CEDIA members, to Include Board members from Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Switzerland participated in a 3 day CEDIA visit to Italy organised in conjunction with a recent CEDIA Board meeting held in Rome. . Meetings were held with FAO, and with the Rome based International Research centre Bioversity. Visits also took place to local Agricultural enterprises of interest.

Visit to Fattoria Latte Sano Roma

This is a private Dairy which provides 25% of the milk requirements of the city of Rome. Milk is collected from farmers within a 50 km radius of the plant. A range of milk products to include fresh and long life milk, Creams, low fat milk etc as well as specially selected milk for use in cappuccino making are marketed. Milk in excess of requirements is manufactured into a range of cheese products. Prices of over 40 cents per litre are paid to farmers.
www.lattesano.it

Visit to L’Azienda Maccarese spa

This farm which extends to over 3, 240 ha of formally reclaimed land is situated in the coastal region 20km west of Rome. It was purchased by the Benetton Group in 1998, which have since made substantial investments. In the order of 8million Euro have been spent to date in developing the agricultural and livestock enterprises. Over 2000ha are devoted to various crops to include cereals - Grano Duro (Hard wheat), Maize etc, plus vegetables, fruits and forage crops. Wines and oils are also produced. Over 3000 cattle are kept to include 2300 cows as well as fattening animals. Animals are fed indoors. It is a very large producer of milk and livestock. The centre for livestock includes buildings which extend over 16 ha.

Of particular interest was a new bio digester fuelled by a mixture of forage maize animal and crop wastes. It is now proving to be among one of the most profitable enterprises on the farm which can be attributed to its operational efficiency and the attractive prices being obtained for supply of electricity to the national grid.
www.maccaresespa.com

CEDIA FAO meeting 17th February 2012
Venue; FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy

In attendance: Mr. Gavin Wall (GW), Director rural infrastructure and Ago – Industries Division (AGS) FAO
Sean Gaule (SG) (president CEDIA),
Board Members: (Denmark) (Cyprus) (Italy 4) (Switzerland) (France) (Greece*2) (Ireland - Sean Campbell & James Fitzgerald)

The meeting schedule included sessions on the following topics:

Meeting was opened by Mr. Gavin Wall (GW). GW welcomed the Cedia group to FAO and said that he hoped that the meeting would meet our interests from the combination of presentations and questions and answers sessions that were planned for the afternoon.

The president of Cedia (SG) thanked GW for the opportunity of this visit and said that the group were looking forward to the afternoons meeting and presentations. SG said it was timely that Cedia now met the FAO as a similar meeting had not taken place for some time.SG briefly introduced the Cedia Board Members and delegates to the GW and the FAO staff present. SG then summarised the objectives of Cedia and the different services that were on offered by Cedia and within the different countries through the network of agronomic associations that make up Cedia. SG summarised the general services and remit of the member organisations – Job services to members, contributions to national and EU policy development, CPD, hosting of conferences and other networking events etc. CEDIA also had a close association with other professional bodies and the Universities. It represented Europe in AMIA – The world association of Agronomists. It was noted that the v World Congress of AMIA would be held in Quebec 17 to 21st September 2012 – the conference topic was “Feeding the World”

Presentations by: Mr Gavin Wall, Director, rural infrastructure and Ago – Industries Division (AGS) FAO

GW commenced his presentation by outlining of the challenges that the FAO were now facing.GW also pointed out that the new CEO of FAO was in the process of refocusing the organisation’s aims and objectives. GW pointed out that while the FAO‘s vision was a hunger free word, the reality of the situation was that there was still over 900 million people still living in hunger. GW said that while this number was down from a just over a billion as a result of the food price hike in 2007; the number of hungry in the world was up from the 1990s figure of 800 million. With the world population expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050, a pro - rata expansion of the land available for food was not an option. This increased food demand must be met with increased food production in a sustainable manner, on the same amount of or less agricultural land.

The second challenge that GW stressed was that the only real way to reduce the number of hungry in the world can only be achieved by improving the quality of the food available to all i.e. linking nutrition to production. Lack of quality food leads to negative physical and mental impacts on children which on their own are human rights issues. However there is a big challenge alone in trying to change dietary habits of people.

The third challenge outlined by GW was the gender issue associated with access to food. From a number of recent projects that have been evaluated by FAO in Afghanistan and in other developing countries, access to food by families was much more effective when the females were given primary access to the funds to purchase this food.

The fourth challenge is the need for food systems that are more equitable and faire, that are better able to meet the challenges and shocks that will inevitably arise from time to time, such as the one that arose in the horn of Africa during 2011. There was also a need to build capacity to be able to deal with these shocks.

The fifth challenge was around the area of the need to build and strengthen governance. GW gave the example of what has happened in India in 2011 where there was a shortage of rice in the country when rice exports were banned. The international community must look at ways of trying to manage the market price fluctuations in situations like this. .GW explained that while there were national trade agreements in place such as Codex Alementarius the reality of the situation was that bulk of the Rice traded does not go anywhere near meeting these standards. G.W said that the approach needed in situations like this needed to be multifaceted with a strong technical and multinational focus on them.

A number of questions followed this presentation;

(Danish Q)– What was the effect of the refocusing by the new Director General? GW outlined that there were two definite areas results already arising from the refocusing efforts by the new Director General. One was shifting resources within the organisation to focus on the low to middle income people in developing countries. There was an effort to try and decentralise the organisation to be closer to the projects in developing countries. The second one was a serious effort by the FAO to try and deal with the land grabbing activity in certain parts of the world and that there were positive developments in this area.

(Swiss Q) – How are local governments reacting to this decentralisation shift? Is this shift being welcomed or hindered at a local level? GW responded by giving examples of the new FAO offices being opened in Quatar and East Timor. The emphasis by FAO was to try and get 10 % of national budgets allocated to Agriculture and the publication of this data . GW said that despite some disagreements which were to be expected, the strategy was working quite well.

SG Q (CEDIA president) asked if it was known what amounts (%) of (public) budgets in general were now being allocated to Agriculture. GW responded that it was difficult to say as the bulk of direct investment into agriculture came from private source –often to the post value chain. At farm level the private investment was again towards the bigger farms where there is generally better access to credit and better agronomic practices being employed. However, the FAO are putting considerable effort to try and divert a portion (up to 20%) of this investment towards the small to medium farms.

SG suggested that there might be more organised planning in respect to the NGO development effort so as to bring about more cohesion and unity of direction and synergy of effort, and that FAO might be able to play a part in the promotion and development of multi stakeholder strategic partnerships and alliances. Most NGO were operating independently of one another and often also independent of the state in which they were operating. A strategy which would guide such effort would be useful as it was becoming increasingly difficult for NGO’S to make suitable linkages and to maximise the value and effectiveness of their efforts. FAO could perhaps provide guidance and directions for NGO’s on best practise and facilitate and identify suitable cooperation opportunities and partnership in various developing countries.

(Swiss Q) – Agreed with SG and that they had concerns on how effective the Swiss donor money was being spent. There was a concern emerging that it may be the case that the money was being spent on structures of the past rather than the structures that were needed for the future.

(Greece Q) – asked about the link between the lack of food and accreditation.GW responded with an example of the “Rain forest Alliance” and the fact that the accreditation status depended very much on the credibility of the organisation/people carrying out this audit. GW also pointed to the fact that FAO were reviewing the full impact of the aid that has been linked to these accreditation projects & to investigate if the full benefits were being achieved on the ground.

(Italian Q) How can the individual organisations represented by CEDIA or CEDIA itself contribute to the expertise needed for such projects. GW responded by saying for Humanitarian situations that arise, FAO work directly with bilateral donors. In a situation like this, FAO tended to draw on the expertise of such organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres and that all of this would be carried out through the UN and the local Governments.
Further discussion took place as to how CEDIA , its members and member associations might contribute and cooperate to the work of FAO.

Presentations were given by the below officials followed by discussion and exchange of views.

Meeting with Bioversity International

Bioversity International is the operating name of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI).
Supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

The CEDIA delegation met with Dr Emile Frison, Director General; Dr Kwesi Atta – Krah, Deputy Director General and Gerard O’Donoghue, Director of Corporate Services.

Dr Frison gave an over view and presentation on Bioversity strategic directions .

Bioversity: Its vision and purpose underpin its commitment to play a vital role in addressing the pressing global challenges of hunger, malnutrition, poverty and environmental degradation.
Bioversity is a world leading research-for-development non-profit organization, working towards a world in which smallholder farming communities in developing countries are thriving and sustainable.
Bioversity's purpose is to investigate the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity in order to achieve better nutrition, improve smallholders’ livelihoods and enhance agricultural sustainability.

It has approximately 350 staff operating around the world, and work with partners in over 100 countries worldwide.

This was followed by questions and answers and an exchange of views. How CEDIA might co operate and contribute to the work of Bioversity was discussed. Employment possibilities were discussed. CEDIA would arrange to place on its website and that of its member association’s job vacancy lists.

www.bioversityinternational.org
www.cgiar.org