Impacts of Urban Agriculture Annual Report.p65 - International ...

Impacts of urbanagricultureHighlights of Urban Harvestresearch and development, 2003-2006U R B A NHARVEST

1Impacts of urbanagricultureHighlights of Urban Harvestresearch and development, 2003-2006

2Impacts of urban agricultureHighlights of Urban Harvest research and development,2003-2006© International Potato Center (CIP), 2007ISBN: 978-92-9060-329-0The publications of Urban Harvest contribute importantinformation for the public domain. Parts of this publicationmay be cited or reproduced for non-commercial use providedauthors rights of Urban Harvest are respected andacknowledged, and you send us a copy of the publicationciting or reproducing our material.Published by the International Potato Center (CIP), convenerfor Urban Harvest. CIP contributes to the CGIAR missionthrough scientific research and related activities on potato,sweetpotato, and other root and tuber crops, and on themanagement of natural resources in the Andes and the othermountain areas. www.cipotato.orgProduced by Communications and Public AwarenessDepartmentWritting and editing: Cathy Barker, Gordon Prain, MaartenWarnaars, Ximena Warnaars, Lisa Wing, Freda WolfProduction coordinator: Cecilia LafosseDesign and layout: Elena Taipe, Nini Fernández-ConchaPrinted in Peru by: Comercial Gráfica SucreCopies printed: 500November 2007

Table of contents3Introduction 5Introduction to urban livelihoods and markets 9Flower power in the Philippines: Strengthening the contribution of thejasmine industry to urban livelihoods 10Meals on wheels add a new dynamic to pig raising in Hanoi 13Identifying best bet marketing opportunities for Kampala farmers 17What should I feed my child? Perceptions of foods for young children 19among Lima mothersIntroduction to Urban Ecosystem Health 21Adopting Farmer Field Schools to urban realities in Lima, Peru 22Research for a cleaner future: Heavy metal contamination in Kampala 24Dirty secret treasures in Nairobi 27Improving the quality of irrigation water in Lima 30Introduction to Stakeholder and Policy Dialogue 33Getting agriculture on the municipal agenda in Lima 34An urban agricultural model in the making: Kampala, Uganda 37Improving the integration of urban agriculture in national and local 40government in Kenya, through multi-stakeholder platformsNetworking 43Local and global networkingNetworking and capacity building activities 2003-2006 45Publications 52Networking partners 56Investments partners 59Urban Harvest researchers, students and interns 2003-2006 60Abbreviations and acronyms 63

IntroductionThe CGIAR 1 System-wide Initiative on Urban and PeriurbanAgriculture, now known as Urban Harvest, wasformally launched in late 1999, to focus the efforts andrelevant collective knowledge of the Alliance Centerstowards collaborative development of innovations inurban and peri-urban agriculture. Since its inception,Urban Harvest has been hosted by the InternationalPotato Center (CIP) and the global coordination officeof the Initiative was established in CIP’s Limaheadquarters in early 2000. Between 2001 and 2002,regional coordination capacity was established on theILRI Campus in Nairobi for Sub-Saharan Africa and inCIAT’s facilities in Hanoi, Vietnam.The broad goals of Urban Harvest which have guidedthe Initiative from its beginnings are to enhance,through local agriculture, the food, nutrition and incomesecurity of the urban and peri-urban poor, reducenegative urban environmental and health effectsamong urban populations and stimulate the integrationof agriculture within urban management strategies.These interdependent goals have been operationalizedthrough a research framework which draws on thesustainable livelihoods framework and eco-systemshealth thinking. The framework distinguishes threeresearch and development themes relating to urbanlivelihoods and markets; urban ecosystems health;and stakeholder and policy dialogue (see Box). Theframework underlines the different role andcharacteristics of agriculture as one moves from rural,through peri-urban to intra-urban conditions. Thearticles in this report, which highlight some of theprogram achievements between 2003 and 2006, alsocapture the particularities of the urban context. Foodand nutrition insecurity are highly correlated withconditions in many rural areas of the developing world.Yet the high cost of food in cities, the restricted accessto own food production, unhealthy living conditionssuffered by low-income urban families combined withpoor diets – including increasing consumption ofrefined foods – all create urban hot-spots of food andnutrition insecurity. The article on mothers’ perceptionsof animal source food for your children in Lima, wherearound 50% suffer anemia, is part of a broader effort tostimulate increased consumption of these iron-richfoods. Stimulating increased access to urban foodproduction is supporting what local people alreadyknow: it is a path towards better nutrition and health.Although many migrants move to cities in theexpectation of more and better-paid jobs than in the51 The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research is a strategic alliance of members, partners and international agricultural centers that mobilizes science tobenefit the poor. It aims to achieve sustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countries through scientific research and research-related activities in thefields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, policy, and environment

6country-side, we know that many cities have as much as90% informal employment, meaning occasional andprecarious opportunities for earning income. Urban cropproduction and livestock-keeping have been shown to becomplementary activities to casual non-farm work formany families and improving their income-generatingpotential can help them move out of poverty. Articles fromthe Philippines, Vietnam and Uganda show the specialopportunities that urban and peri-urban producers haveto access local input and produce markets.Urban ecosystems have both health risks and economicand environmental benefits for producers and consumers.Agriculture is a key part of the eco-system, generatingrisks through use of toxic inputs in densely populatedareas and vulnerable at the same time to becoming apathway for biological and chemical contaminants in theecosystem, directly via soil or water to producers andindirectly facilitating the passage of contaminants intourban food systems. The articles on biologicalcontamination of irrigation water in Lima and heavy metalcontamination in Kampala identify some of theseproblems and describe potential solutions. The organicwastes in the urban ecosystem carry nutrients which canbe used at low or no cost by urban producers. The articleon producer schools in Lima describes the way themethod has helped producers transform theiragriculture towards more ecologically friendlyproduction, using local organic wastes. The Nairobiarticle talks about the complicated flows of wastesentering and leaving and circulating within Nairobi,and the opportunities these provide for income.Compared to rural settings, cities are more heavilyregulated and experience more intensive competitionamong a wider range of stakeholders for resources.Urban agriculture has in the past been at best ignoredand at worst restricted or prohibited by localgovernments in the developing world. As many citiessuch as Havana, Rosario, Vancouver, Cairo and Yunnanhave already shown, agriculture can become anintegral part of good environmental management ofurban space. Cities and their inhabitants need greenspace to survive and an Urban Harvest supportedstudy of urban heat islands in Manila has clearly shownthe cooling effect of green spaces in the city. The threearticles in the section on Stakeholder and policydialogue present examples of how it is possible – noteasy, but possible – to influence policy processes andorganizational change to better integrate agriculturein urban planning and development and by so doing,making cities more sustainable places.

7RESEARCH FRAMEWORKThe Urban Harvest research framework (see diagram)draws on earlier insights into sustainable livelihoods andurban eco-system health. In complex city ecosystems,which include informal economies and social networks,poor households depend on multiple income sources anda wide range of non-material assets to ensure theirlivelihood. Inadequate assets can leave householdsvulnerable to economic, environmental, health, andpolitical stresses and shocks (the vulnerability context).Five types of capital assets are distinguished. Naturalcapital includes the quantity and quality of accessibleland and water as well as biodiversity. “Hidden” naturalresources, such as vacant lots, unused water surfaces andnutrient-rich solid and liquid wastes are common inurban areas, but are often unrecognized by localgovernments. Physical capital refers to such assets asbuildings, equipment, seeds, animals and own transport.Human capital includes family labor, knowledge andhealth status. Available income and savings comprisefinancial capital. Social capital includes the access tonetworks, groups, trust and support.The deployment of assets in household strategies, theinfluences and impediments experienced throughengagement with the institutional and policy fabric ofthe city (structures and processes), the outcomesachieved, are part of livelihood processes, which in turnexert positive and/or negative ecosystem feedback onthe livelihood assets and on the vulnerability context.Urban Harvest identifies three research themes:Stakeholder and policy analysis and dialogue seeksunderstanding of the actors, policies and institutionsconcerned in urban agricultural activities and developsmethods for communication and consensus amongactors and legitimacy for urban agriculture in policy andregulatory schemes. Livelihoods and markets targetsproduction, processing, marketing and consumptionsystems along the rural-urban transect and identifiestechnology interventions to enhance income and foodand nutrition security. Urban ecosystem health focusesattention on the feedback mechanisms betweenpeople’s actions and population, community andenvironmental health.

Introduction to urban livelihoods and marketsThe sustainable urban livelihoods frameworkrecognizes that increasingly in rural settings, and verymuch so in complex urban contexts, poor householdsdepend on a diversity of strategies to ensure foodsecurity, income and well-being. These diversestrategies depend on a set of household assets orcapitals: natural capital (such as land, water, pollutants);financial capital (money); physical capital (houses,equipment, vehicles, animals, seeds); human capital(labor power, ie. health, and capacity or skill); and socialcapital (networks of trust, exchange and mutualsupport, which all individuals and households maintainto a greater or lesser degree).Deployment of assets in household livelihoodsstrategies also depends on the influences andimpediments that household members experiencewhen they deal with urban institutions, such asmunicipal regulation, or policies of local marketingpractices. This constrained deployment of assets and thelivelihood outcomes which they achieve are all part ofthe urban livelihood process. Inability to adequatelydeploy assets can leave households vulnerable toeconomic, environmental, health, and political stressesand shocks, which are referred to as the “vulnerabilitycontext”: the level of susceptibility to poverty and thedifficulty of moving out of poverty. Conversely, betteraccess to social and material assets, improvedcapabilities and diversified activities to deploy theseassets, combined with a more supportive institutionalcontext, can move households out of poverty.The participation of men and women in agriculturevaries along the rural-to-urban transect, as do otheraspects of farming systems, such as land area, tenancy,principal crops and animals production, food securityand marketing strategies and health risks. Women playa dominant role in many types of urban agriculturesystems, especially those involving small livestock andmultiple food crops. The important role women play in“feeding cities” indicates the importance of workingwith them in action research interventions. Women’sfrequent access to sources of social capital (women’sassociations) provides scaling out opportunities.9

Flower power in the Philippines:Strengthening the contribution ofthe jasmine industry to urban livelihoods10Sampaguita, the jasmine buds adopted by thePhilippines’ as its national flower, is primarily used for theproduction of garlands, which in turn are used asceremonial and decorative ornaments. As many as120,000 low-income households in the Manila region—from sampaguita farmers to garland makers, to childrenselling garlands in Manila—depend on these garlands asan important source of income. An in-depth assessmentstudy conducted by Urban Harvest partner institutionssought to improve the contribution of the sampaguita(jasmine) enterprise system to the economic and socialwell being of key players in the Manila metropolitanregion by identifying the benefits and constraints of thisthriving industry.The University of the Philippines Los Baños and CIP-UPWARD carried out studies in the municipalities of SanPedro and Calamba, Laguna, and Manila in the Philippines(between 2001 and 2004) that highlighted theimportance of the sampaguita livelihood system tohouseholds and to the community of San Pedro and tothose involved in marketing in Metro Manila.The entire system involves eight key players: thefarmer (who produces sampaguita flowers and otherraw materials, mostly men); the flower picker (whoharvests daily the floral buds, mostly women andchildren); the supplier (who collects flowers fromfarmers and transports them to San Pedro, oftentimes farmers’ wives); the abaca fiber cleaner (whocleans abaca fibers, mostly old women and men); thevendor (who buys wholesale the raw materials fromfarmers and suppliers and retails them to contactorsand garland-makers); the garland-making contractor(who buys raw materials from vendors and contractsgarland-makers, mostly women); the garland maker(who strings together the flowers, mostly women andchildren); and the garland seller (who peddles thesampaguita garlands in Manila, mostly women andchildren).The study identified the most pressing constraints ofthe sampaguita economic system and offeredsolutions to such limitations. Aside from asserting thatthis is a viable peri-urban industry, the study—whichinvolved various surveys, secondary data, field visits,focus group discussions and interviews with keyinformants—stressed the importance of involvinglocal and international organizations, policy makers,and government agencies in supporting this trade asan important contribution to livelihoods in themetropolitan region.The sampaguita livelihood system in San Pedro,Laguna, a suburban town 29 kilometers south ofManila, is anchored primarily on the production offlowers and their preparation into garlands. The townserves as the point of convergence linking farmingactivity in rural areas to the marketing of garlands inurban centers. Flowers produced in rural farms arebought, traded and transformed into garlands in themunicipality, with the garlands being subsequently

sold in adjacent Metro Manila. Data shows that up to2.8 million flower buds are traded daily in San Pedro.11As the study points out, the various livelihood activitiesrevolving around garland making in San Pedro providenumerous benefits to everyone involved. At theforefront of these benefits are employment and incomegeneration, socio-cultural benefits (making the youthproductive and empowering woman), and thepromotion of loyalty, trust and a sense of traditionamong those involved in the garland production chain.However, as with any other agribusiness venture, thesampaguita enterprise is beset with problems.Among the most pressing is the susceptibility ofsampaguita to insect attack, which in turn leads tofarmers’ extensive use of pesticides. This not only harmsthe environment and raises production costs, but alsoaffects the health of those who handle the flowers. Allplayers along the chain, from growers to pickers togarland stringers, have complained of skin allergies andbreathing difficulties and suspect it is due to pesticideresidue in the flowers. Woman and children are the mostexposed to health risks because they are in charge ofpicking the flower’s buds and therefore re-enter thefarm less than 12 hours after spraying.With this in mind, health risks resulting from pestmanagement and pesticide use were a major focus ofthe study. Farmers are often oblivious to the negativehealth effects that can result from using either very toxicor unsafe pesticides, or simply using too much of it.Some sampaguita growers spray as much as four timesa week to combat the whitefly and budborer and otherinsect pests and diseases.The study also identified other major problems andconstraints faced by key players in the garland productionchain, including competition with other sellers andsuppliers, a lack of capital to increase business, nonpaymentof loans by customers, irregular price fluctuationsof flowers and a lack of better methods of storing flowers.Rapid urbanization in the municipality is also a threat.At the forefront of CIP-UPWARD’s efforts to help findsolutions to the main constraints affecting thesampaguita livelihood in the Philippines is thedevelopment of an Integrated Pest Managementscheme to reduce the frequency of pesticideapplications and encourage the selection of less-toxicones. Non-pesticide based management was alsointroduced including the use of biological pest controls,better farm management practices that minimize pestinfestations, and replacement of sick and oldsampaguita plants.

12At the policy level, CIP-UPWARD-Urban Harvest helpedorganize a multi-disciplinary and inter-institutional forumthat discussed the problem of excessive pesticide use andlack of registered crop protection products forsampaguita. The Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority of thePhilippines, representatives of crop protectioncompanies, government research institutions andsampaguita farmers attended this forum. An Ad-hoccommittee was formed in this meeting to discuss andstudy policy recommendations on pesticide use forsampaguita.At post-production level, this study emphasized theimportance of identifying better storage methods forsampaguita floral buds, which can only be preserved for48 hours using the existing technology of packing themin Styrofoam containers with ice. This forces garlandmakersand contractors to only buy what they can processin one day. The study points out that better storagemethods could allow them to manage their timemore efficiently.Another major concern identified in the study wasthe reduction in the yield and the perishability ofsampaguita flowers. More information on the floralbiology (i.e. flowering and pollination) of thesampaguita could be used, among other things, tobreed new varieties that could have flowers of variedcolors and that are more resistant to pests anddiseases. Determining the nutrient requirements ofsampaguita and even using organic manure as anutrient source to enhance yield and quality was alsosuggested in the study.Other opportunities discussed included thecommercial feasibility of extracting essential oils fromthe sampaguita flower.

Meals on wheels add a newdynamic to pig raising in Hanoidemand for meat, especially in urban centers. In Cat Quecommune on the outskirts of Hanoi, already heavilydependent on livestock raising due to limitedagricultural land, households started to specialize indifferent stages of pig raising: piglet (called giong: “seedpig”) supply and raising medium-sized pigs (got) to besold for fattening for final marketing as meat. Cat Quefarmers began to specialize in intensive production ofthe intermediate got stage of pig raising: purchasingweaned piglets from sow/piglet raisers at 5 or 6 kg toraise them to between 25 and 30 kg, to sell to meat pigraisers who then fatten them up to between 80 to 110kg. Raising “growing pigs” (as got would be called in UShog raising terminology) was soon adopted by almostall of the 2,600 households in Cat Que. The system thatwas developed helped create an effective link betweenrural and peri-urban and urban households in “ruralurbanenterprise clusters”.13Vietnamese urban and peri-urban householdscommonly raise a few pigs for market in their backyards.This activity adds to their income, puts a little pork ontheir own table, especially for the Lunar New Year, andthe manure can be used or sold as fertilizer. However,the villages of Cat Que commune near Hanoi haveturned pig raising into the hub of a complex local clusterof agro-enterprises. The pig raising industry in Vietnamis very dynamic, like many things in Vietnam - itundergoes rapid changes in response to theintroduction of new materials and knowledge.Following the economic reforms of Doi Moi in the mid‘80s, the government allowed the emergence of privatemarkets. The resulting rising incomes increased theCat Que enterprise clusters consist of piglet (giong)producers and traders, got-raisers, feed and medicinesuppliers, veterinarians, got-collectors, pig fatteners andmanure collectors. All the got-raisers agree that thebiggest advantage of clustering together is the marketthey collectively create. It is common for a householdto raise 500 to1000 got, up to 5000 a year. Each cycletakes 45 to 60 days depending on the quality of the babypiglets and their growth potential, diet, health andmanagement.An Urban Harvest team including The InternationalPotato Center (CIP), The International Center for TropicalAgriculture (CIAT) and national researchers from HanoiAgricultural University and the National Institute forAnimal Husbandry, have been analyzing the complexset of interrelated pig-raising issues to provide a basisfor elaborating an enterprise plan. The intention wouldbe to improve the system, identifying the actors andconcerns of the different aspects of the pig productionchain, participating in joint identification and discussion

tours offered all over the country. In 2002, it wasestimated that there were more than 1.3 millionmotorbikes in Hanoi (1 motorbike per 2 people onaverage) and by 2004 the estimate was up to 2 millionmotorbikes. They are used for family transportation,taxis and for cargo. For the trip to the Cat Que villages,the highly liquid institutional and restaurant foodresidues are carried in sealable blue plastic barrels,which hold about 70 kilos each. A motorbike can beloaded with three of these barrels: one on each side ofthe rear wheel, a third behind the driver and sometimesa small container is even placed between the legs ofthe driver on the bike frame. The larger the volume, themore the reduction in transport costs. Nevertheless,transportation logistics are complex, because even aslight, sudden swerve of the motorbike can set off thesloshing dynamics within the barrels that can cause thebike, rider and cargo to slew off the road.The pigs in Cat Que villages grow fat on these gourmetwastes, which are used as the major feed source. For eachof the two feedings a day they are boiled up in largecauldrons, added on top of local agricultural productsto prevent sticking, for about 1.5 hours, over fires fueledby coal slurry. Rice bran is added a few minutes towardthe end of the boiling time. One or two trips to the cityper day are required, depending on the number of pigs.Though animal nutritionists say three feedings wouldbe better, the constraints of time simply rule out thispossibility. Sometimes the women’s first trip into thecity is at 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. to sell vegetables, returning at5:00am, when the husbands leave to fetch the foodresidues for the pigs. Between two and five hours oflabor time a day is required for transport. This tends tobe men’s work because of the heavy, unstable load.Although no nutritional analysis of the food wastes hasbeen concluded yet, the residues from restaurants andfood preparing institutions are thought to be highlynutritious, although they have to be picked over becauseof small inorganic objects that get mixed in, such assmall plastic bottles. Tofu residues can also be purchasedfrom many small-scale tofu enterprises in Hanoi, but aremore expensive and farmers generally agree restaurantwaste is higher in nutrients and better for fattening pigs,even though the supply of tofu residues is more secure.Commercial supplements are used sparingly to staywithin the narrow profit margin.Even though the residents of Cat Que have significanteconomic advantage over traditional farming orlivestock raising, they would like to explore thepossibilities of further improving the profitability andresolving the problem of waste and environment.Ironically, while recycling restaurant residues from Hanoipartially alleviates one environmental hazard, theincreased volume of resident pigs causes another in CatQue. Measures to manage or eliminate the waste needto be identified. One possibility is to construct canalsso the waste can be directed away from the communeinto a holding tank for disposal. Pig manure is anexcellent fertilizer. If the manure can be processed intoa higher quality and value fertilizer, the market will alsoopen up. It is, therefore, possible to experiment withsmall scale manure processing, but it would be betterto adopt larger scale processing.There are enough raw materials for fertilizer processingon a large scale. This would, however, require majorinvestment that must be provided either by thegovernment or private investors. To attract such aninvestment from either party, analysis must beperformed to demonstrate the extent of the economicand environmental benefits.15

16Figure 1: Got-raising based enterprise clustered in Cat Que

Identifying best bet marketingopportunities for Kampala farmersDirect, low-cost linkage to diverse urban markets isboth an opportunity and a challenge for urban and periurbanproducers. Through its research theme oflivelihoods and markets, Urban Harvest developsstrategies to help producers better access theopportunities and confront the challenges.17Urban agriculture plays a key role within and aroundthe rapidly growing city of Kampala, where agricultureactivities contribute up to 40% of the total foodconsumed there. More than half of the land both withinKampala’s municipal boundaries and peri-urban areasis used for agricultural purposes, with an estimated 30%of the households engaged in urban agriculture.Successful marketing of products thus has majorlivelihood implications for large numbers of urbanfarmers.Beginning in 2002, an Urban Harvest team, led by theInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture,Colombia (CIAT)and the International Center forTropical Agriculture, Nigeria (IITA) assessed themarket opportunities for urban and peri-urbanfarmers in Kampala and helped them identify aportfolio of agricultural products with marketdemand whose production is technically andeconomically feasible.Market surveys compared levels of demand for theproducts currently being produced by farmers there andidentified a number of new fruits and vegetables withhigh potential.The overall study involved: a rapid urban appraisal tocharacterize communities and identify agriculturalcommodities being produced by urban farmers forincome generation; a study to capture opportunitiesfor existing and potential products, and an evaluationof the most promising options for urban and periurbanfarmers.Of the 38 products identified and evaluated, 8 wereselected as high potential and their production andeconomic characteristics were further assessed. Theevaluation criteria considered to select the short list of8 products were: market demand (those in high demandand scarce supply), production feasibility in an urbansetting, present production by urban and peri-urbanfarmers and government policies.Meanwhile, the methodology used for the selectionprocess was the rapid market assessment. Thisinformation-gathering method, which involves a seriesof carefully structured and documented in-depthinterviews, provided a quick and effective way todiscover and understand market needs andopportunities.The rapid market assessment identified the followingmarket opportunities: poultry products (broilers, eggsand local/indigenous chicken), vegetables (leafyvegetables, tomato, carrot, onion, cocoyam, mushroom,cauliflower and red pepper), fruits (avocado, mango,

18pawpaw, pineapple, watermelon, jackfruit, tangerine,apple, pear, orange), meat (beef and pork) and fresh milk.Information on purchasing requirements—quality,packaging, minimum volumes, frequency of delivery,etc—was obtained for all these products.The selected products were presented to farmers, whochose the most appropriate enterprises within theirmeans. These were: mushrooms, poultry and pork. Thesewere identified as high value products whose productionis less risky than other alternatives that may provide ahigher income, such as fruits and vegetables.Market studies indicated, however, that the identifiedproducts had the potential to increase farmers’ incomeonly if they met the demands of traders in terms of quality,quantity, continuity and price. To fulfill these requirements,project participants concluded that they must eitherconfine themselves to the local or niche markets that theycan supply with their present production levels, or movetoward collective action as a means of supplying greatervolumes to those markets indicating growth possibilities.Moreover, providing support services to farmers toovercome these initial “barriers to entry” (i.e. access toseeds, technical assistance, contacts with potentialbuyers, etc.) is key in helping farmers develop their cropproduction into a sustainable income-generating activity.At present, services either do not exist or are orientedmore toward production with little attention paid tomarketing or enterprise organization.The inter-institutional and multidisciplinary nature ofthis particular project is an attempt to bring togetherappropriate actors from both research anddevelopment to establish such services and work withthe local community to develop more efficiententerprises.The findings from this work are now beingincorporated into a recently installed research anddevelopment project in Kampala, part of theInternational Development Research Centre (IDRC)-supported Focus City program. 11 The Focus City Research Initiative (FCRI) selected eight cities around the world where multistakeholder City Teams are working in partnership over four years to researchand test innovative solutions to alleviate poverty.

What should I feed my child?Perceptions of foods for young childrenamong Lima mothersWhat types of food do people give their children?Are choices made on the basis of custom, economy,education – or a combination of these? A study wasconducted in a handful of communities on the outskirtsof Lima to determine caregivers’ perceptions and habitsregarding child nutrition, specifically their use of animalbasedproducts in the diet of young children betweensix and twenty four months old.19The study, carried out jointly in 2003 by Urban Harvestand Peru’s Nutritional Research Institute (IIN), is set tohelp develop future programs and educational materialaimed at combating infant malnutrition with anemphasis on incorporating animal-based products suchas meats, milk and eggs into babies’ meals.A vital source of protein, vitamins, iron, zinc and calcium,animal-source foods are important for human growthand development, particularly during children’s firstyears of life, when mental and physical development ismost rapid and when the incorporation of foodscomplementary to breast milk is of utmost importance.Access to meat and other animal-based products,however, is limited in rural and peri-urban areas such asthe four shantytowns where the study was carried out,as these products are more difficult and more expensiveto obtain than say, vegetable crops or processed goods.In Peru, of the half million children under the age of five,one in four suffers from chronic malnutrition and onein every two has anemia—a disorder caused by a dietaryiron or vitamin deficiency.Through this and other projects, the International PotatoCenter (CIP) and partner institutions are committed toimproving children’s nutrition and overall health byencouraging mothers to adopt good feeding habits,disseminating information on the health benefits ofconsuming animal-based products, and providingrecommendations on the incorporation of suchproducts into daily meals.The methodology used in this particular study includedin-depth one-on-one and group interviews withcaregivers—including home animal breeders—as wellas written surveys and questionnaires. During the initialinformation gathering process, project leaders appliedthe Pile Sort technique, which involves users groupingcards into piles according to specific topics. This simpleand effective information sorting method helpedstructure the content of the study.Study results brought to light, among other things,reasons why caregivers prefer one animal-basedproduct over another: the availability of such productsand the perception (and current use) of these products.Caregivers in these communities generally prefer tofeed their children chicken liver, chicken meat, milk andegg as their main source of animal-based goods. Fish,chicken meat, and yogurt are the products that they

20(and their children) least favor and/or least consume. Thestudy discovered that these preferences are closely tiedto the caregiver’s economic situation, access to thesegoods and cultural eating habits.Urban Harvest aims to incorporate and promote animalbasedproducts that are produced locally and/or are easilyobtained into aid programs by providing caregivers withideas on different meal preparations and presentations,while emphasizing the nutritional importance of suchproducts.Indeed, one of the main causes of infant malnutrition iscaregivers’ inadequate feeding practices which include,among other things, over-diluting infant’s food, notfeeding them enough food throughout the day, and notincorporate animal foods (meat, poultry, fish and eggs)into meals – or even totally excluding them.This study considers the fact that not all children are thesame: feeding practices differ from child to childdepending on their growth, development and age.What does remain a constant, however, is the fact thatmalnutrition affects an infant’s health, growth anddevelopment, and therefore can lead to a lower qualityof life as an adult.

Introduction to Urban ecosystems healthUnderstanding both positive and negative healtheffects on households and the urban ecosystem isessential for determining strategies that multiplybenefits and mitigate risks. The urban ecosystemshealth framework provides a better lens for analyzinghealth issues related to urban agriculture. It is based onthe interdependence of human health with the healthof the natural, physical and social environments withinwhich urban populations live. It focuses attention on sixdimensions of urban health where urban and peri-urbanagriculture (UPA) can have both a positive and negativeimpact. These dimensions include: health of urbanpopulations, communal health, quality of the builtenvironment, quality of the physical environment,health and resilience of the biotic community and thehealth of the natural ecosystems.Many urban producer households are vulnerable tocontaminants such as pesticide use, liquid and solidwastes. Heavy dependency and use of pesticides indensely populated urban areas create health problemsfor producers and the natural fertility of soils. AlternativeIntegrated Pest Management strategies are beingintroduced, through farmer field schools, to mitigatethese negative effects. Moreover, water contamination,derived from inadequate water treatment plants indeveloping countries, causes many health problems forurban dwellers. The use of either wastewater orcontaminated river water as a source of irrigation causesmany health issues for producers as well as consumers.Access to natural and physical resources for agricultureand the potential impact of these resources onagriculture is important, although this is not enough.Natural and physical resources, of potentially great useto urban agriculture, go unrecognized by local officialsor remain underutilized by poor urban households.Hence the concept of urban resources recognitionand use is employed to address the high potential ofurban agriculture to mobilize and add value to naturaland physical resources, such as water, and, thus,strengthen and balance capital assets available to urbancommunities. Strongly linked to both the livelihoodsand urban ecosystems health frameworks, this will formthe basis of a third module with an emphasis onresource mapping, modeling and policy development.21

Adopting Farmer Field Schoolsto urban realities in Lima, Peru22products. Most producers in the area have limitedknow-how or money to improve the quality andefficiency of production and therefore have no optionbut to sell their products to local markets at a nominalprice.Implemented in 2004 and 2005, this Urban Harvestproject utilized the Farmer Field Schools (FFS)approach, which involves intensive adult educationand social learning techniques to stimulateagricultural education. This approach, which up untilnow had only been applied in rural settings, wasadapted for the first time to an urban context. Thismeant factoring in, among other things, theparticipants’ multiple livelihood activities, limited timeavailability, and competing priorities.A participatory project on the outskirts of Lima ishelping an organized group of farmers to improve theirquality of life and care for the environment bystrengthening the management of their crops andlivestock production systems.As metropolitan Lima continues to sprawl further into theRimac river watershed and turn traditional agriculturallands into concrete, urban farmers in the communities ofCarapongo and Huachipa continually have to deal withthe health, legal and environmental problems thataccompany urban growth. An estimated 20% of Limahouseholds are involved in agriculture—backyardlivestock raising or growing horticulture products—withmany of these families depending on horticulture as theirmain source of income.In an effort to curb the negative effects of urbanization,Urban Harvest designed and implemented a program thataims to adapt improved technologies to farmers’horticulture production, decrease their use of pesticides,and search for new market opportunities for theirAside from adapting the FFS approach to an urbancoastal setting, specifically Lima’s eastern river valley,the approach used in this project was innovative inthe fact that it aimed to find integrated solutions tothe management of vegetable crops and not merelyfor the specific problems of disease and pest control.The main themes discussed during the FFS sessionsand experiments were land use management,fertilization, management of insect pests, watermanagement and irrigation techniques, plantingtechniques, and market access. This helped farmersbecome aware of the environmental and healthproblems, market indicators and crop productionissues in their urban environment.The prevalent theme, however, was land use and cropmanagement. Study results highlighted the fact thatthere exists a lack of local knowledge of urban agroecologiesand of pest and disease managementamong producers, which in turn leads to thewidespread use of highly toxic pesticides to combatinsect pests and diseases.

Pesticide-related health hazards are particularly relevantin an urban setting because spraying occurs close tohomes and near green spaces used for children’s play.Moreover, pesticide use leads to water contaminationand thus to the marketing of contaminated crops.With this in mind, participating farmers were introducedto integrated pest management and soil managementtechniques. Special attention was paid to “soil health”and the use of the different composts and manures (cow,chicken, and guinea pig droppings), emphasizing thatplant health depends on soil health.Also discussed were different water and irrigationsystems, including drip irrigation and the use oftreatment reservoirs with the opportunity foraquaculture and the production of clean irrigation water.Specifically, the project involved the construction of abackyard reservoir in Carapongo that aims to improvehuman health, the natural environment, and householdincome through the production of tilapia fish in thereservoir.Although potato is not normally considered a high valuecrop in Peru, researchers and producers evaluatedpromising native and commercial potato varieties forthe production of organically produced cocktailpotatoes for a growing luxury market in Lima.As a result of the social learning context of FFS,producers in the area have realized the importance ofgrouping together and have formed micro-enterpriseassociations to strengthen their access to existingmarkets and response to new commercialopportunities.Organized farmers in Huachipa, for example, have joinedforces and started selling their organic products to alocal clinic and restaurants, where there is a growingdemand for organic products, in an effort to accessbuyers directly and therefore obtain better prices fortheir ware. According to farmers, direct sales providethem with a consistent, nearby outlet for their productsand at a competitive price. Meanwhile, in Carapongo,the main buyers are families in the area, which simplifiesthe commercialization process and provides immediatereturns for the group.Despite this, project participants have concluded thattapping larger, more profitable markets for their organicproducts is essential in order for their horticultureproduction to become a sustainable income generatingactivity. So far, both producer groups have linked up withthe Empresa Ecológica Perú, which serves as anintermediary between producers and supermarkets andgreen fairs for the sale of organic products. Through thisassociation, producers have completed their first batchof deliveries, which included 5 different products.Project leaders attribute a big part of the success of thisproject to the close collaboration established betweenproducers and the local government. In addition toforming strategic alliances with government institutionsand other non-governmental entities, the project isworking with different actors along the value chain toestablish new market linkages.Projects like these demonstrate the potentials of urbanand peri-urban agriculture for poverty alleviation, microenterprisedevelopment, social inclusion, and enhancingfood and nutritional security, among other things.23

Research for a cleaner future:Heavy metal contamination in Kampala24the food consumed in Kampala city is produced byurban and peri-urban agricultural production.The rapid growth (3.5% per year) of the city of Kampalain recent years makes heavy metal contamination ofparticular concern to urban and peri-urban agriculture.Urban ecosystem health is important because of thefeedback mechanisms between human actions andpopulation, community and environmental health. Incities in general, accumulations of toxic substances,particularly heavy metals, are a major concern in urbanand peri-urban agriculture. Kampala, formerly theBuganda kings’ hunting grounds, has only been a citysince 1961, but there are forgotten former industrial ordumpsites dating from its first half century as a city thatare potential sources of soil or water borne contaminants.Kampala City, located in the only urban district in Uganda,has a resident population of over 1.2 million (2002 census),but the daytime population is more than twice that size,which implies a heavy amount of daily traffic powered byunleaded gasoline moving along major roads, emittingair borne heavy metal particles. About 35% of thepopulation of Kampala is engaged in farming, about threequarters of which are women, and an estimated 40% ofSince 2002 one of the main aspects of the work carriedout by Urban Harvest and the Kampala Urban FoodSecurity and Livestock Coordination Committee(KUFSALCC), a non-governmental, inter-institutionalorganization, has been to study the health impacts ofurban and peri-urban agriculture in Kampala. In 2004,a study on heavy metal contamination funded by anInternational Development Research Center (IDRC)-AGROPOLIS award was presented at the botanydepartment of Makerere University. It is one of fewsuch studies on heavy metal pollution from adeveloping country. The main objective of the studywas to determine the heavy metal content of the air,soil and food crops grown in areas receivingparticulate emissions from motor vehicles in KampalaCity. The soils were analyzed for cadmium (Cd), lead(Pb) and zinc (Zn). Other soil parameters investigatedincluded soil pH, soil organic matter content, textureand macro-element content (phosphorus andnitrogen).After a preliminary study of the roadways to see whichwere the most heavily traveled and by what kinds ofvehicles, the three with the heaviest traffic wereselected. The University of Makerere research teamstudied soil samples and the food plants growing fromsome eleven sites, nine of them near the most heavilytransited roads and two sites in areas with low trafficdensity to serve as control, taking samples from tenlocations at each site at different distances from theroad. As Grace Nabulo, who headed the team, pointsout: “We also tested to see what kinds of food plantswere affected; whether the contamination wasabsorbed or could be reduced by preparation(washing or peeling); if absorbed, what parts of theplant—leaf, root, peel, fruit/seed—were affected.” Inaddition, the placement of test sites allowed them to

test whether contamination was reduced when cropswere protected from roadway pollution by a housestanding between the road and the field. In order tomeasure airborne lead contamination, test wipes weretaken from window glass to see how the lead contentin the air compared with what was found on leafyvegetables—the window wipes provided a bettermeasure than the plants of lead in the air.The toxicity of lead, which has no known biologicalfunction in the human body, comes from its ability tomimic other biologically important metals, notablycalcium, iron and zinc. Lead is able to bind to and interactwith the same proteins and molecules as these metals,but the molecules thus formed fail to carry out the samefunctions, such as producing the enzymes necessary forcertain biological processes. The symptoms of chroniclead poisoning include neurological problems, amonga long list of other pernicious effects. The effects can becarried into the next generation: a woman exposed tolead in her childhood (even with no exposure after that)can pass the lead to her child as an unborn fetus orthrough her breast milk. The link between earlyexposure of children to lead and learning disability hasbeen confirmed by multiple researchers and childadvocacy groups. Very young children are particularlyvulnerable to environmental soil Pb through hand tomouth behavior. The four major sources of Pb are: (1)the exhaust from vehicles that use leaded gasoline,(2) lead water pipes, (3) industrial emissions and (4)Pb in paint.Cadmium (Cd) and some Cd compounds are listed bythe International Agency for Research on Cancer ascarcinogenic. Cadmium is bioaccumulative andpersistent. It is a priority pollutant that should beeliminated, not just reduced. Zinc (Zn) has toxic effectson the environment. It is a component of tires, which isreleased as they wear down. Although Zn is an essentialelement for higher plants, it is considered phytotoxic inelevated concentrations, directly affecting crop yieldsand soil fertility.The study found the total lead in soils to be withinacceptable concentrations for agricultural use with theexception of three sites, which were the sites rankedfirst, second and third in terms of traffic density ofgasoline powered light vehicles, —heavy vehicles usediesel fuel, which does not contain lead. Total cadmiumin soil was found at concentrations above therecommended maximum for agricultural soil at mostof the sites. Total zinc in soil was found withinrecommended concentrations at all sites except one.On the other hand, elevated concentrations of Pb, Cdand Zn were found in all crops and, in particular, leafyvegetables. Most of the heavy metal accumulation wasin the leaves compared to the roots, fruits and tubers.Heavy metal accumulation in leafy vegetables was inthe order of leaf > root > peel > fruit/seed. In root cropsthe order of accumulation was root > leaf > peel > tuber.The total heavy metal content of soils was observed todecrease rapidly with increasing distance from theroads. Accumulation of Pb in soils above backgroundlevels took place up to a distance of 30 m, after which itbecame constant.Finally, this study found the dominant pathway for Pbcontamination of leafy vegetables was from aerialdeposition, while Pb in root crops appeared to originatefrom the soil. Likewise, Zn vegetable contaminationstemmed mainly from aerial deposition. On the otherhand, the major pathway of contamination by Cd wasfound to be uptake from the soil, possibly from anabandoned industrial site or dumpsite.Findings and recommendations of the research studyare: Roadside farming activities in the city are safest ata distance of more than 30 m from the edge of the road.Leafy vegetables should not be grown near roadsides,25

26regardless of traffic density. Crops where the edible partis protected from aerial deposition, such as corn, pulseslike beans and peas, and some tubers such as sweetpotatoand cassava, are safer for roadside farming, but the peelof tubers and the pod of beans and peas accumulatehigher Pb contents and should not be used. Thosevegetables that bioaccumulate heavy metals in their skinsshould be peeled. All vegetables should be washedthoroughly in plenty of clean water before consumption.Washing was found to reduce the Pb and Cd contents inmany of the vegetables studied but had little effect onthe zinc content. If possible, areas other than roadsidesshould be utilized for the growing of crops forconsumption. The placement of gardens on the far sideof houses could help to block some of the deposition oflead, cadmium and zinc. Sheltering crops could helpreduce the amount of heavy metals deposited frompassing vehicles. Regulation of vehicle emissions andthe introduction of unleaded fuel are recommendedas part of the long-term solution to this problem.Allocation and monitoring of land usage withinKampala could help to reduce the use of hazardousareas for agricultural activities.The heavy metal contamination study providedimportant information for two other Urban Harvestprojects in Kampala. More knowledge and especiallymore detailed knowledge about heavy metalcontamination early in the urbanization process canbe used to build safeguards into the process andcreate options to mitigate or avoid dangerous impactson environmental and human health.

Dirty secret treasures in NairobiNairobi has passed through many changes since itsfounding a little more than a century ago. Today it isstill a cosmopolitan city known variously as the “GreenCity in the Sun”, the “Safari Capital of the World” or the“Place of Cold Waters”, although many parts of it haveincreasingly become buried under mounds and heapsof garbage and a lot of the “cold waters” arecontaminated by sewage. About 40% of the more than1740 metric tonnes of solid waste generated every dayby its approximately 3 million residents gets collectedand disposed of. The rest continues to mount up in openspaces, along the roads, the railroad, the river, formingpiles everywhere in most of the residential, industrialand commercial neighborhoods, even in the businessdistrict. Like other cities in developing countries, themunicipal infrastructure has not been able to keep pacewith the rapidly growing population. By the mid-1980s,private waste collectors serviced middle and highincome residential neighborhoods, but lower incomeresidents had to find other solutions to the sanitationproblem. About 50% of Nairobi residents live below thepoverty line and are concentrated in peri-urban slumareas characterized by limited amenities and unhygienicliving conditions. By the early 1990s there were a fewsmall-scale community-based composting groups, whoutilize a small amount of the accumulation of manurefrom the many animals being raised for the local foodmarket.Urban Harvest conducted a study in partnership withInternational Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), WorldAgroforestry Center (WAC), both of which are centersof the Consultative Groups on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR), Kenya Agricultural Research Institute(KARI) and Kenya Green Towns Partnership Association(KGTPA), which is an NGO. The study illustrated genderinvolvement in management of municipal organic solidwaste (MOSW) for urban and peri-urban agriculture aswell as the different aspects of waste management aslivelihood strategies. The data was compiled from asurvey conducted in 2003-2004 on management oforganic waste and livestock manure for enhancingagricultural productivity in urban and peri-urbanNairobi. The objectives of the study were to make aninventory of community based organizations involvedin organic waste management for urban and peri-urbanagriculture (UPA), document the existing compostinggroups in Nairobi, analyze composting managementtechniques, model rural-urban nutrient movements andlink stakeholders in UPA.In January 2005 the final stakeholder workshop was heldto discuss the results of the study of waste recycling inNairobi, with a special focus on the use of manure andorganic residues in agriculture. Attending the workshopwere representatives of the implementation team listedabove plus staff from the Nairobi City CouncilDepartments, national government and civil societyorganizations who are involved in and concerned withthe management of urban wastes. It was also a way offamiliarizing them with the specific objectives of theoriginal project, making them aware of thecharacterization of ecological exchanges of nutrientsamong different sectors and geographical areas of thecity and the value chain involved in economic27

28exchanges of different kinds of wastes between rural andurban areas.Waste is a relative term. Although it refers to somethingthat is useless or worthless, it must be borne in mind thatwaste—like beauty—is in the eye of the beholder. Urbanagriculture plays a significant role in urban environmentalmanagement through waste recycling. There are a lot ofnutrients in urban organic waste (carbon, nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium). Only one percent of organicwaste in Nairobi is used for production of compost foruse as a bio-fertilizer, another use is for animal feed,particularly kiosk and restaurant waste for pigs and goats.Inorganic waste (plastics) can be used to make usefulproducts: hats, bags and baskets, roof tiles, fence posts,cages for small farm animals and containers for compost.Cardboard and packaging can be used for buildingmaterials, oily milk containers and some cardboard areused for fuel. Clearly there is an opportunity here toincrease income from both waste and more efficientfarming and to contribute to a cleaner, healthier localcommunity. This type of recycling helps solve anenvironmental problem while providing income for theurban poor.Urban agriculture also plays a significant role in wastewaterrecycling through irrigation. This opportunity for urbanwaste recycling has not been exploited due to lack of spacefor waste recycling activities and absence of appropriatepolicy on waste management. Urban agriculture also helpsput idle urban land into productive use.Problems identified which inhibit successful recyclinginclude: (1) insecure access to land for composting, poorgroup management leading to internal conflicts, whichprevents taking advantages of economies of scale inwaste handling and processing; (2) declining groupmembership due to the still underdeveloped compostmarket and the hard work involved in compostproduction, especially considering the onlytransportation used is the wheelbarrow and (3) atendency to resort to traditional compostingtechniques having rejected newly introducedtechniques.Research on the chemical composition of differentcompost sources being used in Nairobi indicated thatthe quality is generally high and there is potential forgreatly increasing the quantity produced. Studies ofresidue markets described a complex network ofnutrient flows linking rural and urban areas: someurban livestock producers export their surplus fodderto rural areas, while others use compost they haveproduced for their own crops. There is also cocompostingof local materials (mixing of manure andvegetative residues), which is comparable to what isdone in rural areas. Half of the livestock producers usetheir manure for crop production and some sell or giveit away. However, a most disturbing finding was thatup to 80% of manure is dumped or burned in publicareas. This represents a large economic loss toagricultural producers and a high potentialenvironmental and health cost to the city.Intriguingly, while urban manure is mostly considereda nuisance, rural manure from Maasai cattle herders ispart of a flourishing trade, some sold to peri-urbanvegetable producers and urban nurseries, but mostlytraded on through the city to rural producers in otherparts of the region as far as 300 km away. Compostingis not a common practice, which probably accountsfor the high price of compost compared to manure.The study found that compost producers, who usuallyadvertise and trade their product on site, are unfamiliarwith marketing strategy and opportunities whilepotential customers are unaware of compost sourcesand its high quality. Better marketing skills anddiffusion of knowledge could transform this “hiddenresource” into a major source of income, earnings andsavings for compost makers and growers alike.

The chaotic state of solid waste management servicesin Nairobi is attributed to insufficient funds, insufficientequipment and outgrown institutional andorganizational arrangements. Increasing incomes andsolving environmental problems through recycling andcomposting can be components of a systematic,integrated approach to a healthier Nairobi basically byrecognizing and utilizing the valuable resources that arequite literally at their doorstep.29Rural-urban manure and compost markets in amd around Nairobi

Improving the qualityof irrigation water in Lima30the irrigation canals themselves. This can be a sourceof ill-health for urban consumers and acts as adisincentive to buy local produce. Urban Harvest, aspart of its collaboration program with themunicipalities in this zone, made a study of the levelof contamination of irrigation waters, soils andvegetables, and has worked with local residents tohelp them find a low-cost solution to their problem.Using contaminated water for irrigation is just anotherfact of life for the majority of urban and peri-urbanproducers in Lima’s Eastern Cone, which produces 35percent of the fresh vegetables (lettuce, beets, turnips,cabbage, celery, sweet basil and herbs), as well as a largenumber of the small meat animals (chickens, ducks, guineapigs and pigs) consumed daily in Lima. The miningindustry straddles the upper watershed of the river thatsupplies most of the water for this desert valley, wherethis element is scarce and domestic waters are not treatedbefore being emptied into the river and even directly intoThe Rimac, like most of Peru’s coastal rivers, begins atmore than 5100 meters above sea level in the highAndes. Fed by glaciers and seasonal rains, it travels over204 km to cover the 145 km from its source to the sea,passing through a large number of crystalline lakesand mining areas in the highlands before it dropsdown to cross the coastal desert. The dry season riverlevel can be very low for as many as nine months ofthe year but the river turns into a raging torrent whenthere are heavy rains in the highlands. Human andenvironmental health risks have long been presentfrom heavy metals leaking from tailings dams ofoperating and abandoned mines into the waters ofthe upper watershed, and in more recent years by theuntreated sewage and refuse dumped into the riverin increasing quantities by the fast-growingpopulation as one gets closer to Lima. Cities locatedat the mouths of large rivers all over the world areconfronted with over-enrichment of nutrients,contamination by pathogens and toxic chemicalsubstances that adversely affect the ecosystem andpublic health. Lima is no exception.In order to assess the health risks, two types of datawere collected and analyzed: secondary data, whichwere collected over a seven-year period by two stateagencies responsible respectively for water andhealth; and primary data, which came from extensivesampling and analysis of the waters at differentlocations along the river and irrigation canals, of thesoils in the irrigated fields and of the vegetables

themselves, both recently harvested and after washingin the irrigation canals. The good news is that the heavymetals cadmium, lead and chrome are no longer muchof a problem, due to increased control of mine tailingsin the upper watershed. Available cadmium assimilatedby plants comes from the parent soil and not frommining activity and can be bioaccumulated at riskylevels of foliage plants. There is no evidence ofbioaccumulation of lead and chrome in vegetables.Arsenic is found to be above permissible limits in someplaces. The highest concentration is in huacatay, anaromatic herb of the marigold family, used extensivelyin Peruvian cuisine, but in such small quantities that it isultimately considered a low health risk.31The bad news, however, is the alarming amount ofEscherichia coli bacteria and parasites present in thewater, which is now considered the highestcontamination risk for agricultural activity in the RimacValley. Sometimes the fecal coliform count was morethan five thousand times the maximum permissiblelimits (MPL) for water used to irrigate garden vegetables.It was found that 30% of the garden vegetables in oneneighborhood and 70% in two others are over the MPL,making them unfit for human consumption. More than97% of the samples of irrigation canal water taken inthese three sites exceed the MPL for wateringvegetables. The irrigation canals often contain thehighest degree of contamination and are used to washclothes, for bathing and to wash vegetables for market.Of the vegetables that tested clean at harvest, 38%became contaminated when washed with water fromirrigation canals. Latrines are sometimes installed rightover irrigation ditches and the agricultural fields alsoserve as public latrines, adding a further source ofcontamination.The long-term solution to this problem is the provision ofsanitation systems for the settlements along the river, butshorter-term mitigation measures are urgently needed.In response to the concerns of local producers, UrbanHarvest coordinates an alliance with the PanAmericanHealth Organization and the PanAmerican Center forSanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences (OPS-CEPIS), the Centro de Estudios de Solidaridad con AmericaLatina (CESAL), the Rimac Irrigation Users’ Board (JUR), theMunicipality of Lurigancho-Chosica and producers fromthe zone with the financial support of the NationalInstitute for Agricultural Research (INIA)-Spain, the MadridCommunity and the International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC)-Canada, which has installed asmall 185 ft 3 pilot reservoir to treat irrigation water. Waterenters the reservoir from the irrigation canal and is leftstanding for at least ten days, during which time thebacteria are eliminated through aerobic chemicalprocesses and parasites are eliminated throughsedimentation. As part of the pilot study, water from thetreatment process was compared with untreated riverwater as sources of irrigation for vegetables.The results showed that the reservoir has cleared 98percent of bacteria and eliminated all parasites from theriver water. When radish and lettuce were tested forcontaminants, those planted in treated water had up to

3297 percent less bacteria (well below permissible limits)while parasites were practically absent in both crops. Tomaintain this level of sanitary quality a reservoir of 700m 3 built on an area of about 1000 m 2 is required perhectare. If the reservoir is complemented with a technifiedirrigation system of multiple floodgates the amount ofwater required to irrigate fields can be reduced by 50%.Apart from the cost of the land, the cost of a 700 m 3reservoir is about S/.4,5000 (US$ 1,360), which goes up toS/.17,770 (US$ 5,538), depending on the quality of thewaterproofing geomembrane liningliner.To explore alternative economic opportunities, fish(tilapia) production in the reservoir is being assessed.Projections of potential net earnings from sale offingerlings and mature fish are S/ 1750 (US$ 555). Inaddition to this benefit, irrigation with reservoir waterappears to have had a beneficial effect both on rateof emergence and growth and on the uniformity ofthe crop, with higher percentages of marketableproducts available sooner than with use of river water.This difference is still being evaluated. The smallreservoir has been shown to have multiple benefits,and is replicable in the area. Working with localproducers, Urban Harvest is therefore in the processof implementing other reservoirs with the capacityof irrigating up to 70 hectares with clean water.

Introduction to stakeholderand policy dialogueUnlike agriculture in rural areas, crop production orlivestock raising in and around cities is enmeshed in acomplex web of policies, regulations and competingstakeholder interests which can restrict, constrain andsometimes outlaw the practice. This adds furtherinsecurity to households already often suffering food andincome insecurity. Municipal recognition and supportfor safe urban and peri-urban agriculture is an essentialpre-condition for its contribution to urban development.The inclusion of a research area on stakeholder andpolicy dialogue seeks to contribute to that goal.A first step to good planning is to define the complexinteraction between different urban systems and toinvolve all the interested stakeholders in a participatoryprocess of consultation. Negative perceptions (justifiedand unjustified) about urban and peri-urban agriculture(UPA), held by the various players in the planning process,must be confronted through a combination of targetededucation, demonstration and participation. Also to bediscussed among local stakeholder groups and policymakersare their perceptions of the city they live in,appropriate activities to take place within the city andhow to address the real needs of community members.To build understanding and collaboration throughdialogue at municipal and national levels, Urban Harvesthas developed a stakeholder dialogue model involvinga multi-agency committee on urban food security andagriculture with participation by municipal authoritiesto oversee research and development interventions andto facilitate policy change. Platforms for dialogue andjoint activities for building awareness have beenestablished, with the inclusion of irrigation committeesand women’s community kitchens in Lima, schools inKampala, non-government organization (NGO)networks in Nairobi and Nakuru and flower tradergroups in the Philippines. A good example of this workis in Kampala where the City Council of Kampalaundertook a participatory consultation withstakeholders to make major revisions to city ordinancesto legalize agricultural activities for the first time. Cityplanning should incorporate an understanding ofhousehold food security and nutrition conditions,agricultural research and economic forces. Theintegration of UPA requires going beyond traditionalplanning approaches. In most of the developing world’scities, too little is known about the actual extent to whichurban and peri-urban areas are used for agriculturalpurposes. Also, little is known about the spatialdistribution of urban agriculture in the cities and thechange in this distribution over time. Tools such asGeographical Information Systems (GIS) can increaseour understanding of UPA in such areas.33

Getting agriculture on themunicipal agenda in Lima34In 2003, as part of its research themes on urbanlivelihoods and markets and stakeholder andpolicy dialogue, Urban Harvest conducted diagnosticresearch on the contribution of agriculture tohousehold livelihoods in the district and on the other,sought to generate better understanding amongdecision-makers about the significance of local foodproduction with the aim eventually of incorporatingthe phenomenon of urban agriculture into localgovernment organization and planning.Agriculture is widespread in Lurigancho-Chosica, oneof the largest and less urbanised city districts on theeastern fringe of Lima. Despite the significant contributionthat urban and peri-urban agriculture can make togenerating income and food security, this was untilrecently a little known or understood sector of the districteconomy despite the numbers of local people involved.Farming was absent from municipal organization orplanning and the voices of local producers were unheard.Lurigancho-Chosica is home to around thirty thousandfamilies with around 20% involved full-time or part-timein agriculture. Crop production is mainly located on theirrigated valley floor, which makes up nearly 45% of thedistrict area. Producers there grow and supply about 25%of metropolitan Lima’s vegetables, and also raise birds,guinea pigs, rabbits, pigs, cattle and goats. Almost 30% oflandless families living on the poor hillside settlementsin the heart of the district also keep small animals foroccasional sales or home consumption. With almost athird of children under 6 affected by chronic malnutritionin Peru, this additional source of food and income is oftenvital for these families.Working with local producers and municipalmanagers and decision-makers, Urban Harvestfacilitated workshops, co-ordinated informationsharingand organised public events, such as fairs andvisits to model farms where ecological urbanagriculture is practiced. The first of three internationalworkshop meetings was held in October 2003. Invitedrepresentatives, including those from Havana (Cuba)and Cuenca (Ecuador), made presentations to localadministrators about how the incorporation of urbanagriculture within policy-making in their countries hadencouraged the development of greater food security,income and a greener urban environment for localpeople living there.The result of this first international workshop was thatdecision-makers were given solid evidence for thepotential of urban agriculture to enhance thelivelihoods of local people. As a consequence, themayors of metropolitan Lima publicly declared theirsupport for the development of urban agriculture. Thisled to a decision by the local district administration in2004 to create an Urban Agriculture Unit (Sub-Gerencia de Agricultura Urbana) within theDepartment of Economic Development.A second international workshop was held inDecember 2004. Representatives from the cities ofRosario (Argentina) and Azcapotzalco (Mexico), were

invited to attend this public presentation of the workingplan of the Unit. The Unit functions as a neighbourhoodservice centre for agricultural producers and localpeople. It promotes better links and understandingbetween producers and consumers by offering training,information new marketing opportunities andmediation with the municipal authorities. With some cofinancingfrom Urban Harvest, the municipalitymanaged to put together a budget of US$100,000 withthe aim of promoting activities that support the Unit’sobjectives:(1) To encourage producers to farm in a sustainable,economically viable way using fewer chemicals; (2) Tointervene in local planning, including promotinglegislation for the productive use of vacant lots; (3) Topromote improved practices and diversification ofagricultural activities that contributes to higher income.Included in its action plan is the acknowledgement ofthe need to develop ways of integrating urbanagriculture into planning and encouraging socialintegration, including analysis of the roles of men andwomen. During these two years, the local UrbanAgriculture Unit has worked directly with more than 700local producers, helping them with training courses andmarket opportunities and applying the technical skillsdeveloped by the collaborative efforts of producerinnovators and the Urban Harvest research teamthrough the Urban Field Schools (see article page 20and list of publications).To facilitate the exchange of ideas and experiencesbetween districts of Lima and with other Latin Americancities where urban agriculture has become prominentand an integrated aspect of urban governance, a thirdinternational meeting was held in August 2006. Themeeting included presentations by participants fromBogota (Colombia), Mexico city (Mexico), Rosario(Argentina) and Havana (Cuba), as well as by two districtmayors from the city of Lima with pioneer urbanagriculture programs. These experiences were used todevelop proposals for a comprehensive urbanagriculture program relevant at the level ofmetropolitan Lima.A key activity within its research theme on stakeholderand policy dialogue has been Urban Harvest’scooperation with the local Urban Agriculture Unit toexplore forms of engagement with the policy makingprocess. Drawing on local networking linkages (seearticle, page 41 and list of publications ), unit managerswere trained by staff of the Institute for the Promotionof Sustainable Development (IPES), a partnerorganization specializing in policy-related aspects ofurban agriculture. Training complemented officers’existing practical experience of municipaladministration, by adding strategic planning andpolicy formulation aspects of urban agriculture. As aresult, Unit staff recognized the need to strengthenlocal agriculture through a participatory process thatincludes integrating all municipal actors, includingproducers, consumers, public managers and NGOs,among others. In this way, the municipality has beenable to adapt its structure according to the needs ofits people.The Unit has generated a workplan to support thoseinvolved in urban agriculture. The plan includes steeringthrough the local legislative process a series ofordinances defining good agricultural practices – a usefuladdition to the by-laws since up to now, agriculture haslacked specific regulation in metropolitan Lima. Theworkplan also focuses on issues such as access to land,land tenure, access to and quality of water, access tofinance (micro-credits), strengthened marketing andprocessing channels, environmental conservation,organic waste treatment and the quality and safety ofagricultural products. All of these issues affect most ofthose involved in local agriculture, who live in the areaand who consume products from the area.35

36As a result of efforts made to demonstrate and showcasethe viability of local food production, there is a wideconsensus among producers and decision makers that“productive green spaces” is a persuasive land use conceptand that the existence of these spaces should be activelysupported and maintained. The stakeholder and policydialogue model calls for continuing open discussions torespond to the real needs of the population. Othermunicipal departments, such as Urban Development,Economic Development, Rents, Social Welfare and Parksand Gardens, have been made aware of the impact of localagriculture. There is now a municipal decree regardinginclusion of agricultural production in the micro-financeprogram, and an agreement with the Local EnvironmentCommission to present the Good Urban AgriculturePractices Regulation for approval.An important part of supporting urban agriculture’scontribution to increased income, greater food securityand a more liveable environment involves addressingvarious institutional challenges:· To overcome the challenge of illegitimacy of the practice,urban agriculture has been recently included as amunicipal productive activity which gives it license,passing from an illegitimate status to a legitimate one.· To overcome divergent perceptions of agriculturalpractices among different stakeholders, aninstitutionalised agriculture plan needs to be developedthat promotes constant communication amongstproducers and continued awareness-raising andinformation dissemination amongst decision-makers.· To overcome inevitable changes in levels of politicalsupport, it is necessary to strengthen urban farmers’organisational, managerial, technical andnetworking skills and to help create consolidatedand produce organisations that can speak clearly andin unison with local authorities.The urban environment is socially, economically andpolitically dynamic and nothing can guarantee theviability of urban agriculture. Competing land uses andlabour needs will always be key factors in itssustainability. Nevertheless, these lessons from Limasuggest that the sustainability of urban agriculture canbe strongly enhanced through dialogue amongstakeholders, through incorporation of the practiceinto local government organization and throughenhancement of policies and regulations whichensure fair treatment of producers, but also regulatethe quality and safety of their products.

An urban agricultural model in the making:Kampala, UgandaIn the last decade, the recognition among varioussectors of the population and among national and localgovernment agencies in Uganda, as to the benefits ofattending, protecting and promoting urban and periurbanagriculture, has served as an example for humandevelopment efforts and strategies worldwide. Therecent legislative changes in Kampala, the role of thevarious civil societies’ organisations, includinginternational organisations, not to mention the effortsof the urban farmers themselves, have jointly begun theestablishment of a healthier, more sustainable andenvironmentally friendlier urban agricultural model, aswell as a more comprehensive approach to agriculturaldevelopment.37Urban Agriculture, as defined by the United NationsDevelopment Program (UNDP) (1998) 1 , has always beena part of Kampala’s economy. Urban and peri-urbanagriculture and livestock (UPA &L) is widely practised asan intense livelihood strategy in Kampala. This is due toa number of factors, including the rapid economicdecline in the early 1970’s, rural-urban migration, andthe city’s growth that engulfs large agriculturalfarmlands. According to the 2002 Population andHousing Census, Kampala’s population growth of 3.9%derives mostly from rural-urban migration. There is anunemployment rate of 42.5%, and over 80% of thepopulation are in the low-income bracket while 38.9%live in absolute poverty. Approximately 35% householdswith backyard gardens of less than an acre practiseUPA&L as their livelihood strategy.However, in Kampala, as in most African countries, thebenefits of UPA&L have been largely shadowed by itsrisks. Agriculture in Uganda has been, until recently,promoted only in rural areas through national policiesthat sought to develop strategic plans to eradicatepoverty. Under the “Town and Country Planning Act.1964” and the “Public Health Act. 1964”, urban agriculture1 United Nations Development Program 1988. “Potential, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing countries”.Agriculture and Human ValuesVol.20, No.1

38was widely seen as an illegal activity even though it wasnot per se prohibited. Concerns about urban agriculturewere based on perceived public health issues, includingthe dangers of creating environments for breedingmosquitoes, harbouring vermin, pollution from poorlydisposed livestock wastes and general nuisance frompoorly managed livestock. Even though UPA&L activitycontinues to grow, it is perceived to be neither consistentwith a modern productive city environment nor anactivity that can make a significant economiccontribution.In the early 1990’s both formal and informal initiatives torecognize UPA&L started, for example, the “cow bank”project of the National Assembly for the Kampala districtand also similar projects implemented by the civil societyorganisation, Environment Alert. The country’sdecentralisation process has allowed for local initiativessuch as the district agricultural extension officer workingunder the Kampala City Council (KCC) to build capacityfor urban harvest work in collaboration with nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs) as well as awarenessbuilding for local politicians. UPA&L initiatives like thesehave consequently brought about other challenges, suchas clashes between district and central governmentofficials and the city officials whenever UPA&L related lawswere enforced, or such as UPA&L related promises andbribery with small livestock for votes during local elections.However, public and political awareness and greaterunderstanding of the dynamics of UPA&L are part of thechange process that has, since then, led to importantstructural policy changes in favour of UPA&L. Theawareness creation and sensitisation can be seen as aproduct of the greater amount of information, detaileddiagnostics and research carried out on the issues ofUPA&L by various actors.The creation of Urban Harvest as a Strategic Initiative onUrban and Peri-Urban Agriculture meant more systematicand coordinated international research on issues ofurban agriculture, which in turn led to a series ofinitiatives of international and regional meetings andworkshops up to the early 2000s. In these meetingsand workshops, Uganda’s research community, NGOs,technical officers and politicians had the opportunityto interact, learn, share and be exposed to experiencesin other countries as well as gain an understanding ofurban agriculture.In 2002, a coalition of research actors, MakerereDepartment of Agriculture Extension, InternationalInstitute of Tropical Agriculture, (IITA) -Foodnet,National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO,)KCC and two NGOs started to work on the project“Strengthening Urban Agriculture in Kampala,Uganda” which in general consisted of generatinginformation to assist local authorities, policy makers,NGOs and researchers. Another collaborative projectalso started that year that intended to understand thehealth risks and benefits of UPA&L and options forenhancing the benefits and minimizing the risks. Thecoalition of this project included the MakerereUniversity, KCC, Environmental Alert, InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI) and funded byCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA),International Development Research Centre (IDRC)and Urban Harvest.Links were made between these projects and a coregroup of local organisations developed, at first asinformal linkages, later formally, as the HealthCoordinating Committee (HCC). The committee,whose members include Makerere University, KCC andUrban Harvest among others, provided direct linksbetween research and development activities andpolitical awareness of the issues at a high level andthus played a major role in the policy change process.The committee later developed into an independentorganisation under the name of Kampala Urban Food

Security, Agriculture and Livestock CoordinatingCommittee (KUFSALCC).In 2003, a series of stakeholder consultative workshopsin Kampala were held - five Divisional Forums and oneDistrict Forum. These workshops intended to raisestakeholder awareness and established the foundationsfor the stimulating process of developing the newordinances. After the District Forum, the group ofinterested organisations (mainly HCC members) usedthe outputs of the meeting to rework the draftOrdinances. Urban Harvest had an important part incoordinating the team of actors to support the processof revising the draft ordinances. After a participatoryrevision process, the harmonising of the stakeholdersculminated in the incorporation of the various concernsand perspectives in the draft Ordinance. The Ordinancewas finally approved by the Mayor of Kampala city inMay 2005 - a victory for urban agriculture.Urban Harvest, though specialising in research, alsoincorporates into its work the vital aspect of partneringand lobbying. In Kampala, the interests and perspectivesof the various stakeholders varied a great deal. Whileon the one hand, the municipality and businesscommunity were concerned with the health andnuisance issues, community-based organisations andNGOs focused more on the issues of food security andlivelihoods. Urban Harvest’s program established aprocess where they had to “… find ways throughimpasses held by different stakeholders. The processstarted with the organisation of a dozen neighbourhoodconsultations and workshops where local people couldcomment on existing rules and make suggestions forreforms”, comments Diana Lee Smith, Urban HarvestRegional Coordinator in Nairobi.Creating awareness and sensitisation about UPA&L isan important aspect in achieving structural and policychanges. These changes contribute to the continuouspromotion of its positive aspects, such as incomecreation and food security, but also the changes needto focus on minimizing its negative aspects, such asenvironmental contamination and health risks. Theestablishment of stakeholder partnerships and lobbyingat the various government levels is crucial for suchstructural changes, as well as creating the institutionalspace that allows for a policy change to occur.In addition, the supportive attitudes of responsive citygovernment officials such as Winnie Mkumba andMargaret Azumba in Kampala, is just as essential toestablish the environment for institutional politicalreforms. This government role is further evidenced bythe commitment and initiative of the city Mayor whoadded to the new ordinances the right, by law, forurban residents to grow food and raise livestock withinthe city limits for individual and commercial purposesin May 2005.Considering that until recently UPA&L was seen as anillegal activity, this achievement is a breakthrough.UPA&L has real potential for improving food security,income generation and employment and contributingto poverty reduction and women’s empowerment.These benefits should outweigh any negative impactsand drive Kampala onward. The efforts of the variousstakeholders, base organisations and the responsive citygovernment, point to a true reversal of attitudes andpolicies leading to a working UPA&L model.The recent achievement of policy change and UPA&Lbenefit recognition in the city of Kampala is but one stepforward in the process for a change in national policieson UPA&L that will enable development of nationalstrategies and laws promoting and regulating Urbanand Peri-urban Agriculture & Livestock.39

Improving the integration of urban agriculturein national and local government inKenya, through multi-stakeholder platforms40Multi-stakeholder initiatives facilitated by local andinternational organizations in Nairobi and other Kenyancities are leading to changes in the political climate andclearing the way for legislation and policy initiatives thatwill provide greater tolerance and legitimacy for urban andperi-urban agriculture and livestock (UPA&L) production.Urban farming is a semi-legal activity in Kenya and is acommon livelihood option for poor households such asthose living in Kibera, Nairobi’s largest slum. About 50%of Nairobi’s poor are thought to be involved in crop and/or livestock production. Escalating demand for food,services and infrastructure, as well as increasingenvironmental burdens accompany the increase in theurban population. Food production on vacant lots, alongriverbanks and adjacent to railway lines has intensified inresponse to growing food insecurity, unemployment andpoverty associated with this unplanned urban growth. Aconcern with the precariousness of this livelihoodstrategy, tied to a need to understand the dynamics ofUPA&L, have led to various joint initiatives andinterventions by local, national and international actors.Early initiatives included the co-organization of regionalworkshops by Urban Harvest, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO) and UN-Habitat to sensitize local governments in the regionto the importance of urban food security issues andurban food production as a strategy to achieve it,encourage sharing of experiences around these issuesand to support the signing of joint declarations byKenya and other countries of the region. The AddisAbaba Declaration on Feeding Cities in the Horn ofAfrica followed a workshop on this theme, held inAddis in May 2002. In the same year Urban Harvest coorganized,with UN-Habitat and FAO, a Nairobi meetingof city mayors from the region to discuss “Urban PolicyImplications for Enhancing Food Security in AfricanCities”. The sharing of experiences during that meetingresulted in new initiatives and policy processes inseveral countries, especially Uganda. The HarareDeclaration on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture(UPA) in East and Southern Africa was linked to aworkshop held in Zimbabwe in 2003, which wassupported by RUAF-MDP and Harare MunicipalCouncil.Platform-building at local level demonstrates theimportance of joint action as a driving force for changein Kenya. Multi-stakeholder workshops held in 2003were direct products of research carried out in 2002by a local Nairobi-based NGO, the Mazingira Institute,into livestock keeping in Nairobi and environs. TheDFID-funded study analyzed the different forms oflivestock keeping in the city and revealed thedivergent perspectives of the different stakeholderson this practice. It highlighted the need to convenethese stakeholders in order to promote joint actionby producers towards establishing safe andsustainable livestock keeping. In 2004 Urban Harvest,the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) andthe Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI),through their study on waste management for urbanagriculture in Nairobi, initiated a multi-stakeholderpolicy dialogue through organizing a workshop at

KARI in July 2004. One of the recommendations thatcame out was for KARI and the Ministry of Agricultureto spearhead an urban and peri-urban agriculturereview process. Thus KARI, in conjunction with theMinistry of Agriculture through the ProvincialAgriculture office in Nairobi, assumed a leading role inurban agriculture in Kenya. They later organised a seriesof workshops in collaboration with Mazingira Instituteand Urban Harvest with the aim of providing anenabling environment for UPA&L. Information wasexchanged, policies were debated and evaluated,different perspectives were considered and it wasdetermined who should take on the responsibility tocarry the policy process forward. Although KARI took arole in organizing the workshop, one of the results wasthe recognition that the Ministry of Agriculture is themost appropriate institution to promote a nationalpolicy change. It was agreed that this role should be builtupon extensive research and analysis, the creation of aforum for dialogue among government, private and thecommunity sectors, and crucially, the establishment offarmers’ network to ensure a voice for the producers inthe policy change process. Mazingira Institute andUrban Harvest have continued to support this “sectoralmix and cooperation model”, as well as supporting riskassessment, participatory approaches to policy reviewand legislative reform.The platform established by the 2003 workshop wasnamed the Nairobi and Environs Food Security,Agriculture and Livestock Forum (NEFSALF). The forumserves as a space for the exchange of ideas aboutdifferent positions, priorities and activities on UPA&L. InJanuary of 2004, the Mazingira Institute, funded by theNational Resources Institute (NRI) of the UnitedKingdom, organised the NEFSALF “Community SectorMeeting” aimed at facilitating group organization andbuilding networks at the community level. The outcomeof this meeting was the establishment of the FarmersNetwork in mid 2004, which already has 105 members,some of these members being groups with theirrespective members.Another development of the Forum has been toimprove the access of farmers to the Ministry ofAgriculture and municipal services through theestablishment of jointly agreed upon strategies. As aresult, farmers identified the need for training as apriority. Two training courses have already taken place.The Forum represents an ideal space for thegovernmental institutions to become sensitive tofarmers needs and recognize and promote the benefitsof UPA&L in Kenya.The work of the forum, as well as from research resultsgenerated by Urban Harvest and other local andinternational organizations have increased knowledgeabout and understanding of UPA&L issues. This has ledto an improvement in the institutional environment inNairobi and to the possibility of national governmentmaking policy changes in favour of UPA&L. One examplehas been land reform policy. The task force working ona new national land policy invited Urban Harvest toparticipate in the drafting of the new policy and to coauthor,with the Ministry of Agriculture, a paper on urbanagriculture in Kenya to inform the policy process. Thedraft policy now includes urban land specificallydestined for agriculture as well as urban land set asidefor waste recycling, yielding compost for use in localagricultural production.Multi-stakeholder initiatives linked to urban agricultureand livestock have also been launched in Nakuru, theprovincial capital of Kenya’s Rift Valley. Followingresearch carried out in 2004 by Urban Harvest and KenyaGreen Towns Partnership Association, a Kenyan NGOactive in urban development and urban agricultureissues, it was apparent that despite support by the citycouncil on the ground, by-laws in Nakuru were unclearand in some ways unfriendly towards urban farming and41

42needed to undergo reform. Modelled on its support forUrban Harvest and local actors in Kampala (Uganda)towards effecting policy change, DFID provided financialsupport in Nakuru to enable Urban Harvest, Green Townsand the local Council to organize a series of multistakeholder workshops to analyze the by-laws in relationto safe and sustainable UPA&L, propose revisions andformulate new by-laws. Another town in Kenya (Kitale inRift Valley Province) is interested in adopting the bylawsand has invited Urban Harvest to go and initiatethe process with the administrators. The experiencein Nakuru once more indicates the strategicimportance of different international, national andlocal agencies establishing mechanisms for workingtogether for policy change.

NetworkingLocal and global networkingFrom its base in Lima, Peru, Urban Harvest’s research anddevelopment program engages with partners andstakeholders in local and regional settings in Asia, Africaand Latin America through multi-sectoral platforms at citylevel, through regional networks of cities and throughregionally focused international organizations andpartnerships. Urban Harvest also participates in globalinitiatives and alliances to facilitate cross-learning amongdeveloping regions and between North and South.At the local level Urban Harvest’s stakeholder andpolicy dialogue platform (SPDP), described from theresearch point of view in previous sections, alsofacilitates communication, information sharing andlearning among and by local stakeholders in “anchorcities” – urban and peri-urban locations wherediagnostic studies, technical interventions and policyanalysis and development are undertaken with partners.The high level of complexity of urban ecosystems andthe great diversity of stakeholders and their needs putsan especially high premium on this communication andsharing and the formation of alliances. The involvementof municipal authorities in these local platformsisparticularly important, both to tap into their expertisein planning and policy, as well as to provide learningopportunities to them about integration of agriculturein urban governance.Local level networking also provides a means for formalcapacity development opportunities involving linkswith local universities and training organizations.At the regional level, through networking with regionalorganizations and linking agencies in anchor cities and“contact” cities – urban and peri-urban areas involvedin training and knowledge exchange creating learningpartnerships and build capacity. Thematic andknowledge sharing workshops have been co-organizedwith regional partners (for example, UN-HABITAT andthe RUAF Foundation in Sub-Saharan Africa and REDAGUILAR in Latin America) that have brought togetherpolitical and technical representatives from differentcities in each region. Cross-visits have also beenorganized between anchor cities and between anchorand contact cities, for example the sharing of gendermainstreamingexperiences in Kenya with Ugandanpartners, or the exposure of researchers and localgovernment officials in Western Kenya to policyprocesses in Nairobi and Nakuru.In Africa, with funding from IDRC, Urban Harvest linkedup in 2003 and 2004 with several CGIAR Centers (CIP,ILRI, IWMI, World Agroforestry Center), internationallyand regionally based organizations (RUAF Foundation,Municipal Development Program, Mazengira Institute)and national partners to implement a regional trainingcourse for multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral teamsfrom seven cities from East, Southern and CentralAfrica. After the course, these city teams later formeda virtual network as they sought to implementproposals and utilize methods developed andpresented as part of the course. As a way of drawingout the lessons and learning objectives of the realworld course for more general use, the materials of thecourse were later developed into a distance learningtool in the form of an interactive CD-ROM.In Latin America, Urban Harvest has been involved intraining and interaction among other CGIAR centersabout the use of Geographical Information Systems(GIS), especially with regard to its application to issuesof water quality monitoring and land use changes. In aneffort to build a region-wide platform on urbanagriculture technology and policy support severalnetworks have sought to harmonize their activities, andUrban Harvest has multiple representation on Advisorycommittees of these initiatives.43

44Regional pages on the Urban Harvest website and aregional listserv in SSA further enhance the spread ofregional networking and information exchange.The main effort at the global level is to seek crossfertilizationof ideas and approaches between developingregions and between North and South and to engage theattention and interest of actual and potential donors.Although these efforts were at one time formalized in theglobal Support Group on Urban Agriculture and Forestry(SGUA), an alliance of international, regional and nationalorganizations and donors, the deactivation of this networkhas led to more informal and ad hoc actions. These haveincluded thematic workshops, such as a workshop ongender mainstreaming organized by the RUAFFoundation and Urban Harvest with CGIAR and externaldonor funding in 2004, and global initiatives such as thatfocused on a better understanding of urban agriculturalproducer organizations, led by FAO with UrbanHarvest, RUAF and other organizations on the AdvisoryBoard.Global knowledge networking also has also utilizedconventional publications and electronic media toachieve its goals. A Working Paper Series provides apublication outlet and opportunities for feedback forresearch outputs and a series of AnnotatedBibliographies of Anchor Sites offers a resource toother researchers and development specialistsworking in those locations. The website(www.cipotato.org/urbanharvest/home.htm),electronic and hardcopy news updates and the listerv(urbanharvest-l@lists.cgiar.org) offer means to shareinformation across the network, keep people incontact and strengthen the urban agriculture agenda.

Networking and capacity building activities,2003 - 2006AFRICA45Activity Location Date Participants2003Kampala Health and UPA coordinating Kampala, January UH-regional, local staff,Committee Uganda local partnersWorkshop on urban livestock keepers Nairobi March UH staff and partners inin Sub-Saharan AfricaNairobi and Kampala,Waste-net meetings Nairobi Through year UH Nairobi staffLivestock Week, FAO Rome March UH-SSA coordinatorUH Steering Committee meeting Nairobi April UH-Global Coordinator, UH-SSA Coordinator, CommitteeGlobal UPA Stakeholder meeting (SGUA) Nairobi April UH-Global Coordinator, UH-SSA Coordinator, CommitteeFirst planning workshop, International Nairobi May UH-Global Coordinator, UH-UPA training for Anglophone AfricaSSA Coordinator, Nairobi staffand partnersInterim meeting, International UPA Nairobi June UH-Global Coordinator, UHtrainingfor Anglophone AfricaSSA Coordinator, Nairobi staffand partnersSecond planning workshop International Nairobi November UH-SSA Coordinator and staff,UPA training for Anglophone Africapartners2004Final workshop and exhibition, urban Yaounde, February UH-SSA Coordinator, IITAagriculture in Yaounde Cameroon and local partners (30)

46Regional Workshop on Development Nairobi, February UH-SSA Coordinatorof Sustainable Urban Solid Waste Kenya UH-StaffManagement Strategies byWastenet-ITDG-EA and UNDPFinal workshop on Strengthening Kampala, March UH-SSA Coordinator, CIATUPA in Kampala Uganda and local partners (15)Anglophone Africa Regional Training Nairobi, March UH-SSA Coordinator andCourse on UPA Kenya staff, CIP, IWMI, ILR, internationaland local partners (32)African Network for Soil Biology and Yaounde May UH-StaffFertility Network (AfNet)CameroonRegional Workshop on Risk Analysis Elementaita, May UH-SSA Coordinatorand Gender in Urban AgricultureKenyaNational stakeholder workshop on Nairobi July KARI, UA-SSA staff, ILRI, localurban and peri-urban agriculture policy partners (65)National Land Policy Formulation Process Nairobi, August UH-StaffKenyaUPA Methodology workshop by ILRI IITA Ibadan, September UH-Staffwith IDRC supportNigeriaWomen Feeding Cities: Gender Accra September UH-SSA Coordinator UH StaffMainstreaming in Urban Agriculture Ghanaand Food Security, Workshop organizedby Urban Harvest and RUAF2005“Think tank” on agriculture-health linkages USA January SSS Regional CoordinatorComprehensive assessment of water Nairobi January UH Staffmanagement in agriculture program, IWMI

47Final Stakeholder Workshop on Issues ILRI campus, January UH SSAemerging from the research Project: Nairobi Regional CoordinatorManagement of organic waste andUH Stafflivestock manure for enhancingPartnersagricultural productivity in urbanand Peri-urban NairobiKenyan National Land Policy Nairobi Jan - May US StaffFormulation ProcessStudy tour of urban agriculture sites Nairobi February UH Staff (UN-HABITAT), 40and urban settlementsmembers of Royal SwedishAcademy of Agriculture andForestrySub-Sahara Africa Regional Workshop Arusha February UH-SSA Regional Coordinatorof the Global Horticulture Assessment. Tanzania(GHA) Meeting ISHSSub-Sahara Africa Regional Workshop of Arusha, February UH Staffthe Global Horticulture Assessment. (GHA) TanzaniaMeeting ISHSTrainingAssessing year-round strategies in mixed ILRI campus, February- Uh Staffcrop-livestock systems: Incorporating Nairobi Marchsweet potatoes into animal feed Nairobi,Kenya. Organized by CIP, ILRI andSystem-wide Livestock Programme SLPAsia and Middle East Workshop Global Cairo, April UH Global CoordinatorHorticulture Assessment (GHA)EgyptAnnual Gender and Diversity Associates CIFOR, June UH-Staffworkshop organized by G&D CGIAR Bogor,system wide programmeIndonesiaGender mainstreaming in urban Electronic August - Global Coordinatoragriculture conference December

48Advisory Committee membership, Rome, Italy October Global CoordinatorFAO/IDRC project on producerorganizations in urban agricultureHABITAT Jam Electronic November InformationconferenceOfficer2006Rural-urban linkages Conference Addis Ababa, April UH SSA Regional Coordinator(Global Mountain Program)EthiopiaWorld Urban Forum III Vancouver June UH Global CoordinatorCanadaUH SSA Regional Coordinator

LATIN AMERICA49Activities Location Date Participants2003La integración de la agricultura urbana Lima, November UH Staffen el desarrollo sostenible de las Peru PartnersmunicipalidadesFormación en Fundraising y Marketing Lima- November UH Staffpara la Investigación-Acción en laPeruAgricultura Urbana en América Latinay el CaribeEncuentro de Agricultura Urbana y Azcapotzalo- November UH LAC RegionalPeriurbana en México Mexico Coordinator2004El rol de la selvicultura y agricultura urbana Lima - January UH Staffen el desarrollo sostenible de las ciudades PeruCaracterización de resultados e impactos en San José- August UH Stafflos proyectos desarrollados por FONTAGRO Costa RicaLa integración de la Agricultura urbana y Lima, December UH StaffPeriurbana en el Desarrollo Sostenible de Peru Partnerslas Municipalidades (Segunda ReuniónInterinstitucional)2005Workshop on sensibilization Lima-Peru January UH StaffPrácticas de campo de los alumnos del Lima-Peru June Producermódulo de Sistemas de Producción de laPartnerMaestría en producción animal

50Capacitación de Facilitación Atinchik de Lima June UH StaffProcesos Participativos para el Desarrollo PeruWorkshop: Hydrologyc Spatial Modeling Nairobi- June - July UH StaffWorkshop- GeoSFM hydrologycalKenyamodeling toolTaller: Diseño e implementación Multi- Lima- August UH Staffactoral de políticas y acciones estratégicas Peru Partneren la agricultura urbanaTaller: Diseño e implementación Multi- Lima- September UH Staffactoral de políticas y acciones estratégicas Peru Partneren la agricultura urbanaCurso Taller: Enfoque Ecosistémico en Rio de October UH Staffsalud Humana: Evaluación y Administración Janeirodela Contaminación Ambiental BrasilTraining: Manejo de semillas de hortalizas Lima- October Partneren la producción orgánica Peru ProducerCurso: “Cuenca y Espacio Local: Gestión Lima- October UH StaffAmbiental y Ordenamiento Territorial” Peru2006Planificación de proyectos de Lima- March Partnerdesarrollo local Peru UH StaffCurso: Gestión de Recursos Hídricos y Ica- March UH StaffTecnologías de RiegoPeruVI Encuentro de Agricultura Orgánica y La Habana- May UH LAC CoordinatorSostenible de ACTAFCubaUrban/Peri-Urban Agriculture in Tagaytay City, May UH Staffthe Asian and Pacific Region,Philippines

51Foro Electoral Políticas y Compromisos Lima- May UH Staffpara el Desarrollo de la AgriculturaPeruEcológica SostenibleCurso: Metodologías Participativas de Lima- May UH StaffCapacitación en planes de Negocios PeruCurso: Manejo de Suelos y Nutrición Lima- May - Jun UH StaffVegetal en la Producción de Cultivos Peruen CostaForo: Gestión Ambiental de las Ciudades Lima- June UH Staffy Construcción SosteniblePeruPrácticas de campo de los alumnos del Lima- June Producermódulo de Sistemas de Producción de la Peru PartnerMaestría en producción animalCurso: Aplicación de geodatabase en Lima- Aug - Sept UH Staffcuencas hídricas con ARC-GISPeruAgricultura Urbana y Peri-urbana en Lima Lima- August UH StaffMetropolitana: una estrategia de lucha Peru Partnerscontra la pobreza y la inseguridad alimentaria10mo Encuentro Nacional de Agricultura Lima- September ProducerEcológica Peru UH StaffIII Seminario Nacional de Control Biológico Lima- November UH StaffPeruCurso: Mitologías participativas e Inter. – Lima- November UH Staffaprendizaje para el desarrollo ruralPeru

Publications52Alegre,J., D. Escudero, O. Tesdell 2007. Agricultural Business Associations in Urban and Periurban Areas in Lima,Peru. RUAF Urban Agriculture magazine. No. 17. RUAF: Leusden, The Netherlands.Arce, B., Valencia, C., Warnaars, M., Prain, G., Valle, R. 2006. The farmer field school (FFS) method in an urban setting: Acase study in Lima, Peru. En: Veenhuizen, R. van (ed). Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green andproductive cities. Leusden (Netherlands). ETC- Urban Agriculture. pp.299-303. http://www.ruaf.org/node/975Arce, B., J. Alegre, D. Escudero, G. Prain, J. Saenz, 2006. Estudio da Caso Lima (Perú): Crianza de cerdos en zonasurbanas: Diagnostico y Propuesta Municipal de Sistema de Manejo en el Distrito de Lurigancho Chosica. RUAFUrban Agriculture Magazine. Leusden. The Netherlands: RUAF.Arce, B., G. Prain y M. Salvo. 2006. En busca de la integración de la agricultura urbana (AU) en las agendas municipales:una experiencia en el distrito de Lurigancho-Chosica, Lima-Perú. Integration of Urban Agriculture in MunicipalAgendas: Experiences from Lima, Peru. RUAF Urban Agriculture Magazine Leusden. The Netherlands: RUAF.Arce, B., C. Valencia, M. Warnaars, G. Prain, R. Valle 2006. The Farmer Field School (FFS) method in an urban setting: acase study in Lima Peru. in: van Veenhuizen, René (ed), Cities Farming for the Future - Urban Agriculture forGreen and Productive Cities. Leusden. The Netherlands: RUAF.Arce, B. y G. Prain, 2005. La Agricultura Urbana Como un Componente Económico Familiar y Su Inserción en laGestión Municipal: La Experiencia del Proyecto: “Agricultores en la Ciudad”, Lima, Perú. Presented at the IV GeneralAssembly of Red Aguila seminar: Construyendo ciudades sustentables con Agricultura Urbana y Peri-urbana.28 al 30 de abril, 2005, México.Arce, B., G. Prain and L. Maldonado. 2004. Urban Agriculture and Gender in Latin America: A case study of Carapongo,Lima, Peru. Paper presented at the workshop, “Woman Feeding Cities: Gender mainstreaming in urban foodproduction and food security” 20th -23rd September, 2004, Accra, Ghana. RUAF/Urban Harvest. http://www.ruaf.org/files/gender_arce_et_al_peru.pdfArce, B., G.Prain, R. Valle and N. Gonzalez. (Pre-edition). 2006. Vegetable Production Systems as Livelihood Strategiesin Lima-Peru: Opportunities and Risks for Households and Local Governments. Acta Horticulture. InternationalSociety for Horticultural Science. 2006. http://www.actahort.orgAtukunda, G., F. Baseke, S. David, J. Jagwe, M. Kalyebara, M. Kaweesa, R. Miiro, G. Musoke, G. Nabulo, A. Namagembe,C. Niringiye, R. Nyapendi, B. Odongo, C. Owori, M. Azuba-Ssemwanga, and S. Tumwegamire, 2003. Participatoryappraisal of urban and peri-urban agriculture in Kampala, Uganda. CIAT Africa-Urban Harvest WorkingDocument. CIAT Africa Occasional Publications Series, No. 42. Kampala, Uganda: CIAT..Ayaga,G.; Kibata,G.; Diana Lee-Smith, Mary Njenga and Racheal Rege 2005. Policy prospects for urban and periurban agriculture in Kenya. UH Policy Brief Series no2. Lima, Peru: Urban Harvest - CIP.Burgos, G. y M.Carrasco 2004 Características de la alimentación e ingesta de nutrientes de los niños entre 6 a 24meses de una comunidad urbano marginal de Lima. UH Working Paper Series 2. Lima, Peru: CIP.Cofie, O.O.P. 2003. UAM urbanization, poverty and urban food security UA-Magazine no.16. Leusden, The Netherlands:RUAF.Creed-Kanashiro, H., N. Espinola y G. Prain. 2007. Fortaleciendo la nutrición infantil en Perú: Desarrollo de unapapilla a base de camote. Lima, Peru: CIP.

Dubbling M., G. Prain, M. Warnaars, T. Zschoke ed. 2005 Feeding Cities in Anglophone Africa with Urban Agriculture:‘Concepts, tools and case studies for practitioners, planners and policy makers’ CD_rom. Lima, Peru: UrbanHarvest- CIP.Escudero, D., B. Arce, M. Salvo 2006. “La Investigación Participativa en los Procesos de Desarrollo, el caso del cultivode Mucuna (Stizolobium deeringianum) en la agricultura urbana de la ciudad de Lima, Perú”. ConferenceProceedings: X Congreso Internacional de Ingeniería de Proyectos Valencia.Farm Concern and Urban Harvest 2006. Viable market opportunities and investigative research on market threatsfor urban and peri-urban farmers; based on action market research. Draft project report. Farm Concern,UrbanHarvest-CIP.Gallentes, J. 2006. Manual on the IPM practices for Sampaguita (jasmine) production. Manila, Philippines: CIP-UPWARD.Gathuru, K., Nancy Karanja and Mary Njenga (2007) Wastewater irrigation empowers Kenya’s urban farmers. NewAgriculturalist. http://www.new-agri.co.uk/07/02/focuson/focuson6.phpGuzman, C.de, C. M. Bajet, and M. P. Navarro. 2003. Assessing Pest Management Issues in the Sampaguita FlowerProduction and Garland-making Livelihood System in Peri-urban Metro Manila. Manila, Philippines: CIP-UPWARD.Guzman, C. de, Cristina M. Bajet, and Mariafe P. Navarro,. 2003 Sampaguita Livelihoods of Peri-urban Metro Manila,Philippines: Key Actors, Activities, Benefits and Constraints. Manila, Philippines: CIP-UPWARD.Guzman, C. de 2005. Farming in the City: an Annotated Bibliography of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in thePhilippines with emphasis on Metro Manila. Lima, Peru: Urban Harvest- CIP.Guzman, Constancio C. 2003 Sampaguita Livelihoods of Peri-urban Metro Manila, Philippines: Key Actors, Activities,Benefits and Constraints. Manila, Philippines: CIP-UPWARD http://www.cipotato.org/urbanharvest/documents/pdf/sampaguita-livelihoods.pdfHooton, N., Lee-Smith, D., Nasinyama, G. and Romney, D., - in collaboration with Azuba, M., Kaweeza, M., Muwanga,J., Lubowa, A. Atukunda, G., Njenga, M. and Young, J. 2007. Championing Urban Farmers in Kampala, Influenceson Local Policy Change in Uganda. ILRI Research Report No. 2.Juárez, H., J. Moscoso, T. Alfaro 2006. Contaminación del Río Rímac por patógenos y metales pesados y evaluaciónde riesgos para la agricultura en el Cono Este de Lima. II Congreso Nacional, I Congreso Iberoamericano deRiego y Drenaje. Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima Peru.King’ori, Peter 2004. Assessment of urban and peri-urban agriculture research in the CGIAR Centres in Sub-SaharanAfrica. Urban Harvest Working Paper no. 1 Lima, Peru: Urban Harvest- CIP.Kimeze, S. 2005. Farming in the City: an Annotated Bibliography of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Uganda.Lima, Peru: Urban Harvest- CIP.Karanja, N., M. Njenga, and G. Kironchi 2006. Wastewater utilization and policy framework for agriculture in urbanand peri-urban areas of Kenya: Workshop Report organized by UH, JKUAT, UON and funded by IDRC held atJakaranda Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya, February 02, 2006. UH-CIP.Karanja, N., M. Njenga, K. Gathuru, E. Kang’ethe, A. Karanja, M. Odumbe, S. Kiarie, I. Kimani, S. Wokabi, C. Getanda, P.Kingori, P. Mugo, A.Njenga, and F. Kirima 2006. Local participatory research and development on urban agricultureand livestock keeping in Nakuru; project report UH_CIP.53

54Lee-Smith, D. and G. Prain2006. Urban Agriculture and Health. Brief 13 in Hawkes, C. and M. T. Ruel eds. Understandingthe Links between Agriculture and Health. 2020 Focus No.13, IFPRI. May 2006. Washington, USA: IFPRI.Lee-Smith, D. 2004. Women Feeding Cities: Refocusing the Research Agenda in Women Feeding Cities Proceedingsof the Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Food Production and Food Security Workshop, ed. G. Prain, H. De Zeeuw.Jointly organized by ETC-RUAF and CGIAR-Urban Harvest in collaboration with IWMI-Ghana. http://www.cipotato.org/urbanharvest/documents/pdf/women-feeding-cities.pdfMwangi S., Mumbi K., Kamore M., Karanja N. & Njenga M. 2007. Creating Market Opportunities for Poor WomenFarmers in Kenya. Urban Agriculture Magazine. Vol 17. Leusden, The Netherlands: ETC-Urban Agriculture.Nguyen T., M. Warnaars, T. T. B. Duyen, T.T. B. Ngoc 2007 Farming in the City: an Annotated Bibliography of Urban andPeri-urban Agriculture in Hanoi. Lima, Peru: Urban Harvest- CIP.Njenga, Mary and Nancy Karanja (2005) Turing Urban Waste into Resource for Agriculture NEFSALF Bulletin No. 2.Nairboi, Kenya: Mazingira Institute.Njenga, Mary & Rose Thuo. 2005. Urban Agriculture. Paper prepared for the urban land use, environment andinformal sector thematic group in the Kenya national land policy formulation process. Kenya National LandPolicy Pp. 27. Kenya, Nairobi: Kenya National Land Policy Secretariat Resource Centre.Njenga, M., K. Gathuru and N. Karanja 2004. Analysis of Gender Roles in Resource Recovery for Urban Agriculture inNairobi, Kenya in Women Feeding Cities Proceedings of the Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Food Productionand Food Security Workshop, ed. G. Prain, H. De Zeeuw. Jointly organized by ETC-RUAF and CGIAR-Urban Harvestin collaboration with IWMI-Ghana. http://www.cipotato.org/urbanharvest/documents/pdf/women-feedingcities.pdfNazarea, V.P., M.C. Piniero and R.P. Mula. 2003. Urban Gardens: Persistence and Change. Manila, Philippines: UrbanHarvest- CIP-UPWARD.Njenga, M., K. Gathuru, S. Kimani, W. Frost, S. Carsan, D. Lee-Smith, D. Romney and N. Karanja 2004. Management ofOrganic Waste and Livestock Manure for Enhancing Agricultural Productivity in Urban and Peri–Urban Nairobi.Project report by UH, ILRI, ICRAF, KARI & UON.Njenga M. and Nancy Karanja 2006. Community-Based Compost Production for Urban Agriculture in Nairobi in O.Cofie and A. Bradford Chapter 8. Organic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture in Cities Farming in the Future, ed.René van Veenhuizen. Leusden, The Netherlands: ETC-Urban Agriculture. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-103817-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html also available in print form. p 238-242.Njenga Mary, S. Kimani, D. Romney and N. Karanja. Nutrient Recovery from Solid Waste and Linkage to Urban andPeri Urban Agriculture in Nairobi, Kenya (2007). In Bationo A., B.S. Waswa, J. Kihara and J. Kimetu eds Springer,Van Godewijckstraat 30, The Netherlands. pp 487-491.Njenga, M., E. Kang’ethe, N. Karanja, C. Kabiru, P. Munyao, G Kironchi, K. Gathuru, and G. Prain, in collaboration withC. Githuku, P. Kanyari, C. Muneri, M. Githongo, J. Githigia, P. Gildemacher, and P. Kinyae 2007. MainstreamingGender Analysis in the Research Process in International Potato Centre (CIP) Project Report. UH, CIP, KARI andFunded by PRGA.

Peters, D., Ngai, DO Duc 2004 Agro Processing Waste Assessment and Management in Peri-Urban Hanoi, Vietnam.Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. USA : Food Products Press.Prain, G. 2001. Farmer Field Schools: an ideal method for urban agriculture? Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 5.Leusden, The Netherlands: RUAF.Prain, G. 2006. Integrated Urban Management of Local Agricultural Development: The policy arena in Cuba. InCities Farming in the Future ed. René van Veenhuizen. Leusden, The Netherlands: ETC-Urban Agriculture http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-103817-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html also available in print form.Prain, G. 2006 Situation Analysis and Health Risk Assessment: Cattle and poultry raising in Kampala in GordonParin Chapter 10. Participatory Technology Development for Sustainable Intensification of Urban Agriculturein Cities Farming in the Future, ed. René van Veenhuizen. Leusden, The Netherlands: ETC-Urban Agriculture.http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-103817-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html also available in print form.Prain, G. 2006. Participatory Technology Development for Sustainable Intensification of Urban Agriculture. In CitiesFarming in the Future ed. Rene van Veenhuizen. Leusden, The Netherlands: ETC-Urban Agriculture http:/www.idrc.ca/en/ev-103817-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html also available in print form.Prain, G., Arce, B., and Karanja, N. (Pre-edition). 2006. Horticulture in Urban eco-systems: some socioeconomic andenvironmental lessons from studies in three developing regions. Acta Horticulture. International Society forHorticultural Science. 2006. http://www.actahort.orgPrain, G. 2006. Participatory Technology Development for Sustainable Intensification of Urban Agriculture. En:Veenhuizen, R. van (ed). Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities. Leusden(Netherlands). ETC- Urban Agriculture. ISBN 1-930261-14-4. pp.299-303. http://www.ruaf.org/node/975Prain, G. 2006. Urban Harvest: A CGIAR Global Program on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture. Extension Bulletin575. FFTC . Lima, Peru.Raymundo R., C. Bussink, G. Prain 2007. La Dinámica de la Agricultura en Lima 1972-2002, Una recopilación yanálisis de estadística provinciales y regionales. Working Paper Series 3. Lima, Peru: CIP.Salvo, M., B. Arce, and I. De los Ríos 2007. Integración de las entidades locales en la promoción del desarrollo rurallocalconsideraciones para Latinoamérica desde la experiencia del Cono Este de Lima (Perú) ConferenceProceedings: X Congreso Internacional de Ingeniería de Proyectos Valencia.Urban Harvest 2004. Memoria y Declaración: “La Integración de la agricultura urbana en el desarrollo sosteniblede las municipalidades” 26 de Noviembre, 2003. UH Policy Brief Series. Lima, Peru: CIP.Urban Harvest 2006. Memoria y Declaración: “La Integración de la agricultura urbana en el desarrollo sosteniblede las municipalidades” 14 de Diciembre, 2004. UH Policy Brief Series. Lima, Peru: CIP.Warnaars, M. y W. Pradel. 2007 A Comparative Study of the Perceptions of Urban and Rural Farmer Field SchoolParticipants in Peru. UH Working Paper Series 4. Lima, Peru: CIP.55

Networking partners, 2003-200656PartnerAVRDCBioversityCIATCIPIITAILRIIWMIWorld Agroforestry CenterGMPPRGAUPWARDCIRADRyerson University, Toronto,CanadaRUAF Foundation, NetherlandsUniversity of Georgia, USAUniversity of Guelph, CanadaUniversidad Politécnica deMadrid, SpainUniversity of Toronto, Dept.of Public Health, CanadaUrban Poverty and EnvironmentProgram, IDRC, CanadaUniversity of the Philippines,Los BañosStrategic role/complementary advantageUrban horticultural systems, indigenous African vegetablesResearch on urban banana productionAgro-enterprise innovationSweetpotato varieties, seed technology. Farmer field school skills, GISand modeling, agriculture and healthRural-urban food systems, urban agriculture and livelihoodsDiagnostic and action livestock research, utilization of manures, riskassessment and decision-support modelingWastewater use for vegetables, flooding controlUse of tree legumes for fodder, tree nurseries, urban/peri-urbanagro-forestry systemsRural-urban linkages in mountain environmentsGender mainstreamingRural-urban agro-enterprises, livelihoods and marketing studiesUrban horticultureFood and nutrition security analysis in urban contextUrban policies, training materials, gender mainstreamingCultural and biological diversity of urban horticultureGender mainstreaming in urban agricultureTerritorial planning and policy for urban areasHealth risk assessment in urban agriculture, health related policiesUrban environment issues, project implementation methodsHorticultural research, urban planning, GIS

University of the Philippines,DilimanIEBR, Hanoi, VietnamNational Institute of AnimalHusbandry, VietnamHanoi Agricultural UniversityKenya Agricultural ResearchInstituteUniversity of NairobiJomo Kenyatta UniversityMinistry of Agriculture andFisheries, KenyaFarm Concern International (CSO)Greentowns, Kenya (CSO)Mazingira Institute/NEFSALF(CSO/CO)Nakuru City Council, KenyaEdgerton University, KenyaMakerere University, UgandaKampala City Council, UgandaEnvironmental Alert, Uganda(CSO)KUFSALCC (CSO)Ministry of Agriculture, AnimalIndustries and Fisheries (MAAIF),UgandaGIS, Multi-agent systems (MAS)Waste water, parasitologyAnimal nutritionAnimal healthIPM, policy analysis, technology transferSoil studies, health risksWaste water studiesLivestock development, water and irrigationMarket chain analyses, product developmentCommunity mobilization, participatory technology testing, local govt.facilitationBuilding a model for organization of urban farmersUrban environmental management, regulatory framework for urbanagricultureHuman nutritionUrban planning, public health issues, human nutritionLand use policies, urban planning, regulatory frameworks, publicconsultations, convener roleCommunity organizing, advocacyDialogue platform, facilitationAgricultural and food policy analysis57

58National Agricultural ResearchOrganization (NARO), UgandaIRAD, CameroonINCC, CameroonCESALDistrict Municipality ofHuachipaDistrict Municipality ofLurigancho-Chosica, Lima, PeruEcológica PeruEMBRAPA, BrasilInstituto de InvestigaciónNutricional (IIN), PerúINIAIPDAMetropolitan MunicipalityMinisterio de Vivienda, PeruNational Agrarian University,La Molina, PeruPan-American HealthOrganization, Centerfor Sanitation andEnvironmental Sciences(CEPIS)Promoción de DesarrolloSostenible (IPES) (CSO)RED AGUILARímac River Water Users’Association (JUR), PeruHorticultural crops, livestock researchLivestock-crop interactions, agro-forestryUrban systems and institutionsSanitationUrban management policies, land use planning, convener roleUrban management policies, land use planning, convener roleOrganic product marketingHorticultural production, new horticultural speciesChild nutrition researchSmall animal production systems (guinea pigs)Marketing systemsUrban management policies, land use planning, linking producers toof Lima, Peru consumersUrban agriculture national coordinationVegetable and livestock production modules, environmental healthSolid waste managementMunicipal policy análisis, urban planningNetworking urban agriculture experiencesIrrigation water management, farmer representative

Investment partners59Bundensministerium fur Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), GermanyCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Gatineau, Québec, CanadaUnited Kingdom Government Department for International Development (DFID), London, UnitedKingdomFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ItalyInternational Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaInstituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Madrid, SpainThe World Bank Group, Washington, DC, U.S.A.Madrid City GovernmentProvincial Government of MadridKilimo TrustACIAR

Urban Harvest researchers, studentsand interns 2003-200660URBAN HARVEST RESEARCHERSAfricaLubowa Abdelrahman - Nutritionist, Research Assistant,Urban Harvest - KampalaNancy Karanja - Soil Scientist, SSA Coordinator, UrbanHarvest - KenyaPeter Kingori - Nutritionist, Training Assistant, UrbanHarvest - Nairobi 1Julius Kyaligonza - Livestock Specialist, Research Assistant,Urban Harvest - Kampala 1Diana Lee-Smith - Urban Sociologist, SSA Coordinator,Urban Harvest - Nairobi 2Shuaib Lwasa - Geographer, Project Leader, Urban HarvestKampala Sustainable Neighborhoods in FocusMary Njenga - Ecologist, Research Assistant, UrbanHarvest - NairobiAsiaCPC-NCPC-UPLB TeamSusan Bacud - University ResearcherConstancio de Guzman - Horticulturalist, UPLB (ProjectLeader)Mario Navasero - University ResearcherMarcela Navasero - University ResearcherUPWARD TeamArma Bertuso, Network AffiliateRaul Boncodin - Agronomist, Program Associate, CIP-UPWARD 3Jaime Gallentes - Agronomist, Research Fellow forInformation ServicesDindo M. Campilan - Sociologist, UPWARD Coordinator,PhilippinesHanoiDai Peters - Sociologist, Post-Doctoral Researcher,Hanoi, Vietnam 4Ngyuyen Thi Tinh - Animal Nutritionist, HanoiCoordinator 2Latin AmericaAnamika Amani - Sociologist, Information Officer 3Jessica Alegre - Animal Production Specialist, ResearchAssistantTomás Alfaro - Water Engineer, Research AssistantBlanca Arce - Livestock Systems Specialist, LatinAmerica Regional CoordinatorMiluska Carrasco - Nutritionist, Research AssistantDennis Escudero - Livestock Specialist, ResearchAssistantNieves Gonzáles - Agronomist, Research AssistantHenry Juárez - Environmental Scientist, ResearchAssistantLuis Maldonado - Economist, Research Assistant 2Julio Moscoso - Water EngineerAna Luisa Muñoz - Administrative AssistantGordon Prain - Anthropologist, Global CoordinatorMiguel Salvo - Rural Planning SpecialistMaarten Warnaars - Sociologist, Information Officer /Research Assistant

STUDENTS AND INTERNS61LimaTomás Alfaro Abanto - Ms thesis, WaterResources,Universidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaMalena Castro Manrique - Ms thesis, EnvironmentalSciences, Universidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaJuan Francisco Chávez, Intern, Anthropology, PontificiaUniversidad Católica del PerúMargot Díaz - Bs thesis, Nutritionist, Universidad nacionalAgraria La MolinaCarmen Eccoña - Bs thesis, Agriculture Engineering,Universidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaLiliana Flores - Intern, Agronomy Engineering,Universidad Nacinal Agraria La MolinaJuan Andrés Gómez - Bs thesis, Anthropology,Universidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaUrsula Ingar - Professional title, Agronomy, UniversidadNacional Agraria La MolinaHenry Juárez - Ms thesis, Agronomy Engineering,Universidad Católica de Santa María, ArequipaCarlos César Llanos Lucas - Bs thesis, Entomology,Universidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaCelika Patricia Nakamura Rivera - Bs thesis,Environmental Engineering, Universidad Nacionaldel CallaoRubí Raymundo - Ms thesis, Plant Pathology, Universidadnacional Agraria La MolinaJorge Luis Saenz Rabanal - Ms thesis, Animal Sciences,Universidad Nacional Agaria La MolinaSusana Tapia - Intern, Anthropology, UniversidadNacional Mayor de San MarcosOmar Tesdell - Intern, Geography, Iowa StateUniversity, USARicardo Alberto Valle Niebuhr - Ms thesis, Agronomy,Universidad Nacional Agraria La MolinaSub-Saharan AfricaKenyaNatasha Anderson - MSc, Medical Anthropology,University of TorontoJohn Ferguson - MSc, Animal Nutrition, ReadingUniversityWanjiku Gachie - BSc Agriculture, University of NairobiMiriam W. Githongo - MSc, Soil Science, University ofNairobi and University of FloridaCatherine R. Githuku - MSc, Environmental Engineeringand Management, Jomo Kenyatta University ofAgriculture and Technology - KenyaDr. Caroline Kabiru - PhD Public Health, IndependentAnthony Karanja - MSc Veterinary Medicine student,University of NairobiBen Keraite - PhD Public Health, University ofCopenhagen, Denmark (Based in IWMI Ghana)Priscilla K. Kinyari - MSc, Environmental Engineering andManagement, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agricultureand Technology - KenyaKendra Lafflephe - BSc, Human Geography, Universityof Alberta, CanadaRuth Lavergne - BSc, Anthropology, University of TorontoTony Loupin - UN-Habitat, MSc Economic Science,University of Louvain-La-Neuve – BelgiumSamwel Mbugua - MSc, Human Nutrition, EgertonUniversity- KenyaCaroline Muneri - MSc, Veterinary Pathology, Universityof Nairobi-KenyaPatrick Munyao - BSc Agricultural Engineering,IndependentFlorence Mutua - MSc Veterinary Medicine student,University of Nairobi

62Dr. Cameline Mwai - BSc Veterinary Medicine, IndependentMichael O. Odumbe - MSc Agriculture Econimicsstudent,University of NairobiMary Ogumbi - MSc, Human Nutrition, Kenyatta UniversityEsther Wamuhu Wambui - BSc Human Nutrition,IndependentUgandaKareem Buyana - MA (MUK)Frank Mwiine - MSc (MUK)Grace Nabulo - PhD (MUK)Ritah Nakanwagi - MSc (MUK)Renee Sebastian - MS University of Toronto (UoT), CanadaCollins Sewanyana - PhD Makerere University (MUK)Shelby Yamamoto - MS University of Toronto (UoT)South East AsiaRehan Abeyratne (Sri Lankan) - Brown University (BSc.)Caroline Cordier (French) - Wageningen University (MSc.)1 Left 20062 Left 20053 Left 20044 Left 2003

Abbreviations and acronymsCEPISCESALCGIARCIATCIDACIPDFIDFAOFCRIFFSGISHCCIDRCIINIITAILRIINIAIPESKARIKGTPAKUFSALCCKCCMOSWMPLNARONEFSALFNGONRIOPSRUAFUHUNDPUPAUPA&LWACCentro Panamericano de Ingenería Sanitaria y Ciencias (Pan American Center forSanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences)Centro de Estudios de Solidaridad con America LatinaConsultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, ColombiaCanadian International Development AgencyCentro Internacional de la Papa (International Potato Center), PeruDepartment for International Development, UKFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFocus City Research InitiativeFarmer Field SchoolsGeographic Information SystemsHealth Coordinating CommitteeInternational Development Research Centre, CanadaInstituto de Investigación NutritionalInternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture, NigeriaInternational Livestock Research Institute, KenyaNational Institute for Agricultural ResearchInstitute for the Promotion of Sustainable DevelopmentKenya Agricultural Research InstituteKenya Green Towns Partnership AssociationKampala Urban Food Security and Livestock Coordination CommitteeKampala City CouncilMunicipal Organic Solid WasteMaximum Permissible LimitsNational Agricultural Research OrganizationNairobi and Environs Food Security, Agriculture and Livestock ForumNon-Government OrganizationNational Resources Institute, UKOrganización Panamericana de la Salud (PanAmerican Health Organization)Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food SecurityUrban HarvestUnited Nations Development ProgramUrban and Peri-urban AgricultureUrban and Peri-urban Agriculture and LivestockWorld Agroforestry Center63

64Contact: Gordon Prain, PhD Global CoordinatorCIP, Apartado 1558 Lima 12, PeruAv. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima-PeruTel. 51-1-3496017, Ext 2040/3042Web page: www.cipotato.org/urbanharvestemail: urbanharvest@cgiar.org

Urban Harvest is the CGIAR system wide initiative in urban and periurbanagriculture, which aims to contribute to the food security of poorurban families, and to increase the value of agricultural production inurban and peri-urban areas,while ensuring the sustainable managementof the urban environment. Urban Harvest is hosted and convened by theInternational Potato Center.www.cipotato.org/urbanharvestU R B A NHARVESTCIP'sMissionThe International Potato Center (CIP) seeks to reduce poverty and achievefood security on a sustained basis in developing countries throughscientific research and related activities on potato, sweetpotato, andother root and tuber crops, and on the improved management of naturalresources in potato and sweetpotato-based systems.C E N T R OINTERNACIONALC I PDE LA PAPATheCIPVisionThe International Potato Center (CIP) will contribute to reducing povertyand hunger; improving human health; developing resilient, sustainablerural and urban livelihood systems; and improving access to the benefitsof new and appropriate knowledge and technologies. CIP will addressthese challenges by convening and conducting research and supportingpartnerships on root and tuber crops and on natural resourcesmanagement in mountain systems and other less-favored areas whereCIP can contribute to the achievement of healthy and sustainable humandevelopment.www.cipotato.orgThe Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research is astrategic alliance of members, partners and international agriculturalcenters that mobilizes science to benefit the poor. It aims to achievesustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countriesthrough scientific research and research-related activities in the fields ofagriculture,forestry,fisheries,policy,and environment.Apartado 1558 Lima 12, Peru • Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima PerúTel: 349 6017 Ext 2040/42• email: urbanharvest@cgiar.org • www.cipotato.org/urbanharvest