- A pragmatic step towards dairy self-sufficiency in SL
The dairy sector plays a significant role in strengthening the national economy, improving livelihoods, and achieving food security and higher nutrition levels for our people.
In Sri Lanka, the sector is dominated by small-scale producers who are not commercially oriented. Recent statistics reveal that approximately 350,000 dairy farmers are engaged in dairy production and are keeping the sector afloat. However, domestic production still supplies only about 45% of the national demand.
The Government’s National Policy Framework places high priority on the sustainable development of the dairy sector through productivity improvement, entrepreneurship development, and public-private and community partnerships, among others.
The transformation of the dairy sector is constrained by multiple and interlinked challenges connected to infrastructure, technology, capacities, markets, value chains, finance, and services.
Lack of farmer access to timely and practical know-how is a severe bottleneck to the growth and expansion of the sector. The quality of livestock extension services is undermined by thin staffing, infrastructure gaps, and one-way ‘top-down’ delivery approaches, leaving many smallholders without the required guidance to translate their efforts into concrete outcomes.
To address this, a cost-effective and community-rooted solution has already been piloted and is demonstrating success. The Dairy Leader Farmer (LF) Model, introduced by DevPro (the legacy organisation of Oxfam in Sri Lanka) together with the Department of Animal Production and Health (DAPH), flips the script on extension.
Instead of waiting for a distant officer’s next visit, through the LF approach, experienced farmers within the community are trained to mentor Peer Farmers (PFs) in the local area through demonstrations, checklists, and regular small-group discussions. Piloted in Monaragala, Badulla, and Nuwara Eliya, LFs have focused on the nuts and bolts that move the needle such as calf rearing, postpartum and dry-cow care, fodder development, cow comfort, and clean milk practices.
The results are what one could expect when the guidance is practical, locally rooted, and trusted. Farmers are reporting better adoption of good husbandry practices, higher-quality fodder, timely breeding, cleaner milking practices, and, with it, improvements in milk yield and animal health.
Crucially, this is not a stand-alone scheme. LFs bridge the gap between State veterinary services and households, refreshing the knowledge of field officers, improving farmer-officer relationships, and making e-extension tools more useful because LFs, who are within the locality and community, can swiftly support PFs to apply the guidance on-farm.
Yes, questions have been raised regarding the quality standards and sustainability of the model. The answer lies with institutionalising the LF model and not treating the model as a project-initiated one-off intervention.
Poorly trained LFs and weak follow-up blunt impact; clear selection criteria, refresher training, and structured supervision would offer a viable and sustainable solution. The model’s own tools — simple posters in local languages and self-assessment checklists — make monitoring feasible, but continuous coaching by livestock development instructors remains essential.
The recommended way forward includes the following:
- Make LFs a formal tier of extension: Standardise selection and training curricula under the DAPH and link each LF to a named Government veterinary office for supervision and data flow.
- Align incentives with outcomes: Offer modest, transparent incentives tied to basic performance indicators that matter to farmers’ income, calf survival, age at first calving, milk per cow, and mastitis incidence.
- Promote public-private partnerships and digital platforms: Dairy producers and private processing companies that are already providing advice in their supply chains can be connected to LF groups; linking them to the DAPH’s Extension Support Centre will ensure consistent messaging.
- Support follow-up actions beyond just training: Ensuring the continuity of periodic LF-PF group meetings and joint visits with the Government’s livestock development instructors are essential to ensure sustained practices over time.
If Sri Lanka is serious about improving domestic dairy production, livelihoods, and farmer incomes and attaining food security, then it must prioritise knowledge transfer.
The Dairy Leader Farmer Model is effective because it respects what development too often overlooks: people learn best from people they know. Most importantly, it directly supports the Government’s national target of achieving self-sufficiency in milk, reducing the over-reliance on costly imports and strengthening local production systems.
Let us scale what farmers are proving — quietly and effectively — in their own villages.
(The writers are from DevPro, the legacy organisation of Oxfam in Sri Lanka working towards inclusive economic development)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)