|
|
|
|
|
 |
Minutes of the (1st) Agriculture Activities Co-ordination
Meeting In attendance were:
Summary: On this initial meeting of the Committee established under the UN/FAO auspices, basic information was exchanged on the situation in and the needs of the country, as well as on the potentialities, resources and the interest of the Committee members to address the needs. As there was still no system of work set in the agricultural assistance sector, it was decided assessment to be carried out as soon as the security situation allowed, so that priority needs, which would most probably include livestock sector could be met appropriately. For that purpose, some initial commitments were taken by CARE to do the assessment in the Central and South parts of the country, while other members will do inquiries about surveys approach/tools applied in other countries and collect basic facts on the agricultural sector in the fYRoM. It was decided the Committee would be meeting weekly as per the 29 August. Minutes: PB of FAO opened the meeting and invited the present to discuss the following Agenda:
In explanation of the Agenda, PB said that the Committee should generally agree of the level to which the co-ordination should go. In that regard, asked the present how agencies divided their tasks in other sectors (food, non-food, shelter). The present explained that the situation was very fluid due to which there was no real model of work. In the beginning activities were divided by areas, but now they are divided by caseloads type. Taken that into consideration, PB proposed agenda points 1 and 2 be addressed together. He drew attention to the fact that tensions still existed in the country and that all the 3 scenarios had still to be considered. Agenda point 1 & 2 PBa of CRIC informed that they had a list of families which possess(ed) cattle. It was derived within the ongoing process of assessment of animals’ status in affected areas. PBa explained that the livestock situation was quite difficult. To illustrate, he conveyed that many IDPs who are at the collective centres (CCs) left the cattle with “host families” who are to feed and attend to it. There is lack of animal feed, irregular water supply in some areas, closure of diaries, difficult financial situation of the hosts, decreased milk and no calf, cattle and meat market, most of the cattle owns no land and depend on buying animal feed, large number of the cattle were milking cows of breed which need special food and care and most of them were purchased on still active credits. Agenda point 3 PBa informed that CRIC had submitted to ECHO a proposal for project on distribution of animal feed in Kumanovo. PB asked if the feed would be purchased locally or imported. He stressed that due to the insufficient overall wheat production; local purchase might negatively affect the market. He indicated at the possibility to import from Serbia, which had surplus, in which case intervention with the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) on allowing or facilitating the import would be necessary. PBa explained that a local producer of concentrate was identified, but, the project was covering only 150-200 ethnic Macedonian and Serb families with some 300 animals, so it would not be of a scale that could affect the market. PBa would though be interested in talking with the MoA on the possibility of VAT waiver for animal feed purchase. AB of Solidarites explained they are active all around the country. In the past year, they have been supprtingthe agriculture sector in Skopska Crna Gora through potato seeds distribution. Distribution will continue depending on the return and reparation process. Some villages, e.g. a couple in Skopska Crna Gora, were completely destroyed and a year may pass until the villagers, who are now in Kosovo, could return back. PBa explained that they included IDPs at CCs who were mostly of Macedonian and Serb origin. The others, i.e. the Albanians, are mostly accommodated at host families. A short discussion followed about the pros and cons in cases when cattle was moved with the owners or not and different ways of addressing the needs. It was concluded that some indicators on the scope of eventual re-stocking should be found. MMG of MPDL said they could provide info on lost cattle for the v. of Vaksince and Lojane; there was also the preliminary info by CRIC and the records of the Kumanovo Veterinarian Centre that was collecting unattended cattle. PB, pointing out on the negative effects that a word on eventual re-stocking spread among potential beneficiaries might have on the needs assessment, suggested approach at which analysis of the needs and potentials of the farmers would be a priority, rather than re-establishing the pre-crisis situation. GG of CARE stressed that priority needs should be covered first because CRIC was already covering the emergency needs, there was also the rehabilitation programme helping badly affected communities. It was summarised that the Committee had to start working ASAP on the assessment strategy, have forms ready and commitments taken by members before access to the crisis areas is possible. FAO was asked to provide information on models used elsewhere for the next meeting. PB said FAO could provide some technical assistance in defining methodology and sample. CRIC shared the format of the form used in the ongoing project. PB stressed each villages of the area affected by the conflict could be assessed, given that their number is acceptably low and that they differ in many ways - date of the exodus, agro-ecological patterns, level of destruction, ratio of surface planted and harvested. For this, data on the number of villages, typology and their profile are needed. 1994 census data, land and tractor registration should be consulted for indications in that regard. PB invited the present to express interest in working on the assessment in the Central and South regions. GG mention CARE might be interested, as it plans to open an office in Veles. PBa could take no commitment for CRIC until the project on animal feed provision was implemented. MMG said MPDL just had approved funds for an income generation project that might have some funds that could be used for the purpose. Taken into account the time pressure and the benefit of swift action, PB suggested task be split among caseload groups. GG suggested that a period of 5-6 weeks would be necessary to do the assessment. The real assessment can then be made in parallel fund raising activities. Agenda point 4 Agenda point 5  |
