrastructure. Monitoring through existing cooperative management committees ensures farmer oversight.”
“Primary risks?”
“Capital concentration in early years strains budgets—requires Finance Department commitment to phased allocation. Implementation delays possible through tender processes and site preparation. Staff training essential for technology adoption. However, infrastructure creates permanent capacity improvements, generating returns for decades unlike short-term subsidy relief.”
Meera closed her laptop. “Bardach’s framework provides analytical objectivity. Infrastructure modernization optimizes across evaluation criteria—strengthens cooperative foundation while improving sustainability. Subsidies help immediately but create dependency. Infrastructure requires patience but permanently transforms cooperative capacity and market competitiveness.”
Vikram traced the curve. “From 101 to 212 tonnes through cooperative effort, targeting 350 by 2030. Our farmer-members deserve infrastructure matching their productivity improvements.”
“Agreed completely. Let’s draft the cabinet proposal emphasizing cooperative strengthening through strategic infrastructure investment. Our district societies built this success—we must ensure they have modern tools to sustain it into the next generation.”
The officials began outlining comprehensive recommendations for the detailed cabinet note. Infrastructure modernization requires cooperative society consultations, district administration coordination, and Finance Department phased budget approvals over a five-year implementation horizon.
Data has spoken very clearly and compellingly through cooperative performance; policy must respond decisively by strengthening the foundation.
Data Note: Analysis based on Uttarakhand Dairy Development Department records, 2002-2024. Policy alternatives evaluated using Eugene Bardach’s eight-fold path: define problem, assemble evidence, construct alternatives, select criteria, project outcomes, confront trade-offs, decide, and tell the story. All alternatives designed to strengthen existing district-level milk cooperative societies.