E-conferences

Over the years RUAF has (co-)facilitated various e-conferences, covering topics related to urban agiculture. These pages will guide you to the information and resources that were the input (case studies, discussion papers) and output (proceedings) of those conferences. The main information regarding the conferences is available in three languages: English, French and Spanish.

E-conference material - in English

E-conference: Optimising Agricultural Land Use in the City Area

Access to land and water, adequate norms and regulations, integration in land use planning (E-conference - 3-22 November 2003)

This conference is brought to you by UMP and ETC-RUAF.

Use Altavista to translate these pages.

Objectives and agenda

Access to land and water, adequate norms and regulations, integration in land use planning (E-conference - 3-22 November 2003)

Objectives

• To share and discuss local experiences on alternative strategies to enhance access of the urban poor to land within the City boundaries for food production (horticulture, livestock keeping, aquaculture, a/o
• To share and discuss local experiences with the development and application of Municipal bylaws, norms and regulations regarding (access to land for) urban agriculture

Intended participants

The conference is a platform to facilitate exchange and discussion of local experiences between local authorities and senior technical officers in Municipal departments, sectoral governmental organisations, research organisations and urban NGO's and CBO's that are involved in urban poverty alleviation and/or urban food security policies and programmes in cities of developing countries as well as staff of international organisations and programme (like UN Habitat, the Urban Management Programme, the Sustainable Cities Programme) that advise national and local governments on issues of sustainable urban land management and urban poverty alleviation.

Background

An increasing number of local governments recognise the potential of urban and peri-urban agriculture as an effective strategy to reduce urban poverty and enhance food security, health and nutrition of disadvantaged groups.

Studies reveal that urban households that are involved in farming have a better nutritional status (as shown by caloric and protein intake, stunting and wasting measures) as compared to non-farming households. Moreover, creation of better conditions for poor urban families to grow and market vegetables, livestock, fish, a/o will also positively affect the access of other urban poor to fresh and nutritious food at affordable prices, which is highly needed.

Food being the largest component of household expenditure (low income households usually spend over 50-60 % of their income on basic food and drink), any saving on food expenditure translates into a significant portion of the family income becoming available for other non-food expenditures.

Where urban agriculture results in surpluses that are sold, the resulting addition to the income can be sizeable. Urban farming provides a source of employment not only for the producers involved (men and especially women) themselves, but also for hired labourers and people operating in related micro-enterprises. There are a whole range of input and output services related to urban agriculture like the production of compost, herding, collection and selling of grass or manure, processing of agricultural produce and street vending of food.

In many cities the large majority of the urban farmers are women (in average around 65%). Urban farming is a viable alternative to wage labour for women who lack access to formal employment due to limited education and training. Urban farming has the added value of allowing women to work closer to their home enabling them to combine multiple tasks during the day. Cases of women in urban households earning more from food production than their husbands from a formal job are not unusual. The ownership of animals and/or independent cash income may strengthen her social position within the household and the community.

FAO integrated urban agriculture in its regular programme and created an interdisciplinary working group "Food for the Cities" in order to stimulate the integration of urban agriculture in national and local poverty reduction and food security programmes.

The WHO published the "Action plan on urban food production and consumption" as part of their strategy to stimulate the local production and consumption of fresh nutritious food and to improve nutrition and health of disadvantaged urban groups.

The Urban Management Programme (UNDP-UNHabitat) is studying and facilitating urban agriculture as part of their efforts to enhance community participation in sustainable urban land management.

Strategies to improve access of the urban poor to land and water for agricultural activities

An increasing number of cities and countries are including urban agriculture in their strategies and programmes to reduce urban poverty and enhance urban food security.

The last few years, various Municipalities and local development organisations have been exploring a diversity of strategies to enhance access of the urban poor to land for agricultural activities. Some have focussed on poor urban households in general, others especially on female-headed households, unemployed youth, recent immigrants without sources of income, families with AIDS/HIV problems or disabled persons.

These actors are undertaking such activities aiming to:

• To facilitate and/or secure access of resource poor or otherwise disadvantaged families to urban land for agricultural use in order to enhance urban food security and income generation
• To facilitate the integration of the urban poor in the urban in the urban socio-economic system and to enhance self-reliance and micro-enterprise development
• To encourage civic/community participation in urban land and environmental management

In this E-conference we want to share and compare such experiences in order to identify the more "robust" strategies and to provide concrete examples for other Municipalities and local development organisations.

Two main situations / target groups have to be distinguished:

1. Poor urban families that already have taken up urban agriculture as part of their survival strategy (often next to other economic activities). Part of these households farm in their back yards or on field plots that are owned or formally rented. But most of these families use (often marginal) vacant public or private land like roadsides, riverbanks, along railroads, buffer zones, etc. User rights are minimal and the use of such areas is transitional. Where Municipalities see such land use with negative eyes, the urban farmers often encounter harassment by officials and policemen. Fear for eviction makes that most of these farmers tend to grow only quick-yielding seasonal crops and avoid investments in soil quality, tree and shrub components, erosion prevention, water harvesting measures, etc.

   Here the attention focuses on seeking ways that enable to accept urban agriculture as a legitimate form of urban land use and the inclusion of urban agriculture in urban zonification and strategic urban development plans. Also measures that contribute to making the user rights of the urban farmers more secure e.g. by providing temporary permits to current users of vacant public land for food production (under certain conditions regarding the farm management). For the very poor, even short-term tenure improvements can be a great advantage. When farming is taking place in a location where such practices are less desirable, farmers may be provided access to an alternative location, with better conditions.

 
2. Categories of the urban population that are in need of alternative sources of subsistence and income but have not taken up farming due to lack of access to land. Many of the urban poor would take up urban agriculture for a living if they knew how to get access to land (see e.g. Maxwell, 1995). Many cities in developing countries have much land in public ownership, with serious land use inefficiencies. Often one encounters many unused open spaces within the city boundaries (land earmarked for industry, infrastructure or housing but not yet developed, unused private land due to speculation, public or semi-public (e.g. ground of hospitals, schools, military centres, etcetera) open spaces that should be parks or gardens but in actuality are barren (and often used as illegal waste deposits), former Municipal dump areas or vacant industrial areas. These inefficiencies mean that land is often available for temporal or permanent use for urban agriculture without reducing the availability for new infrastructure or housing.

   Here the attention focuses on creating access for the urban poor to the available open spaces. Municipalities are experimenting with strategies like detecting available open spaces by G.I.S, leasing Municipal land to (groups of) urban poor for periods between 2 and 20 years, creating community gardens on former garbage dumps, forcing speculating private owners to lease vacant land to urban farmers, stimulating enterprises, schools and hospitals to do so too, creation of a land bank for selling/leasing land for agriculture, etcetera.

The above-mentioned strategies are often combined with provision of technical advice, access to irrigation water, credit services and creation of farmers markets.

Difficulties encountered by Municipalities

Some of the difficulties that Municipalities encounter when applying such strategies are:

• Land redistribution is contentious and politically complex (DFID, 2002). A major complication is that there are often different systems of legislation relating to land, and different forms of tenure, co-existing in the same city, or between an urban area and its surroundings. Often there are a large number of institutional actors, varying in size and legal status, that have -sometimes overlapping jurisdiction- over urban land, that further limit the capacity of city authorities to regulate urban land use.
• Although land tenure raises important technical and procedural questions, it is ultimately a political issue, since rights over land cannot be isolated from packages of rights in general (Payne, 2000). Moreover, access rules and procedures for land registration are often highly complex and bureaucratic which makes it difficult for urban poor to file an application (MDP, 2001)
• Municipalities encounter difficulties in translating their policy intentions, regarding facilitating access to land for urban agriculture, into effective municipal bylaws, norms and regulations that are financially sustainable and that are easy to control and maintain without major externalities. Especially in the South there are few good examples of such municipal laws, norms and regulations facilitating/regulating urban agriculture.

Expected Outputs

Following the conference a working paper will be produced with:

1. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of various strategies for the enhancement of access to land for urban agriculture
2. A discussion on the development of adequate norms and regulations regarding urban agriculture. Illustrated by concrete examples
3. Case studies

List of Participants

Access to land and water, adequate norms and regulations, integration in land use planning (E-conference - 3-22 November 2003)

List of participants
[PDF 118 KB]

Case studies and key issues

Access to land and water, adequate norms and regulations, integration in land use planning (E-conference - 3-22 November 2003)

1. Case study 1: Cagayan de Oro, Philippines
   Allotment Gardens for Cagayan de Oro City: Improved Access of the Urban Poor to Land for Agriculture
   [PDF 186 KB]
2. Case study 2: Copperbelt, Zambia
   Facilitating Land Access for the Copperbelt's Peri-Urban Farmers: an Interest-Based Approach
   [PDF 367 KB]
3. Case study 3: Rosario, Argentina
   Optimization of Use of Vacant Land for Urban Agriculture in the Municipality of Rosario, Argentina
   [PDF 146 KB]

Papers submitted by participants

Access to land and water, adequate norms and regulations, integration in land use planning (E-conference - 3-22 November 2003)

SUBMITTED BY / AUTHOR	TITLE
Kathleen Flynn-Dapaah	The Political Economy Aspects of Land Use Planning for Urban Agriculture in Accra, Ghana
Shenghe Liu, Jianming Cai and Zhenshan Yang	Migrants' Access to Land for Urban Agriculture in Peri-urban Beijing [large file]
Alejandro R. Socorro Castro	Optimizacion del Uso de Suelos Para la Agricultura Urbana en el Municipio de Cienfuegos, Cuba [large file]
Virginie Miguel	Problematique Fonciere en Agriculture Urbaine a Cotonou
Malongo Mlozi	Legal and Policy Aspects of urban agriculture in Tanzania
Percy Toriro	Optimising Agricultural Land Use in the City Area; Assessing Access to Land by the Urban Poor in Harare, Zimbabwe; Experiences and Reflections
Augustus Nuwagaba	Overview of urban agriculture: A Ugandan case study
Emmanuel Olofin	That They May Become Poorer; urban agriculture and access to land issues in Kano, Nigeria
Adamu I. Tanko	Case study of urban agriculture and access to land issues in Kano, Nigeria
Kai Weise	Access to Land and Water, Adequate Norms and Regulations, Integration in Land Use Planning; Experiences in Madhyapur Thimi Municipality, Nepal
Washington Olima	Urban Agriculture in Kenya - Experience and Challenges
Julius Kyaligonza	Urban agriculture and access to land issues in Kampala City
Kenneth Lynch, Tony Binns and Emmanuel Olofin	Urban agriculture under threat: the land security question in Kano, Nigeria
Joanna Wilbers	Urban Agriculture and Gender: some key issues
John Brisbin	Urban Agriculture; Justification in Western Cities
Constanze Windberg	Urban Agriculture in South Africa
Raj Patel	Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Transforming Food Production in Cuba
Marielle Dubbeling et al.	Rosario Annex 1: Municipal Ordinance for temporary allocation of plots
Kouassi Valentin Nguessan	Processus d'extension spatiale urbaine et subsistance des activites agricoles a Bouaké, Cote d'Ivoire
Dora Guillén de Arce	Prevención Ambiental en el Plan de Usos del Suelo
Ina Meyer	Poverty Relief Project - South Africa
Kanhaiya Sapkota	Peri-urban Agriculture: The Land, Farming System and Gender
Ivana Cristina Lovo and Zilá Raquel Pereira Costa	Otimização do uso de espaços vazios para Agricultura Urbana através de planos participativos, planificação e gestão para promover a segurança alimentare governabilidade participativa municipal (Port) [large file]
George Danso	NEPAD Ideas!
Yves Cabannes and Marielle Dubbeling	Lineamientos para la formulación de politicas de Agricultura Urbana
Mercan Efe	Integration of Urban Agriculture into the City Planning
Yves Cabannes and Marielle Dubbeling	Guidelines: urban agriculture, land management and physical planning
Isabel Maria Madaleno	Farming and other land uses in Lisbon metropolis, Portugal
Julius N. Bona	Developing Multi-impact Project Design
Laura Viteri	Destinos de la produccion en horticultura urbana - estudios de caso en Mar del Plata y Balcarce
Maurice O. Odhiambo	Community Monitor
Martien Hoogland	City Planning and Urban Agriculture in Dar es Salaam
Robert Brook	Urban agriculture in Hubli-Dharwad, India
Dieudonné Zallé, Fatima Meite, Amadou Konaté	Le foncier dans l'agriculture urbaine dans le district de Bamako [large file]
Oluyinka A. Olukosi	Maximizing land use for urban agriculture in Africa

Final conclusions and recommendations

Access to land and water, adequate norms and regulations, integration in land use planning (E-conference - 3-22 November 2003)

Proceedings of the e-conference
(short version, excluding case studies and annexes)
[PDF 300 KB]

Full proceedings of the e-conference
[PDF 605 KB]

E-conference: Agricultural use of untreated urban wastewater in low income countries

Agricultural use of untreated wastewater in low income countries (E-conference - 24 June - 5 July 2002)

This conference is brought to you by IWMI and ETC-RUAF.

Use Altavista to translate these pages.

Aims and agenda

Agricultural use of untreated wastewater in low income countries (E-conference - 24 June - 5 July 2002)

Background

Use of urban wastewater in agriculture
Globally on an average 47% of the population live in urban areas. Even at the lower consumption figures of 100 -150 litres per capita per day the water consumption in Africa would be 45 mill m3 and in Asia 200 mill (Water and sanitation assessment report prepared for the 2nd World Water Forum). Most of this water returns as waste.

On the other hand agriculture consumes more than 70 percent of exploited water resources globally and cities are increasingly competing for water with agriculture.

With increasing water scarcity, it is mandatory to find alternative sources of water for irrigation. One such means is to enhance the use of urban wastewater transforming wastes into a resource to yield products needed by the population.

The use of the urban wastewater in agriculture is a widely established practice, particularly so in urban and peri-urban areas of arid and seasonally arid zones. Wastewater is used as a source of irrigation water as well as a source of plant nutrients (such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) and trace elements (K, Na, etc) allowing farmers to reduce or even eliminate the purchase of chemical fertilizer and of organic matter that serves as a soil conditioner and humus replenisher Lunven (1992) estimated that one tenth or more of the world's population currently eats food produced on wastewater (but not always in a safe way).

In the developed world planned use (of treated wastewater) is more common, as is evident in Israel, Australia, Germany, and the USA. A literature review (Haruvy,1997) indicated that Israel is at the forefront of planned wastewater use with fully 70 % of the total agricultural demand for water in 2040 to be met by treated effluent.

For developing countries like India, Pakistan, China and Mexico, to quote a few examples, wastewater for irrigation originated as an unplanned often spontaneous activity and has been practiced for decades and even centuries by poor farmers in urban and peri-urban areas. Studies have concluded that an estimated 80% of wastewater may be used for irrigation, with China and South Asia making significant use of untreated waste for irrigation (Mara and Cairncross, 1989). In Latin America alone at least 500,000 ha of land is being irrigated with untreated wastewater, over half of which is in Mexico (Rodriguez et al, 1994). The same is the case in Africa where case studies (Bakker et al, 2000) in major cities in Africa (Accra, Dakar, Nairobi,) indicate the extensive use of wastewater.

Current wastewater use practices in developing countries includes official distribution of primary or secondary treated wastewater (i.e. after mechanical and biological treatment), the use of diluted wastewater from urban waterways and farmers accessing raw wastewater from open drains or buried trunk sewers.

The informal use of untreated wastewater by intra-urban and peri-urban farmers and gardeners is the most common situation. For large groups of poor citizens (as well as for some better off) access to wastewater is the main factor that determines their food security and income generating capacity. Without the wastewater their production would be limited to the rainy period and productivity would be minimal.

Health and environmental risks
However, irrigating with untreated wastewater poses serious public health risks, as sewage is a major source of excreted pathogens - the bacteria, viruses, protozoa- and the helminths (worms) that cause gastro-intestinal infections in human beings. Wastewater may also contain highly poisonous chemical toxins from industrial sources. Relevant groups of chemical contaminants are heavy metals, hormone active substances (HAS) and antibiotics. The risks associated with these substances may, in the long run, turn out to constitute a greater threat to public health and be more difficult to deal with than the risks from excreted pathogens.

Unregulated and continuous irrigation with sewage water may lead to problems such as soil structure deterioration (soil clogging), salinisation and phytotoxicity. . The abovementioned risks are not limited to official wastewater but often also apply to rivers and other open water sources, as indicated by figures gathered by Westcott: 45% of 110 rivers tested carried faecal coliforms levels higher than the WHO standard for unrestricted irrigation (FAO, unpublished, cited in Birley and Lock, 1999).

Treatment of wastewater
In order to prevent health risks treatment, is normally recommended as the main solution. There exists a large array of technological and process options for wastewater treatment. Centralised, technologically complex and capital-intensive treatment systems have received the most attention to date. Decentralised, low-cost options, eco-technologies and eco-sanitation approaches have only recently received more attention.

However, in practice most cities in low income countries are not able to treat more than a modest percentage of the wastewater produced in the city, due to low financial, technical and/or managerial capacity, the quick and unplanned growth of the city and the multiple and dispersed outlets of the wastewater. In many cities a large part of the wastewater is disposed of untreated to rivers and seas, with all related environmental consequences and health risks. The perspectives regarding the increase in wastewater treatment capacity in these cities are bleak. It may safely be assumed that urban farmers and gardeners increasingly will use urban wastewater for irrigation, irrespective of the municipal regulations and quality standards for irrigation water.

Alternative and complementary measures
Against this background the organisers have chosen to focus this electronic conference on the strategies that may be applied to reduce the health risks associated with the use of untreated, partially treated or diluted wastewater in agriculture whilst maintaining or enhancing the social and economic benefits for the poor urban citizens involved in irrigated production. Rather than focusing on (end of pipe) treatment of wastewater, we want to discuss:

1. Strategies to ensure proper health risk management by the users of the untreated or partially treated wastewater;
2. Strategies to prevent and reduce chemical pollution by industries of domestic sewage water and rivers that are used for irrigation.

Planning for the improved management of wastewater for reuse in urban agriculture encompasses a wide range of aspects and activities. These comprise, among others, stakeholders involvement (concepts and operational patterns), strategic water resources planning, treatment at the source of pollution and separation of wastewater flows (especially between household water and industrial wastewater), farmers education on risk management strategies (e.g. appropriate choice of crops and appropriate selection and timing, of irrigation techniques), improved institutional coordination (especially between agriculture, health, sanitation sectors); revision of municipal regulations and standards and enforcement of regulations at farmers level and vis-à-vis polluting industries, monitoring of the quality of wastewater and agricultural products, and training of professionals on sound alternatives for sanitation and recycling, among others.

Objective

To exchange, analyse and discuss strategies - as alternatives or complementary to wastewater treatment - to reduce the associated health and environmental risks of using "untreated" urban wastewater in agriculture, while maintaining or enhancing the socio-economic benefits

Intended Participants

The conference is a platform to facilitate exchange of experiences and debate between:

• Urban planners, representatives of municipal departments and policy advisors;
• Researchers (universities, research centres, thematic networks);
• Technical staff of NGO's, international and local projects, and other persons that have interest in these issues.

Outputs

The moderators will produce a summary of the discussions in each group at the end of the first and second week. At the end of the second week also the conclusions and recommendations emerging from the discussions will be drafted by the moderators and send to all participants. The results of the E-conference, together with the results of regional workshops on these topics in West Africa and South East Asia, will be used to prepare a policy paper on the use of untreated wastewater for the World Water Forum in March 2003.

A selection of the most interesting contributions to the E-conference will be included in the special issue of the Urban Agriculture Magazine on this topic.

Discussion papers and key issues

Agricultural use of untreated wastewater in low income countries (E-conference - 24 June - 5 July 2002)

Topic 1

Strategies to ensure proper management by the farmers of the health and environmental risks associated with the use of untreated wastewater. Discussion Paper Topic 1

Topic 1 - Key Issues

• Is it meaningful to develop a typology for wastewater that is being used for urban and peri-urban agriculture? What categories of “untreatedâ€? urban wastewater should be distinguished?
• Will the use of untreated wastewater in agriculture -in the country/city you report on- probably decrease or increase in the coming decade? Why?
• What are the health and environmental effects (positive/negative) of using untreated, partially or unsuccessfully treated or diluted wastewater in agriculture that have been documented in your country/city? Which categories of the population are mainly affected? Can we speak -in the cases you report on- of acceptable risks? Why yes or no?
• What are the socio-economic costs and benefits of use of untreated wastewater in agriculture that have been documented in your country/city? Who are the main beneficiaries? Do these costs/benefits justify local government support and investment? Why yes or no?
• How effective are the local policies and regulations (national level, city level) regarding use of urban wastewater in agriculture? What policy has proven to work and which not? Why? What are the main barriers for the development of more effective policies and regulations?
• How effective are the local institutional mechanisms with respect to the design and implementation of strategies of wastewater use in agriculture? What are the main shortcomings and obstacles? How to improve? What actors should be involved and in what role? In your experience will local authorities be more amenable to formulating realistic regulations if costs and benefits were quantified?
• What are the limitations and pre-conditions to the application of crop restriction as an effective instrument to reduce health risks of use of untreated wastewater in agriculture? What are the pros and cons? When to apply?
• To what extent are farmer education and technical assistance effective instruments to reduce the health and environmental risks related to reuse of untreated wastewater? When yes, when no? What are the main issues that require attention?
• Could economic incentives and/or farmer education provide an alternative to legal restrictions to promote adequate crop choice and wastewater management?
• Is periodic monitoring of the quality of the irrigation water and/or the produce, in the areas irrigated with wastewater, a useful tool in helping to reduce the health and environmental risks? Are the present standards for irrigation water quality realistic?
• What are the strategies for improvement recommended by the local farmers themselves?
• What other strategies could be applied effectively? On what experiences is your recommendation based?

Topic 2

Strategies to ensure prevention and reduction of industrial contamination of domestic sewage and rivers that are used for irrigation. Discussion Paper Topic 2

Topic 2 - Key Issues

• Will the industrial discharge of polluted wastewater to rivers and sewers increase or decrease during the next decade in the country/city you are reporting on? Why?
• Have local authorities in the city you report on; the capacity to detect and monitor the sources of industrially polluted wastewater, its disposal, the concentration of hazardous chemicals in domestic sewage and the levels of contamination in rivers? What can be done to improve this capacity?
• What are the main barriers for industries to accept strategies to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes and to enhance the recycling of industrial waste water. What are –in your experience- the most effective strategies to overcome these barriers?
• Is the provision of information and technical assistance (on waste minimization and recycling strategies and technologies) an effective instrument to reduce the discharge of hazardous wastes in rivers and sewers and to encourage waste reduction and waste reuse and recycling? Why yes or no? Under what circumstances?
• To what extent does the creation and enforcement of regulations on the generation and discharge of hazardous wastes constitute an effective control and regulation instrument? Why yes or no? What are important pre-conditions? How effective are the actual regulations and what limits their enforcement?
• Is –in your experience- the provision of economic incentives an effective strategy to encourage waste reduction and waste reuse and recycling? Why yes or no? When to apply?
• In what ways can the separate disposal of industrial wastewater and domestic wastewater be enforced? Under what conditions?
• What are the strategies for improvement recommended by local industries themselves? What are the differences between “bigâ€? and “smallâ€? polluters?
• What other strategies may be applied effectively? What are their pros and cons?
• What can be the role and contributions of local NGO’s and farmer organizations?

Process of the Discussions

During the first week of the conference we will focus the discussions in both topics on the analysis of the actual situation and trends and the analysis of the effectivity of certain strategies.

During the second week of the conference we will continue that discussion but with more emphasis on the formulation of recommendations for policy development and action planning.

Case studies

Agricultural use of untreated wastewater in low income countries (E-conference - 24 June - 5 July 2002)

Strategies to ensure proper management by farmers

SUBMITTED BY / AUTHOR	TITLE	FILE SIZE (KB)
Fasciolo, G.	Impactos agroeconomicos del riego de cultivos con aguas residuales urbanas	154
Bradford, A.M. et al	Wastewater Irrigation: Hubli-Dharwad, India	53
Brigaldino, G.	Watter Matters	33
Mukhtar, M. et al	Mosquito-related health risks of wastewater treatment ponds in peri-urban areas of Faisalabad, Pakistan	30
Bradford, A.M.	Some Additional Wastewater References	27
Mara, D.	Adelboden diagram	1,74 MB
Takizawa, S.	Wastewater Reuse for Agriculture and Aquaculture in Hanoi, Vietnam	29

Strategies to reduce industrial contamination

SUBMITTED BY / AUTHOR	TITLE	FILE SIZE (KB)
Rashed, M.N.	Low Cost technology for wastewater treatment in developing countries : Natural materials for removal of toxic and heavy metals from wastewater	28
Totterdell, P.	SOS vision statement and senate hearing	65

Weekly summaries

Agricultural use of untreated wastewater in low income countries (E-conference - 24 June - 5 July 2002)

Summaries of week 1

• Topic 1
• Topic 2

Summaries of week 2

• Topic 1
• Topic 2

Final conclusions and recommendations

Agricultural use of untreated wastewater in low income countries (E-conference - 24 June - 5 July 2002)

Document contents:

• Introduction
• Objective
• Participants
• Thematic areas and key issues
• Metholodogy
• Synthesis and recommendations for topic 1
• Synthesis and recommendations for topic 2
• The organisers

Download final conclusions
[82 KB]

E-conference: Appropriate methods for urban agriculture

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

This conference is brought to you by CIP-SIUPA and ETC-RUAF.

Use Altavista to translate these pages.

Aims and agenda

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

Background

Urban Agriculture (UA, includes intra- and peri-urban agriculture) is an ancient practice but a recent focus of attention for a wide range of professionals associated with urban management, urban planning and agriculture. In the past these fields have been quite separate, and have elaborated their own approaches and methods associated with policy development, planning, research and monitoring and evaluation. We believe that to strengthen and develop agriculture in the urban environment, there is a pressing need not only to explore the adaptation of the wide range of methods used in rural agricultural research and development, but also to provide an innovative integration of these procedures with the specifically urban methods applied to understanding planning and policy issues.

These considerations have led us to identify six thematic areas through which to identify and debate appropriate methods for urban and peri-urban agriculture. These themes are explained below.

As part of a step-wise process of elaborating a set of integrated methods in these areas, over the past few months coordinators for each of these topics pulled together and synthesized current methodological experiences. During a recently held expert consultation workshop in Nairobi, these syntheses papers and the case studies were discussed and debated leading to revised synthesis papers. These papers are provided as starting points for this electronic conference.

Through the pooling, reviewing and systematizing of these experiences it should be possible to develop an enriched body of methods which urban and agricultural professionals can use to strengthen urban agriculture in their cities.

Objective

To bring together, exchange and discuss experiences gained with a variety of methodologies applied in urban agriculture research, policy development, spatial urban planning, project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation

Participants

The conference is a platform to facilitate exchanges and discussion between:

• Researchers (universities, research centres, thematic networks)
• Urban planners, representatives of municipal departments and policy advisors
• Senior staff of NGO's, international and local projects, and other persons that have gained experience with the application of methodologies of relevance for this conference

Thematic areas

The conference organisers identified six thematic areas through which to identify and debate appropriate methods for urban agriculture. See Discussion Papers for a synthesis and discussion paper on each of these themes.

These themes are:

• TOPIC 1: Methods for situation analysis/diagnosis and baseline studies on UA
  The theme will consider (especially participatory/innovative) methods that can be used to analyse the characteristics of local UA systems, their productivity and the technologies applied, the type of producers and clients of each UA system and their needs/priorities, backward and forward linkages, use of soil, water and other resources, environmental and health impacts experienced, etc.
• TOPIC 2: Methods for participatory UA policy formulation and planning
  This theme will concentrate on methods that are suited for a participatory and ‘early implementation’ approach to policy formulation and planning, like stakeholder analysis, building of platforms for exchange of knowledge, negotiation and joint planning of priority action plans, participatory budgeting, mechanisms for intersectoral cooperation and concerted action, forms of public-private partnerships among others.
• TOPIC 3: Methods for Integration of UA in urban land use planning
  This theme reviews the methods that facilitate the integration of UA in the process of land use planning: the use of G.I.S-sytems, the integration of urban agriculture in zonification plans and other methods for land and water allocation.
• TOPIC 4: Methodology for participatory technology development in UA
  This theme focuses on participatory methods for technology development and diffusion in UA, including use of multiple sources of knowledge in the identification and screening of promising technologies, the participatory testing and adaptation of the most promising technologies under local urban farming conditions, use of adult education techniques in technology evaluation, and participatory diffusion of the results of the local experimentation.
• TOPIC 5: Methodology for monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of UA
  This theme focuses on appropriate methods to monitor and evaluate the impacts of UA on respectively food security and nutrition, health, income, employment and urban ecology. There is an emphasis on methods which are process oriented, participatory and concerned with joint learning, negotiation and consensual decision-making.
• TOPIC 6:Methodology for marketing assessments and micro-enterprise development related to UA
  Methods discussed in this theme relate to the analysis of consumers demands (food and non-food products), analysis of marketing channels and flows, assessment of linkages of UA enterprises to sources of credit, technical advice, labour, marketing information and other services; analysis of strengths and weaknesses of existing micro and small enterprises involved in input supply, production, processing and marketing of food and non-food products and methods to increase their efficiency and improve the safety and quality of the products offered.

Discussion papers

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

As part of a step-wise process of elaborating a set of integrated methods in these areas, over the past few months coordinators for each of these topics pulled together and synthesized current methodological experiences. The individual experiences and case studies on which the synthesis papers are base are published in the section Background Papers.

During a recently held expert consultation workshop in Nairobi, the syntheses papers and the case studies were discussed and debated, leading to revised synthesis papers. These papers are provided as starting points for this electronic conference.

The following papers are available:

Topic 1: Methodologies for Situation Analysis in Urban Agriculture
Download paper
By Adrienne Martin, Sabine Guendel and Nicoliene Oudwater
Livelihoods and Institutions Group, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich. United Kingdom

The paper considers methods that can be used to analyse the existence and characteristics of different UA systems, their productivity and the technologies applied, the type of producers and clients of each UA system and their needs/priorities, market channels, backward and forward linkages and external services, use of soil/water/waste resources, negative environmental and health impacts experienced, etc.

Topic 2: Appropriate Methodologies for Development of a Facilitating Framework for Planning and Policy in Urban Agriculture
Download paper
By Marielle Dubbeling
IPES / Urban Management Programme (UMP-LAC/UNCHS-HABITAT), Quito, Ecuador

This paper concentrates on methods that are suited for a participatory and ‘early implementation’ approach to policy formulation and planning It will include: stakeholder analysis, building of platforms for exchange of knowledge, negotiation and joint planning of priority action plans, participatory budgeting, mechanisms for intersectoral cooperation and concerted action; forms of public-private partnerships; flexible, dynamic, interactive planning; institutional aspects (mandates, coordination, budgetary considerations).

Topic 3: Technical Tools for Urban Land Use Planning
Download paper
By Axel Drescher
University of Freiburg, Germany

In spite of ongoing research on urban agriculture, in most of the world’s cities, little is known about the actual extent of urban agriculture in inner city areas. Also, little is known about the spatial distribution of urban agriculture in the cities.
Many questions arise: Where do urban agricultural activities concentrate and why, who is involved, what kinds of crops are grown and by which groups of city dwellers, what is the contribution of the product to nutrition and food security, which kinds of soils are occupied, how is water availability and quality, what is the distance to markets?
An important and so far in many countries unsolved problem are appropriate methodologies to integrate agricultural activities in cities into urban planning processes.

Topic 4: Appropriate methods for technology development in urban agriculture
Download paper
By Safiétou T. Fall¹ and Henk de Zeeuw^2
1 ISRA, Senegal
² ETC-RUAF, the Netherlands

This paper focuses on participatory methods for technology development and diffusion in urban agriculture, including use of multiple sources of knowledge in the identification and screening of promising technologies, the development, participatory testing and adaptation of the most promising technologies under local urban farming conditions, use of adult education techniques in technology evaluation, participatory diffusion of the results of the technology development and adaptation process; public-private partnerships in technology development and diffusion in urban agriculture.

Topic 5: Methods for Monitoring and Evaluation and its adaptation to urban and peri-urban agriculture
Download paper
Dindo Campilan¹, Pay Drechsel², and Daniel Jöcker^3
1 CIP-UPWARD, Manila, Philippines
² IWMI Ghana Office, Kumasi, Ghana
³ University of Konstanz, Dept. of Politics and Management, Germany

This paper focuses on frameworks, methods and tools to monitor and evaluate urban agriculture related projects and interventions as well as of the general or specific impacts of urban agriculture on food security and nutrition, health, income, employment and urban ecology. We are looking for case studies of conventional and participatory M&E approaches with emphasis on the adaptation of M&E and its indicators to the specific context and dynamic of urban agriculture.

Topic 6: Methods for Microenterprise Development in Urban Agriculture
Download paper
By Robert J. Holmer
Xavier University College of Agriculture, Cagayan de Oro, Philippines

Methods discussed in this paper relate to the analysis and strengthening of micro-enterprises in urban agriculture and marketing of urban agriculture products. This includes methods for analysis of consumers demands (food and non-food products), marketing channels and flows and their characteristics, assessment of the linkages between micro-enterprises involved in urban agriculture, methods to their access to credit, technical advice, labour, marketing information and other services; Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of existing micro and small enterprises related to urban agriculture and methods to improve actual management practices and efficiency in small scale enterprises involved in input supply, food processing and marketing in order to meet market demands.

Key questions

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

Focus

During the conference we will:

• Concentrate on methods and tools (“how toâ€? issues), rather than on subject matter, whether agricultural technologies or the contents of policies, laws and regulations;
• Give emphasis to those methods that fill existing gaps and complement or go beyond more conventional “tried and testedâ€? methods, and to those methods that can address the special characteristics of the urban setting and help to identify technical and process gaps;
• In general this will mean an emphasis on methods that are: participatory, problems based, policy and action oriented, multi-actor and multi-sector, interactive, interdisciplinary & system oriented, gender sensitive;
• We will welcome experiences gained within the field of UA as well as in related fields (like the Agenda 21 methodology, Healthy Cities approach, innovative urban planning approaches, PLA, PTD, farmer field schools, participatory natural resource management).

Key Questions

We kindly invite you to share your experiences (successes as well as failures!) with the application of the various methodologies of relevance in the field of UA in any of the following categories:

• Methods for Situation analysis/diagnosis and baseline studies on UPA
• Methods for Participatory UPA policy formulation and action planning
• Methods for Integration of UPA in urban land use planning
• Methods for Participatory technology development in UPA
• Methods for Marketing assessments and micro-enterprise development related to UPA
• Methods for Monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of UPA

We are happy to receive your comments on the topic papers, providing examples that support or falsify the experiences discussed in the synthesis papers and/or that throw more light on the gaps identified and the key issues raised at the end of each topic paper

We are especially interested in examples of:

• How you adapted existing methods for the specific conditions of urban agriculture, or developed new methods well adapted to the urban conditions;
• How you combined more conventional methods with innovative and participatory methods;
• The process of implementation of a specific methodology, the pre-conditions required to implement that method successfully and its cost-effectiveness;
• Methods adapted to suit better the interests of specific direct stakeholders in UA (women, poverty groups, young entrepreneurs, ethnic minorities) in the cities.

Background papers

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

AUTHOR	TITLE	FILE SIZE (KB)
Agbayani, A. L., et. al	Quality and quantity requirements for vegetables by private households, vendors and institutional users in a Philippine urban setting.	157
Ansaldo,R.	Identification and Improvement of Market Linkages between Producers and Institutional Users: A Case Study on Potato Contract Growing in the Philippines	64
Ansay, M. et al (19/02/02)	L'agriculture urbaine comme contribution a la securite alimentaire et a l'assainissement des villes	33
	Download annex
Balachander, S.K. (7/02/02)	Confessions Of A Participatory Nonequilibrium Human Ecologist ‘A New Synthesis’: An Indian Experience	30
Balachander, S.K. et al (10/02/02)	Participatory monitoring and evaluation,through indicators -the case study of small peasant-pastoral communities, Ethbarpally village, k6dm4 agroeco subregion, Deccan Plateau, India.	34
Barsky, A. et al (5/02/02)	Agricultura Periurbana: diagnostico socioambiental del impacto de las actividades del sector primario en el partido de moreno, area metropolitana de Buenos Aires (Argentina).	72
Bastianelli, D.	Methods to promote healthier animal production: examples in periurban poultry production around Dakar	60
Batac, J., et. al	Performance Measurement within the Municipal Solid Waste/Urban Agriculture Continuum: A Practical Local Governance Methodology.	135
Bona, J.N. (12/02/02)	A perspective on urban agriculture in the Philippines	55
Bona, J.N. (16/02/02)	A student-farmer in Baungon: A case of interfacing appropriate, and formal technologies in UA Philippine setting	36
Brown, A.	Urban and Peri-urban Commercial Horticulture: Appraising the Potential	109
Carrión, A.	El Plan Estratégico de Inversiones: una estrategia para la planificación y la formulación de políticas. Lectura a partir del proceso desarrollado en Cuenca, Ecuador.	121
Cisse, G. et al (6/03/02)	Suivi et évaluation des risques sanitaires liés à l'utilisation d'eaux polluöes en agriculture urbaine à Nouakchott (Mauritanie) et à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)	80
Cisse, G. et al (6/03/02)	Analyse sommaire de la situation de l´agriculture urbaine à Nouakchott (Mauritanie) et à Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)	48
Cisse, I. et al (10/02/02)	Agriculture urbaine intensive et santé publique : l’utilisation des pesticides et leurs incidences sur la contamination des nappes phréatiques et les risques sur la santé des populations dans la zone des Niayes au Sénégal	791
	Due to the large size of this file, you may prefer to download the Zip version	442
Cittadini, R. (12/02/02)	Análisis de la sustentabilidad social, económica y productiva de la horticultura orgánica en la cuenca mar y sierra	70
Cornish, G.	Assessing water quality and health implications in informal peri-urban irrigation. Case studies from Nairobi and Kumasi	101
Cruz, M. C.	La Planificación participativa en la agricultura urbana: Experiencias de trabajo	123
Dasso, A. J.	Methodology for Analyzing Interventions in Urban Agriculture in Latin America	139
Dasso, A. J.	Metodología para el Diagnóstico de Intervenciones en Agricultura Urbana en América Latina	153
Dávila, J.	Guidelines for strategic environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface	243
Davies, M. (16/02/02)	MINDA yeGUTA "City Fields" - Local Processing Sites - mitigating conflict-induced food shortages through urban food production	67
Davies, M. (16/02/02)	Schematic Layout for Local Processing Site	16
Diaz-Chavez, R.A. et al (15/02/02)	A proposed framework for Sustainable development indicators for peri-urban areas. A case study of Mexico city.	252
Diop, J. (07/02/02)	Main components of the Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation	87
Drechsel, P. et al	Technology development for municipal organic waste recycling for urban and peri-urban agriculture - A holistic approach	102
Drechsel, P. et al	Assessing human capacity building and the potential of technology adoption via KASA analysis	71
Drescher, A. (14/02/02)	The German allotment gardens - a model for poverty alleviation and food security in Southern African Cities?	268
Duc Vien, T.	The role of aquaculture in pollution-remediation in Tay Lake and Truc Bach Lake of Ha Noi	102
Esquilo-Ignacio, R., et al	G.I.S. as a tool for a Participative and Comprehensive Land Planning. A Case Study: Community Resources Management in Central Mindanao (Philippines) .	34
ENDA-Ethiopia (20/02/02)	Monitoring and Evaluation methods of UPA project in Addis Ababa	20
Fall, A. S.	L’approche réseau dans l’agriculture urbaine : Le cas des unités de transformation et leurs liens amont/aval au Sénégal	84
Gabel, S.	Methodological Reflections on Using Participatory and Action Oriented Research with Women Farmers in Harare	266
Galindo, A. B.	The Political Ecology of Urban Agriculture in Mexico City: An Actor-Oriented Approach to Explore the Links with Urban Planning	120
Garrett, S. et al (15/02/02)	Growing a Community Food System
Gockowski, J. et al 14/02/02)	African Traditional Leafy Vegetables and the Urban and Peri-Urban Poor	161
Hermilio Navaroo, G. (07/02/02)	Avances de investigación del proyecto: Necesidades de Investigación en la Agricultura Urbana y Peri-urbana de las Delegaciones Rurales del Distrito Federal (México)	62
Homem de Carvalho, J. C.	PROVE: Small Agricultural Production Verticalization Program.	58
Hovorka, A. J.	Gender Considerations for Urban Agriculture Research	46
Ishani, Z. and Davinder, L.	Applications Of Methods And Instruments In Urban Agriculture Research: Experiences From Kenya And Tanzania	127
	Annex in PDF	463
Kiango, S. and Jacobi, P.	Weaving the net... - M&E tools used in Support of Urban Agriculture in Tanzania	768
Ly, El O.	Outils participatifs dídentification des prieorites et dánalyse des discours.	63
Madaleno, I. M. et al	New Methodologies And Techniques For Urban Agriculture Research In The Developing World: The Chilean Project	44
Mapatano, S. et al (15/02/02)	Brief Survey on the Question of Urban Agriculture in Bukavu	91
Marshall, F. and Te Lintelo, D.	A methodology for assessing the social and economic implications of pollution effects on urban and peri-urban agriculture: a case study from India	63
Mbiba, B.	Participatory methodologies for policy development in urban agriculture: visualisation and the Harare experience in the early 1990s	47
Mlambo, A.	Institutionalizing Urban Agriculture In Dar Es Salaam City Through The EPM Process	87
Moukoko-Ndoumbé, F.	Accounting for UPA Real Economic Performance and Environmental Impact at Farm Level Methods - Analytical approach - Pilot applications	90
Moustier, P.	Assessing The Socio-Economic Impact Of Urban And Peri-Urban Agricultural Development	133
Mukherjee,M. et al (8/02/02)	A Comparative Evaluation Of The Socio-Economic Status Of Women Fishers Of Three Villages In Peri-Urban Areas Of Kolkata	58
Nabulo, G. 31/01/02)	A Facilitating Framework for Planning and Policy Development in Urban Agriculture in Kampala City	85
Nell, W.	Agricultural Development within the holistic Integrated approach: MUCPP/CHESP as a case study in South Africa. (Too large to publish online. Please contact the author: nellwt@sci.uovs.ac.za)
Niang, S.	Maitrise des risques dans la ré-utilisation des eaux usées en agriculture urbaine	1098
Nianogo, A.J.	Méthodologie de la recherche sur la production animale en zone urbaine et péri-urbaine	85
Nugent, R. A.	Using economic analysis to measure the sustainability of urban and peri-urban agriculture: A comparison of cost-benefit and contingent valuation analyses	74
Nyumbaiza, T. A. (5/02/02)	Entre Deux Saisons Culturales	51
Paje, B. G.	Methodologies To Improve Entrepreneurial Skills Of Urban Agriculture Entrepreneurs	81
Pantuliano, S. and Plastow, J.	Experimenting With PIM: The Acord Sudan Urban-Rural Linkages Programme Experience Of Adapting Participatory Impact Monitoring	354
Patino, F. and Cordeiro, F	Matriz para elaboracion de documentos lineamientos politicas	53
Perez Vazquez, A. (8/02/02)	La investigación en Agricultura Urbana; Breves comentarios	35
Prasad, D. et al (10/02/02)	Farmer participatory approach to technology development and transfer of technology - Control of taro (colocaseae esculenta L) leaf blight (Phytophthora colocaseae) in Samoa	74
Quansah, C.	Methods To Identify The Priorities For Technology Development: A Case Study In The Use Of Local Knowledge	111
Sanchéz Avila, H. (15/02/02)	La práctica de la agricultura periurbana en morelos, méxico	27
Santandreu, A.	El Diagnóstico Visual Rápido: una metodología rápida, barata y participativa de diagnóstico en Agricultura Urbana	464
Seck, M.	Appropriate methods for technology development in composting and waste re-use in UPA [PDF]	64
Slater, R	Urban agriculture in Cape Town, South Africa: A social development approach	22
Spiaggi, E., Biasatti, R., Guillén, M.	Urban Agriculture and local sustainable development: evaluation and monitoring tools	44
Talukder, A. et. al	Improving food and nutrition security through homestead gardening in rural, urban and peri-urban areas in Bangladesh	185
Torres-Lima, P.	Sustainable urban agriculture development in Mexico. A methodological approach	57
Van de Fliert, E.	Introducing Integrated Pest Management In Rice In Indonesia: A Pioneering Attempt To Facilitate Large Scale Change	95
Vazquez, A. P.	Agricultura En La Ciudad Versus Agricultura Urbana; Enfoques Aplicados	35
Vazquez, A. P. and Anderson, S.	A Methodological Review of Research into urban Agriculture	134
Vladimir Arana, A. (15/02/02)	Institutional building for the land use management in Peru: the case of Lima	225
Wheatley, C.	Fostering innovation in urban and peri-urban based clusters of small-scale agrifood enterprises	62
Zeeuw, de, H.	Trying out PTD with NGOs in Peru and Bolivia	75

List of Participants

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

List of participants
[155 KB]

Summary of Discussions

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

• Summary week 1
  [ 75 KB ]
• Summary week 2
  [ 92 KB ]

Final Conclusions and Recommendations

Appropriate methods for urban agriculture. Research, policy development, planning, implementation and evaluation. (E-conference - February 4-16 2002)

Document contents

• Introduction
• Participatory methods
• Temporal processes
• Spatial processes
• Socio-economic and Political context for Urban Agriculture

Download final conclusions
[38 KB]

E-conference: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda

Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (E-conference - August 21 - September 30, 2000)

This virtual conference and information market was jointly undertaken by FAO and ETC-RUAF.

Use Altavista to translate these pages.

Aims and agenda

Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (E-conference - August 21 - September 30, 2000)

Objectives

• To promote the integration of urban agriculture into national and - especially - municipal sectoral policies;
• To stimulate local initiatives regarding identification and formulation of programmes and projects on urban agriculture in developing countries;
• To increase awareness among policy-makers of the role of UPA in addressing urban food insecurity

Participants

The conference invited everybody interested in urban and peri-urban agriculture and especially urban planners and municipalities, researchers and practitioners to participate by sharing needs, research results, questions, and project ideas.

Central themes

Participants had the opportunity to discuss, present ideas, and suggest needs about three themes.

• Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA), household food security and nutrition;
• UPA, health and the urban environment;
• UPA and urban planning

Information market

As part of the conference website an information market was maintained where participants and other interested people could find other articles, papers, case studies and other documents of interest. The market also provided information on relevant websites, journals and resource organisations as well as a link to a discussion on training needs in UPA.

Discussion papers

Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (E-conference - August 21 - September 30, 2000)

Topic: household food security & nutrition

English / Français / Español

Topic: (Peri)urban agriculture, health & environment

English / Français / Español

Topic: (Peri)urban agriculture and urban planning

English / Français / Español

Submitted papers

Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (E-conference - August 21 - September 30, 2000)

Food Security and Nutrition

TITLE	FILE SIZE (KB)
Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems in West African Cities Yemi Akinbamijo International Trypanotolerance Centre in Banjul, The Gambia	42
La cría de cerdos en asentamientos irregulares: Una experiencia uruguaya de Agricultura Urbana Alain Santandreu, Gustavo Castro and Fernando Ronca Departamento de Salud Ambiental - Facultad de Veterinaria. Universidad de la República. Montevideo, Uruguay	570
UPA and Food Security in Bamako Hallassy Sidibé SNV-Mali, Bamako, Mali	84
PUA in the Northwest of Russia: Preliminary Analysis of the Findings Oleg Moldakov St-Petersburg Urban Gardening Club

Health and Environment

TITLE	FILE SIZE (KB)
The Health Impacts of Peri-urban Natural Resource Development Karen Lock and Martin Birley
City Food and Health in Brazil Isabel Maria Madaleno Instituto de Investigaçao Científica Tropical, Lisbon, Portugal	75
Protección Sanitaria en el Uso de Aguas Residuales y Lodos de Plantas de Tratamiento Guillermo León Suematsu CEPIS, Lima, Peru	85
Cases on safe use of sewage for fertilisation Jacky Foo (Coordinator-IBSnet)
Postings on malaria endemicity in West and central Africa Thomas Teuscher Health Research Consortium, Bouake, Cote d'Ivoire
Action plan on urban food and nutrition from WHO-Europe Aileen Robertson WHO Nutrition, Copenhagen, Denmark	64

Planning

TITLE	FILE SIZE (KB)
Peri-urban agriculture near Paris Manuel Béguier, Conseil Régional d'Ile-de-France, DECV, Paris, France D. Pujol, Direction Régionale de l'Agriculture et la Forêt d'Ile de France, CACHAN, France
City farming and sustainability from the children's perspective Oliver Ginsberg BdJA educational consultant, Berlin	24
Urban Agriculture as the Combination of Two 'Impossible' though Sustainable Trends Leo van den Berg ALTERRA Green World Research, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands	58
Defining Periurban: Understanding Rural-Urban Linkages and Their Connection to Institutional Contexts David L. Iaquinta, Nebraska Wesleyan University Axel W. Drescher, University of Freiburg, Germany	331
Kommunale Agrarpolitik: Wandlungen, Motive und Chancen am Beispiel von Landkreisen und Großstädten in der Bundesrepublik Frieder Thomas, University of Kassel, Germany
Agriculture as a Sustainable Use of Urban Land Joe Nasr The Urban Agriculture Network, Washington, D.C., USA	27
Urban Agriculture as a Concept in Urban Planning in South Africa: Example from Port Elizabeth Lena Jarlöv Dalarana Research Institute, Falun, Sweden	38
We are a part of the earth and the earth is a part of us Aileen Robertson World Health Organization, WHO-DK, Kopenhagen	64
Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, USA	665
Use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for mapping urban agricultural activities and open space in cities Stefan Dongus & Axel Drescher University of Freiburg, Germany	22

List of participants

First name	Name	Affiliation	Country	Email	Group
D	Aalders		CAN	daalders AT ns.sympatico.ca	p
Gulia	Abbate	ENEA, Nat. Agency for Energy, Techn. and the Env.	ITA	gabbate AT cetma.brindisi.enea.it	hpf
Jovita	Abensur Rios	IMAGEN Educativa	PER	imagen AT ec-red.com	f
Michael	Ableman	Center For Urban Agriculture	USA	michaelabl AT aol.com	f
Martin	Adam	University of Greenwich	GBR	m.g.adam AT greenwich.ac.uk	f
John	Afele	Ontario Agric. College, University of Guelph	CAN	jafele AT uoguelph.ca	f
Clarita	Aganon	Central Luzon State University	PHL	cpaganon AT ne-link.net	f
Teotimo	Aganon	Central Luzon State University	PHL	tmaganon AT ne-link.net	f
Yemi	Akinbamijo		Gambia	yemi.akinbamijo AT commit.gm	f
Marta	Alcocer		MEX	martaalcocer AT compuserve.com.mx	hpf
Andres	Alencastre Calderon	Asociación Ecociudad	PER	andres AT ciudad.org.pe	fhp
?	Alexandre		FRA	alexandre AT gwadloup.antilles.inra.fr	hfp
Joerg	Amend	German Development Cooperation (GTZ)	TZA	uvpp AT africaonline.co.tz	f
Nicole	Anami		?	nicoleanami AT hotmail.com	pf
Jamie	Anderson		?	jander AT mother.com	fh
Marcela Regina	Andre Lopez		MEX	permaculture_san_miguel AT yahoo.com	pf
Michel	Ansay	Institut de la Vie	BEL	mansay AT ulg.ac.be	h
Vladimir	Arana	CARE, ISOCARP	PER	aranav AT carepe.org.pe	pfh
Adriana	Aranha	Secr. de Abastecimento e Segurança Alimentar	BRA	a.aranha AT uol.com.br	f
Teti	Argo	ITB	IDN	targo_99 AT yahoo.com	p
Julio M	Arias	School for Field Studies	CRI	jmarias AT sol.racsa.co.cr	pfh
Jesus	Arias Chavez		MEX	informes AT xochicalli.org.mx	p
Francisco Janvier	Arroyo y Galvan Duque	Institute for Training and Research in Agroecology	MEX	farroyo AT laneta.apc.org	hpf
Peter	Atkins	University of Durham	GBR	p.j.atkins AT durham.ac.uk	f
	Austin		?	acg AT austin.rr.com	hpf
Héctor	Avila Sanchez	CRIM-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México	MEX	ahector AT correo.crim.unam.mx	p
Frolan	Aya	Bureau of Agricultural Research	PHL	fro_aya AT hotmail.com	f
Michael	Ayala Ayala	Coordinadora Ecuatoriana de Agroecología	ECU	mayala AT andinanet.net	f
Roberto	Azofeifa	Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería	CRI	extension AT cnp.go.cr	f
B	Bacon		?	bbacon AT mtn.org	h
Nurwati	Badarulzaman	University	MYS	nurwati AT usm.my	p
Martin	Bailkey	Dep. of Landscape Architecture, Univ of Wisconsin	USA	bailkey AT facstaff.wisc.edu	p
Doyle	Baker	FAO Farm Management and Prod. Econ. Service	ITA	doyle.baker AT fao.org	f
Lauren	Baker	FoodShare Toronto	CAN	lauren AT centtel.com	hpf
Bachtar	Bakrie	"Agency for Agricultural Research and Dev.; Dep of Agr."	IDN	bbakrie AT indo.net.id	phf
Herb	Barbolet	FarmFolk/CityFolk	CAN	herb AT ffcf.bc.ca	fhp
David	Barkin	Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana	MEX	barkin AT cueyatl.uam.mx	fh
Carlos	Barrios Napurí	Instituto CRECIMIENTO	PER	infocb AT yahoo.com	f
Hugh	Bartling		?	hugh AT backpacker.com	hp
F	Basket		?	fbasket AT skannet.com.org	hpf
J	Batac		PHL	batacj0 AT bl;cn.pworld.net.ph	p
Wilfried O.	Baudoin	FAO	ITA	wilfried.baudoin AT fao.org	f
Bettina	Baumgartner		CHE	bettina.baumgartner AT eawag.ch	fhp
Ruvicyn	Bayot	Bureau of Agricultural Research	PHL	rbayot AT bar.da.gov.ph	f
Manuel	Beguier	Regional Council	FRA	manuel.beguier AT cr-ile-de-france.fr	fhp
Ann	Bellows	Department of Nutritional Sciences, The State University of New Jersey	USA	acbellow AT rci.rutgers.edu	hpf
Johan	Bentinck		NLD	j.bentinck AT frw.rug.nl	p
Laura	Berman	FoodShare Toronto	CAN	laura AT foodshare.net	p
Anke	Bielfeldt		DEU	amanebie AT uni-hohenheim.de	f
Marlou	Bijlsma	Inst. of Food Nutrition and Family Sc., Univ. of Zimbabwe	Zimbabwe	pzaag AT mango.zw	hf
Georgette	Bilonda Mpenda	UNESCO	COG	cucafe_ong AT yahoo.fr	f
Francisco	Blanco Calderón	FUNDAVER	MEX	fundaver AT hotmail.com	p
Micaela	Bocanegra Rodríguez	Centro de Encuentros y Diálogos A. C.	MEX	ced AT cuer.laneta.apc.org	fh
Pascal	Bonnet	ILRI, CIRAD	ETH	P.BONNET AT CGIAR.ORG
Iaala	Boulbir	Direction de l'Urbanisme	DZA	boulbir AT yahoo.fr	p
Manon	Boulianne	Université du Québec à Hull	CAN	manonboulianne AT videotron.ca	f
Tanya	Bowyer-Bower	Dep of Geography, SOAS, Univ. of London	GBR	tb5 AT soas.ac.uk	fhp
Peggy	Bradley	Institute for Simplified Hydroponics	USA	peggy AT carbon.org	p
Kelli	Brew		?	kellibrew AT aol.com	f
Michael	Brewster		?	mwbrew AT pacbell.net	p
Julian	Briz	Universidad Politécnica de Madrid	ESP	j.brizz AT eco.etsia.upm.es	p
Berend	Brock	University of Amsterdam	NLD	beerrund AT dds.nl	hp
Robert	Brook	University of Wales, Bangor	GBR	r.m.brook AT bangor.ac.uk	f
Jonathan	Brown	CitySeeds	USA	CitySeeds AT main.nc.us	f
Allison	Brown		?	pear1313 AT yahoo.com	f
Wietse	Bruinsma	ETC	NLD	w.bruinsma AT etcnl.nl	hfp
Maria	Bruno	Consejo Escolar	ARG	mbruno AT telefax.com.ar	h
Charles	Buberwa	private	TZA	buberwa AT mail.com	h
Ulrich	Buechsenschuetz	FU Berlin	DEU	bully AT zedat.fu-berlin.de	hp
Tom	Bulten		USA	bultenth AT msu.edu	hpf
S.W.	Bunting		GBR	s.w.bunnting AT stir.ac.uk	f
John A	Butterworth	Natural Resources Institute, Univ. of Greenwich	GBR	j.a.butterworth AT greenwich.ac.uk	hpf
Teresa	Calderon	FAO	ITA	teresa.calderon AT fao.org	hf
Paul	Calvert	Self Employed	IND	paulc AT vsnl.com	hpf
Horacio	Campana		ARG	hcampana AT frbb.utn.edu.ar	h
Hans	Carlier		NLD	carlier AT daxis.nl	f
Annika	Carlsson-Kanayma	ESRG	SWE	carlsson AT fms.ecology.su.se	f
Nair Rocio	Carrasco Sanez	CEPREN	PER	cepren AT amauta.rcp.net.pee	fh
Olivia	Carrion	Sanut A.C.	?	sanutac AT mext.clubiinter.net	ph
Gustavo	Castro	Facultad de Veterinaria (Universidad de la Republica)	URY	gucastro AT terra.com	hf
Angela	Caudle		USA	foodfog AT aol.com	p
Steve	Cavanaugh		?	appleblossom AT delphi.com	f
Hazett	Cervantes Morales	CICEANA	MEX	matlah AT psi.net.mx	pf
Gasper	Chambi	Private Company	TZA	infobridge AT simbanet.net	h
Ould Dehah	Cheikh Mohamed El Hafed	Université de Nouakchott	MRT	dehah AT univ-nkc.mr	f
Mona	Chhabra		GBR	ucfemon AT ucl.ac.uk	hp
Joshua Ngoh	Chia	COMMON INITIATIVE GROUP	CMR	fowahre AT hotmail.com	h
Karem	Chicata	IMAGEN Educativa	PER	imagen AT ec-red.com	p
Horacio	Chicata Blancas	IMAGEN Educativa	PER	imagen AT ec-red.com	h
Oumar	Cisse	Université de Montréal	SN	oumar AT cyberglobe.net	ph
Paul	Clark		?	Paul.Clark AT HSC.com	hpf
J	Coate		?	jcoate01 AT emerald.tufts.edu	hf
Mary	Cockram	NGO	USA	mary_cockram AT aid2artisans.org
Kevin	Cook	University of Surrey, Royal Geographical Society	GBR	cookk AT smuc.ac.uk	f
Rodger	Cooley	Heifer Project International	USA	rodger.cooley AT heifer.org	f
Ralph	Coolman	Rutgers University	USA	ralph_coolman AT yahoo.com	pfh
Michael	Corbin	Malaspina University & British Columbia Inst. of Technolgy	CAN	agrologic&eudoramail.com	f
Ana	Cordova	Cornell University	USA	ac58 AT cornell.edu	hpf
Gez	Cornish	HR Wallingford Ltd	GBR	gac AT hrwallingford.co.uk	f
Sean	Cosgrove	Toronto Food Policy Council	CAN	scosgrov AT city.toronto.on.ca	p
Helen	Costello		?	hccostell AT mediaone.net	f
Monique	Cote	Université de Montreal	CAN	cote.monique AT uqam.ca	hpf
Justine	Coulson		GBR	J.A.Coulson AT newcastle.ac.uk	h
John	Cropper		Trinidad	j.cropper AT trinidad.net	fhp
Simeon	Crucido		PHL	scrucido AT yahoo.com	f
Silvia Patricia	Cruzatt	CGIAR-International Potato Center	PER	s.cruzatt AT cgiar.org	hf
John	Curry	FAO	ITA	John.Curry AT fao.org	f
Parviz	Dabir-Alai		GBR	dabirp AT richmond.ac.uk	p
An	Dang Thi	Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR)	VNM	hmt AT iebr.ac.vn	h
Andres	Dasso		PER	rede AT amauta.rcp.net.pe	f
Esther	Day	American Farmland Trust	USA	eday2 AT niu.edu	h
Edemir	de Carvalho	Universidade Estadual Paulista	BRA	edecar AT terra.com.br	p
Kirk	de Ford	North-West Educational Laboratory	USA	defordk AT nwrel.org	hp
Kirk	de Ford	Tabor Tilth Urban Farm	USA	kirk AT teleport.com	h
Pieter	de Necker	Dep. of Geogr. and Env. Studies, Univ. of Stellenbosch	SAF	PDN AT akad.sun.ac.za	hpf
Marc	de Staercke	Wuropean Federation of City Farms	BEL	efcf AT vgc.be	fh
Camille	de Stoop	Environmental Development Action (ENDA)	ETH	fantaw AT telecom.net.et	hf
Henk	de Zeeuw	ETC	NLD	h.dezeeuw AT etcnl.nl	hpf
Bernd	Decker	UNCHS	KEN	bernd.decker AT unchs.org	p
Laura	Declementi	Ministry of Foreign Affairs	ITA	laura.declementi AT fao.org	f
Leoncia	Del Mar	Bureau of Agricultural Research	PHL	leoncia_delmar AT yahoo.com	f
Mamadou Boye	Diallo	IRAG/DNE	GIN	dalibard AT eti.net.gn	f
Stefan	Dongus		DEU	dongus AT gmx.de	p
Djibril	Doucouré	Institut Africain de Gestion Urbaine	SEN	djidouc60 AT hotmail.com	p
Elizabeth	Dowler	University of Warwick, UK	GBR	elizabeth.dowler AT warwick.ac.uk	h
Pay	Drechsel	IBSRAM	GHA	ibsram AT africaonline.com.gh	hf
Axel	Drescher	UNI Freiburg	DEU	drescher AT ruf.uni-freiburg.de	hfp
Marielle	Dubbeling	Urban Management Programme- UMP-LAC	ECU	marid AT pgu.ecuanex.net.ec	fph
Nadine	Dulac		NLD	ndulac AT waste.nl	fp
Mihail	Dumitru	RISSA	Rumania	mdumitru AT icpa.ro	f
Jaime	Durango	FAO	ITA?	jaime.durango AT field.fao.org	f
Michael	Dutton	University of Natal	ZAF	dutton AT med.und.ac.za	f
Derek	Eaton	Wageningen University and Research Centre	NLD	d.j.f.eaton AT lei.wag-ur.nl	hp
Josilien	Edouard	TECSULT International	CAN	j.edouard AT tecsult.com	f
Peter	Edwards		GBR	pedwards AT sbu.ac.uk	f
Florence	Egal	Economic and Social Department, FAO	ITA	florence.egal AT fao.org	hfp
Freda	Eisennberg	Ferrandino & Associates Inc.	USA	fceberg AT aol.com	p
Shimshon P.