Final Report


Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda


FAO/ETC joint Electronic Conference August 21 - September 30, 2000



A.W. Drescher, R. Nugent & H. de Zeeuw 1


I. Introduction and Procedures

FAO, together with the Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture and Forestry (RUAF:, based in ETC-International (Leusden, The Netherlands) hosted a virtual conference entitled "Urban and peri-urban agriculture on the policy agenda." The conference took place from 21 August to 30 September 2000. This document is the final report and proceedings of the conference. The conference had been designated to be a follow-up to the 1999 workshop in Havana, Cuba entitled "Growing Cities, Growing Food : Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda," of which ETC/RUAF was a co-organiser.2

The FAO/ETC conference was opened to those interested in urban and peri-urban agriculture, including urban planners and municipal officials, researchers and practitioners. They were invited to participate by sharing needs, research results, questions, and project ideas. The conference started with a series of questions on three central themes posed by the moderators. The themes were discussed by conference participants in three separate workshops related to urban and peri-urban agriculture:

  1. Food security and nutrition
  2. Health and the urban environment
  3. Urban planning

There were three sessions of discussions that lasted two weeks each. In each, participants were asked to discuss the impacts and policy needs of urban and peri- urban agriculture in the three thematic areas. In the first session, the conference focused on: Fact-finding and situation analysis. In the second session, discussion was on Policy options for UPA and urban planning. In the final session, we turned to Planning and implementation. The contributions, weekly summaries and the discussion papers are available on the conference web page:


The Information Market

A second component of the electronic conference was the information market available at The information market contains a wide range of related case studies and other documentation, as well as links to relevant websites, journals and resource organization of interest to participants. Conference participants could also submit their own contributions (papers, announcements of conferences, and other related information). The information market is still available at the link above.

The initial creation of the information market took some time and was therefore started well in advance. The continuous updating and maintenance of the information market required time as well. The format of submitted documents had to be changed, sometimes to be converted in html or pdf etc., and new topics added as the conference progressed.


Participation in the conference was possible in two ways: through the web and through E-mail. A web-based information and registration system was offered ( where participants could register, obtain web- and Word versions of the discussion papers and where anybody (also non-subscribers to the conference) could follow the weekly discussions. The registration system on this web page was linked to an FAO-database, where biographical data on participants was collected and stored.

The E-mail based part of the conference was organized as three independent, moderated mailing-lists, one for each of the thematic issues of the conference. Each mailing list had a moderator and a co-moderator and its own email address. With the moderated list format, mail to the list went first to the moderators and co-moderators who screened the in-coming mail before forwarding it to the entire list (Figure 1).

The role of the moderators was to follow the discussion, to review and forward messages to the list, to forward submitted papers to the information market, to write weekly summaries of the discussion, and to introduce questions into the discussion.

The whole process was backed-up by a fourth email address ( This address was used to screen all incoming and out-going mail to the lists for technical problems. Email conferences often involve technical problems, such as bounced mail (very common because of out-of-office replies, failures of mail-servers), registration and down-loading problems. These issues were managed by a support person via this last address. The person also archived incoming mail into subfolders, sorted out problems with unreachable participants, subscribed new participants on request and unsubscribed failing e-mail addresses. The use of this "spy-mail" allowed the participant list to be regularly cleaned up and allowed the moderators to focus their attention on the substantive issues and discussion of the conference.


Figure 1: Communication Flow during a moderated E-mail Conference



The conference attracted 720 participants from all over the world, including Asia, Latin America, Eastern and Western Europe, many different countries in Africa, the United States, and Canada. The food security and nutrition discussion attracted the greatest enrolment, with a total of 290 participants, while the health and environment and the planning groups had about 210 each. The total figure does not take double registration to two or all workshops into consideration.

In addition to a large number of participants overall, there was very active exchange between South and North and vice versa, as well as evident South-South dialogue. One conclusion is that communication among these geographically distant colleagues is greatly enhanced by the use of the electronic conference. In addition to sharing their own experiences and responding to questions posed by the moderators, these users learned directly from each other's experiences.

It is interesting to note that participants did not respond to all of the original questions posed by the moderators to stimulate discussion. Perhaps the questions did not address the issues of most importance to participants. This may be avoided by conducting a participatory brain-storming session before the conference begins to identify the interests and needs of the participants. A problem with three separate working groups was how to handle coverage of cross-cutting issues during the conference. Most of the participants were not able to follow the discussion in all the three groups and therefore connections between the issues might have been lost.


About 300 contributions were received from participants during the whole conference, which amounted to about 50 contributions each week. The level of activity varied however among the three groups. The planning workshop had a total of 121 contributions, food security and nutrition had 96 and the health and environment group had a total of 82 contributions. This is equal to an average of 21 weekly contributions to the planning group, 16 contributions to the food security group and 13 to the health and environment group.

The number of messages was higher in the first and second week than in the third and fourth weeks. In the final two weeks activity increased again. (figure 2).

Figure 2: Number of weekly contributions to the three working groups


II. Conclusions of Working Groups

The following is a summary and brief synthesis of the discussions that occurred during the Econference. As such, it cannot easily convey the full flavor of the discussion nor the details provided by participants about UPA. We refer readers to the contributions themselves, all of which are available on the website ( Only a full reading of the lively and varied discussions can convey the knowledge offered and the contacts made during this event. Final policy conclusions are outlined in the final section of this report, integrating the discussions and information from each thematic topic.

II. A. Household Food Security and Nutrition Group

Urban farmers and the impact of UPA on their livelihoods

The diverse economic and land conditions prevailing across cities determine which members of the population become involved in urban farming. In many cities, the predominant group is women of low to middle income. However, participants in the e-conference raised exception to the idea that urban farmers are all low-income and female by citing examples of cities where this is not the case.

In many cities, the peri-urban farmers represented a very different group from those farming in the city. The latter use more sophisticated technology, and are more heavily commercially oriented than the former. Some participants suggested that these peri-urban farms did not warrant policy intervention.

A desire to increase income and a desire to supplement family consumption were both mentioned during the e-conference as motivation for urban farmers. It is not possible to ascertain which is more important globally, but this factor is closely related to who is involved in the farming. Men are more likely to be involved in UPA production that is intended for market, and when women are occupied with other activities. When the farmers are poor and/or female, the output is more likely to end up within the farming family as part of its consumption. For both genders, urban agriculture is a part-time activity, either supplementing income of unemployed or under-employed men, or supplementing the family table in the case of women. Urban production is often seasonal as it depends on rainfall.

It was pointed out that calculations of UPA efficiency often ignore the value of family labor, thereby implying that this labor can always be freely available. In general it is clear that earnings from urban agriculture will be less than what can be earned through other employment, and serve mostly to supplement other income sources. This conclusion will be less strong in cities where unemployment is high among poor slum dwellers.

Cities in Africa, Latin America, and Russia are among those illustrating the diversity of socio-economic groups doing urban agriculture. In these countries, middle and high-income urban farmers are also employed formally. The presence of these farmers signifies cities where land is unavailable to or unaffordable for poor people. The better-off producers can more easily afford improved technology and chemical inputs than poor producers and therefore are able to be more productive. While better-off families generally sell a smaller proportion of their output than poorer families, according to research from several sub-Saharan cities, their earnings from UPA sales are greater because they enjoy higher yields and greater total output.

Examples from participants suggest that macroeconomic conditions affect urban farming in various ways. In Lima, Peru, urban farming is more than a transitional activity for poor farmersland-owning farmers with higher incomes. When their incomes rise, these ; it is done by farmers invest more in their landand greater benefits from urban farming. Conversely, in St. Petersburg, , which leads to higher productivity Russiaabandon the activity for better opportunities. Also in St. Petersburg, when , improved economic conditions led some urban farmers to economic conditions of poor farmers worsenedable to afford the high cost of transportation to reach their plots on the , they were no longer cityas their economic conditions changed in different ways. 's periphery. Thus, both higher and lower-income farmers farm less

One participant from Latin America observed behavior almost opposite to that in Russia. She sees poor urban farmers using their own production to improve food security but then abandoning farming when they become better off; while higher- income people continue urban agriculture for recreational or other reasons not related to food security. The differences among these observations reflects the fact that people of similar income levels face different conditions from city to city. Employment conditions, environmental conditions, transportation and land use are all factors that determine how differently people use urban agriculture in different cities. These observations are also consistent with the dynamism that is characteristic of the population and types of products grown in urban agriculture, as well as the responsiveness of urban producers to sudden economic crises.

Consumers and the impact of UPA on their livelihoods

The contribution made by UPA to the local food supply is difficult to estimate, but participants cited substantial amounts of a diverse array of food coming from urban farming in many cities. The proportion of fresh foods (horticulture, fruit, eggs, milk, and poultry) is especially high. It ranges from 60 to 100 percent of total supplies of those commodities.

The consumer benefits of urban agriculture are seen to derive from the diversity of fresh vegetables and dairy products made available by this source. These products are important for satisfying nutrition needs. The nutritional impacts of urban agriculture have been the subject of anecdotal discussion and case study research which is not fully conclusive. The one research study reported in this conference cited a lower amount of wasting (low weight-for-height among children) during the harvest season in urban farming families than among other families. Other researchers reported that the biggest impact is in augmenting the quantity of food available, rather than improving the quality of food. This distinction depends on particular food supply conditions in a city. Differences of opinion and experience emerged starkly on the question of nutritional impact of UPA.

The affordability of urban-produced food for poor urban residents varies significantly from city to city, according to conference participants. A study carried out in Belem, Brazil found that urban agriculture makes food more affordable, while in Kumasi, Ghana the poor rely on their own backyard gardens for food supplies, and in Bamako, Mali urban-produced fresh products are too expensive for the poor. However, urban-produced food does increase the overall supplies and lessen the seasonality of food available for urban residents, which provides direct or indirect benefits to all. The availability of food from UPA during severe drought or other stress conditions implies that an important rural-urban linkage is created through the production capacity of urban growers.

Some consumers choose locally-grown food that has been produced with organic or low-chemical input methods. These consumers are generally middle and higher- income. In selected cities the urban food production is processed and sold by street vendors, however, information about how widespread the connection is between urban producers and street vendors is very sparse. More research on this issue is needed.

Constraints related to urban food security and how to respond to them

The major constraints facing urban farmers are access and/or availability of land and water. Problems of insecure access to these inputs plague urban farmers almost everywhere. Specific land problems arise because town by-laws and regulations prohibit food production of certain types (especially livestock rearing, but sometimes crops) and because poor farmers are often pushed off land that is taken over for development. Even in cities where agricultural use of land has been accepted and formalized, farming is squeezed by the growth of the city boundaries for residential and commercial purposes.

Comments from the econference about the problem of theft in different cities were mixed. Some reported that theft of food from fields is a serious issue for farmers, while others said it happens only occasionally. The problem is more severe when farming is done at a long distance from residences.

Some of these problems could be ameliorated if small plots are made available in city centres - particularly near water bodies where land is not suitable for development, rather than on the periphery where growth is more likely to encroach on farming. When urban farmers are concentrated in city centres they experience less pressure to deny them access to land than when they are farming on the developable outskirts of towns. It was also pointed out that newer landholders with individual legal rights may have an advantage over those indigenous farmers who hold only family-based, traditional rights that discourage investments in farming land.

Some commentators suggested that urban agriculture cannot be productive compared to rural agriculture, and other solutions to urban food insecurity must be identified. Comparing agricultural yields between rural and peri-urban spaces is not valid because highly productive horticultural production in urban or peri-urban areas can occur through intensive methods of farming, but these methods cannot be similarly transported to rural areas over large acreages. Thus, urban agriculture cannot be expected to provide substantial quantities of food. One commentator suggested that the best agricultural soils should be available only to skilled farmers using good technology. There is a risk of soil degradation and lower food production in the long run if fertile areas are made available to poor, unskilled farmers.

Various other input shortages and deficiencies were also mentioned as serious problems in some locations. A high priority of urban farmers is a clean water supply close to their plots. Irrigation methods commonly in use are either unsafe or expensive. These include shallow dug-out ponds, access to perennial rivers, gravity and small pumps, and carrying. Research on irrigation technologies has suggested low-cost methods for water quality testing and pumping to improve access to water, yet most farmers do not have access to these techniques.

Among livestock keepers, disease is a big problem and leads to high death rates of animals. Interestingly, the animal death rates were not reduced when technical assistance was available to farmers in Kenya. Animal odours are also incompatible with residential neighbours and neighbour conflict is often a serious issue for urban livestock keepers.

Solving problems faced by urban agriculture requires information. Important needs include cadastral information and information on soil and water characteristics. Another need is marketing know-how. Many researchers point to the lack of information about market demands, sudden shortages, and prices as a factor limiting the earnings potential for urban farmers. When the marketing chain is long, farmers become subject to greater price fluctuations. Therefore it is recommended that market information be provided closer to the source of production and the number of intermediaries along the chain be reduced. According to participants, the Internet and distance-learning through electronic means are ways that could be used to distribute information.

Information about UPA should also be provided to municipal officials in order for them to make good policy decisions. The first step is a census of urban farmers, including what they are producing, their motives and the methods being used. Information about environmental impacts and sensitive areas is also important for reducing contamination and improving management of environmental resources.

Examples were offered of small-scale projects designed to respond to some of the problems mentioned above. Many of the projects were funded by local or national NGOs and are aimed at increasing local capacity, improving technical knowledge, and providing essential inputs. These projects are often valuable and successful as long as the NGO is involved and as long as funding holds out. However, it is all too common that such community-based efforts fold when left in the hands of the local residents. It is this sustainability of interventions that needs to be considered in developing policy or private-sector solutions to the listed problems. Fortunately, counter-examples were given (from Brazil) demonstrating the eventual independence of UPA programmes that were begun with municipal assistance and survive with community support and participation only.


II. B. Health and Environment Group

The discussions in this working group focused on the assessment of the health and environmental impacts of urban agriculture and identification of effective measures to mitigate the risks and take advantage of the benefits of this activity. Health risks are created when food is produced using contaminated inputs that carry persistent pathogens which can harm humans and when unhygienic handling methods are used. Environmental risks are created when farming practices contaminate the environment, for instance by introducing toxic chemicals in an uncontrolled manner, or through poor management of livestock wastes.

Among the benefits of UPA are increased access to food for low income groups, supporting the minimum nutritional needs of the population, and improving diet due to increased fresh vegetable consumption. In some cities UPA can provide the major share of household food consumption. Discussion of these beneficial health effects were part of the discussions in the food security and nutrition group.

The health and environment group did not focus on the beneficial effects of UPA on the city environment (e.g. greening of the city, improved urban micro climate, enhanced recycling and reduced energy use). Rather, the conclusions here focus on assessment and mitigation of health and environmental risks of UPA. However, when preparing policy decisions on UPA, both positive and negative influences on health and city environment should be taken into account (as discussed in the planning workshop). This section is organised by type of risk arising from UPA, with a review of what the e-conference participants had to say about each.


Health Impacts


There is evidence that some human diseases can be transmitted from livestock to people during production, processing or consumption. Major zoonotic diseases include bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and salmonella. However, little research has been done on the specific risks of urban livestock keeping as compared to rural livestock rearing. There was little discussion of livestock and human health interactions during the conference.

Post harvest contamination: food handling and marketing

The distribution, handling and marketing of food are all potential sources of bacterial contamination for food from any source. Several case studies noted no significant additional contribution of contaminants at the market, compared with the level of contamination at the farm gate. However, the common practice of freshening market vegetables with water could not only increase the speed of rotting but may also cause surface contamination due to the poor quality water used. Provision of a fresh water tap at selling locations would improve the situation, but this is not always available at the informal neighbourhood markets. The focus should be on how to lessen the health risks by


The conference produced a lively debate about the impact of UPA on the risk of malaria. The effect of UPA on malaria cannot be generalised across all continents. It depends on the geographical and climatic factors that determine the distribution of disease vectors. Urban agriculture has the potential to increase malaria in certain areas when there is poor environmental management.

Ninety percent of the world's malaria occurs in Africa. The main mosquito vector is Anopheles gambiae. It breeds in temporary water pools that contain clean, sunlit and shallow standing water. These conditions for breeding sites are found in crop growing areas and can be created by UPA. They include borrow sites, poorly drained water surfaces (due to irrigation or interfering with natural drainage) and uncovered water tanks.

The type of crops grown and farming methods used in UPA determine to a large extent whether or not UPA increases malaria risks. The conditions for growing wet crops and forms of ridge cultivation (e.g. rice, sweet potato and yams) are favourable for the breeding of malaria mosquitoes. Cassava growing is only occasionally a problem, when it is grown in cultivation ridges in wet clay soil. In contrast, maize and banana crops, as well as tall grasses, present no particular malaria risk. The priorities of environmental health campaigns of many city authorities have often been at odds with the evidence. There are many examples where authorities have traditionally cleared grass, maize and banana crops around houses. They have also justified destruction of urban crops by saying that anopheles breed in leaf axils (like that of maize). The conference presented evidence that the axils of maize plants are never breeding sites for malaria or any other kind of mosquito. The malaria risks related to growing wet crops and forms of ridge cultivation occur in Africa but not in SE-Asia. This is because the two continents have different malaria vector Anopheles species.

During the e-conference it was felt that UPA should co-ordinate with malaria control efforts to encourage good environmental management practices, including filling in potential breeding sites, suitable crop selection, and planning good drainage of surface water.

Environmental impacts

The positive and negative effects of UPA on the environment (e.g. urban greening, micro climate improvement, urban habitat and biodiversity maintenance, soil erosion, soil and water contamination, waste disposal, odors and dust) have been discussed in all three working groups in some aspects.

It is important, that city planners be aware of both positive and negative effects as they create land use development plans. For example, research shows that maize and sweet potato cultivation in Harare increases run-off and (by 100- 200%), resulting in an increased risk of periodic flooding and siltation of water bodies. However, there are many low-tech . Simple indigenous water and soil conservation measures (e.g. the use of ridge and furrows) can mitigate against , flooding and silting. An active composting program will build up organic soil matter, which will also increase water holding capacity.

In areas where UPA is illegal and actively repressed it will be virtually impossible to take a long term perspective on soil management. As the cultivation is usually illegal there is no agricultural technical support, and farmers invest only a minimum of time and resources as there is no certainty of future land tenure.

Waste and wastewater re-use
As urban populations increase, the amount of waste and wastewater produced in cities is also increasing. Examples were cited of manure, compost and wastewater used for agriculture that is heavily polluted with total and faecal coliforms. Epidemiological evidence shows an increased risk of gastro-intestinal disease from using wastewater to irrigate certain crops, particularly those eaten raw. The use of wastewater can also lead to contamination of groundwater with bacteria exceeding WHO recommended levels.

Wastewater and waste should be used as sources of water and nutrients, but it is essential that this is balanced against the need to protect the health of farmers and consumers. At a policy level how do we approach this balance? Participants in the econference called for a co-ordinated and practical approach to waste water management and re- use, including three different strategies:

1. Treatment of the wastewater and sewage sludge. The difficulties posed are that a treatment technology should be used that is effective in eliminating pathogens but maintaining the nutrients, low in maintenance costs, and suitable for urban areas. For example, stabilisation ponds would be a suitable low cost technology but usually take up too much space in urban areas.

2. Farmer education on:

3. Education of food processors and consumers about risks. These methods include washing and properly cooking food to eliminate pathogens from food grown with wastewater and/or solid wastes.


Raw or anaerobically digested sewage can be used directly to fertilize fish pond water for fish food production. An alternative integrated biosystem approach uses the sewage to grow aquatic plants or algae in separate shallow basins. The aquatic biomass is then used as fish feed. This approach was thought to minimise the health risks.

Heavy metal contamination

UPA can be affected by heavy metals and thus affect human health in two ways:

1. Bio-accumulation in crops of heavy metals and toxic chemical content, e.g. crops cultivated on land polluted by industrial effluent. There is limited evidence regarding the extent of both acute and chronic health effects.

2. The impact of UPA on groundwater (e.g. pollution by agro-chemicals, or due to the extraction of large quantities of groundwater for irrigation which affects concentrations of elements in residual groundwater). There was little discussion in the conference about how to mitigate these risks.

In contrast to pathogenic contamination, the risk of heavy metals in wastewater used in UPA is less conclusive as few studies have examined this issue. The risk depends primarily on the upstream sources of pollution. The extent of industrial pollution in an area is an important factor. Case studies from Africa, Poland and Mexico were presented by participants showing that wastewater used in UPA contained both safe and unsafe levels of heavy metals.

There is also risk of heavy metal contamination when using compost made from urban waste. In Accra, the data available did not show any alarming concentrations. However, these were snapshot analyses from different years, thus a regular monitoring would be preferred. There was little discussion in the conference on how to mitigate the risks of heavy metal contamination.


II. C. UPA and Urban Planning Group

Planners' views of UPA

Urban planners tend to exclude agriculture from their sights. Agriculture is "by definition" not practiced in cities, it is often seen as "economically unimportant" or "a temporary phenomenon". Some urban planners in South Africa expressed the intriguing view that migrants from rural areas must adapt to the rules and ways of town where agriculture is by definition not practiced. Agricultural activities tend to be shifted to the outskirts of cities, far from markets and infrastructure, without analyzing economic and environmental effects and linkages to other sectors.

Usually there is no official authority dealing with informal agricultural activities. However, an increasing number of cities can be encountered that recognise the potential of UPA and have changed restrictive by-laws into regulating by-laws, support local UA initiatives and/or have started their own UA programmes. Horticulture is more accepted compared to livestock farming in cities.

Steps to integrate UPA in urban planning

Embedding UPA in sustainable urban development is socially just, environmentally sound, and economically viable. These beliefs expressed by farmers and others force urban administrators to review their anti-UPA planning principles. UPA often uses land prone to seasonal flooding, areas zoned for public open space, land reserves along roads and railway lines, land along power lines, as well as areas where no other land-use is possible or planned (river banks, brown fields, un-used open space around public buildings).

Other ways in which UPA is accepted as a component of urban land use include:

Practical experiences in integrating UPA into urban planning

North-South differences in UPA-Planning

There are obvious differences in the focus on UPA in developed and developing countries:

To outline these differences does not mean that problems in the South have to be treated as completely different from those in the North; on the contrary, learning from each other is possible and models that worked in the North might be important and transferable to the South and vice versa.


III. Putting UPA on the Policy Agenda

When the subject turned to policy solutions, the participants in the E-conference gave examples of places where they had seen innovative solutions to the barriers facing urban farmers. Some suggested that integrated solutions – such as integrated waste management and integrated pest management – are the keys to successful urban agriculture, along with organizing farmer cooperatives. Other solutions were very specific and narrowly-targeted, such as providing transportation subsidies for reaching farm plots, or providing spigots with fresh water at market and street food locations to reduce food safety problems.

This range of approaches was echoed by participants who insisted that solutions to urban agriculture problems cannot be uniform across cities, but must be designed to respond to the conditions faced in individual locations. Indeed, it was noted that policy should include different tools and targets for urban, peri-urban and rural agriculture because of their different needs and strengths. Suggestions regarding policy needs ranged from a minimalist approach to aggressive promotion – such as provision of land and other inputs. In light of the diversity of needs faced by cities, participants suggested a participatory approach to finding solutions to urban agriculture constraints.

This approach would place UPA in a broader context not only of urban food security but also of poverty alleviation, social cohesion, and ecological sustainability. Understanding UPA requires knowledge of the actors, their motivations, and their cultural backgrounds, as well as a general understanding of the local situation. The urban poor in developing countries are generally immobile and transport of goods and food is a major problem and often expensive. The urban poor cannot afford to buy the food ffor the price at which it is sold. Urban agriculture can be and has often been a response to crisis as reported for example from Russia. We should clearly distinguish between urban and peri-urban agriculture. Both show different characteristics, benefits and threats.

Policy makers, experts in specific fields, and people involved in UPA should all have the chance to participate in the development of strategic plans and programmes. It is very likely they will approach the issue from different perspectives. In order to contribute to sustainable city development UPA needs to be more than just agriculture that happens to be in or next to built-up areas. Embedding UPA in the greater context of sustainable urban development forces urban administrators to review their anti-UPA planning principles. Thus, in the Philippines, solid waste initially served as one entry point to UPA and over time created the chance "to modify efficiently the traditional hierarchical system of city management."

The institutional context of UPA

Participants expressed concerns that formal policy development would be detrimental to the illegal urban agriculture that exists in many cities. The land currently in use for farming by the poorest slum dwellers would be designated for other uses and the poor farmers would be forced out. Recent experience in several African cities shows that legalization can lead to urban agriculture becoming the preserve of middle-income, entrepreneurial men. In African cities in particular (or at least in East and Southern Africa) urban farmers include more women than men and most food is produced for subsistence consumption. The Dar-es-Salaam case has shown that the encouragement of UA as an urban land use has squeezed out the poor women subsistence farmers and encouraged larger, commercial production on undeveloped urban land. Urban planning for UA therefore should always examine the gender profile of urban farmers as well as taking a definite stand on alleviation of urban poverty through better food security for the urban poor.

Conversely, some contributors from sub-Saharan Africa argued for a broad strategy to include UPA as an important component of development plans. This should include examining all aspects such as finance, resource management, improving techniques, marketing and commercialization, land tenure, taxation, and food safety. In an even larger context, UPA can contribute to the welfare of people in small cities, thereby reducing the migration process from small towns to large cities. It is argued that only with such a comprehensive approach can a genuine improvement in food security be made.

It seems important to make UPA a more "official" or "formal" activity in and around cities. This is a basic requirement if UPA is to be integrated into urban planning processes. Little has been said on the role of institutions with respect to UPA. Here we see an important entry point into the discussion. As historical experience from Europe shows, institutionalisation of UPA has created more land security, participation of farmers in policy decisions, and involvement in the democratic process.

Priority for assistance to urban farmers should be given to credit and technical advice. It was suggested that market-oriented urban and peri-urban farmers were more likely to benefit from credit, market access, equipment for processing, and a labor force. Poor farmers, on the other hand, have greater need of seeds, inexpensive access and transportation to land, and technical advice. However, research in Kumasi, Ghana revealed that credit was a constraint felt by all farmers -- whether urban, peri-urban, or rural. Technical support for farmers to select and work with new varieties suitable for urban conditions and new rotations and crop associations should also be emphasized.

A lesson from Russia suggests that urban farmers can achieve important influence in the policy process through cooperative efforts; although it is always worth remembering that activities in a city derive from specific historical and economic conditions. The effectiveness of cooperative efforts has also been documented in research from Kenya. In these cases, poor farmers fought for specific needs they had identified (inputs, transportation subsidies) through organising themselves and identifying their priority needs, which spokespersons expressed to the municipal governments. Participants noted that urban agriculture can also motivate political activism from the poor or disempowered to demand fundamental rights to feed themselves through their own production, to become more aware of environmental conditions, and to do something about economic injustice.

The creation of urban farmer associations might be an important step toward a more participatory process of urban planning. UPA not only contributes food but also an element of urban habitat improvement and bio-cultural diversity. Civil society and participation of the urban population is a crucial point in the formulation of urban policies. One lesson learned from this conference is the need to battle for rights and that urban agriculture has to be negotiated just as any other city development issue.

The City of St Petersburg established an office of Horticulture and Gardening which co-ordinates plans for the development of urban agriculture with other departments including land use, veterinary inspection, environmental protection. In the Polish City of Gliwice, the Polish Ecological Club (an NGO) facilitates co-operation between local gardeners, research institutes and local government to create solutions to heavy metal contamination of fruit and vegetables due to industrial pollution in the area. This includes working with local government to provide educational programmes to residents; subsidising school and hospital budgets for the additional costs of buying organic fruit and vegetables, and providing education for gardeners on how to minimise risk. The club also collaborates with an environmental research institute to grade and map safe regions for cultivation, as well as assessing contamination by conducting soil, water and crop analyses.

In Israel, regional planning authorities define standards for recycling urban sewage, and for preventing industrial contamination of water systems. Local Israeli authorities are involved in recycling the urban sewage and turning organic waste materials into compost for local farmers. In Accra, Ghana the value of urban food production has been recognised with the creation of a department of urban agriculture, but this sometimes conflicts with local by-laws which restrict UPA.

Many city authorities have policies or laws to restrict the use of waste water for certain crops mainly to protect consumers. In reality they are poorly enforced, and waste water is widely used as an essential source of water and nutrients outside these guidelines. In parts of Africa there is institutional opposition to urban agriculture. In Lusaka, Zambia politicians have tried to create federal laws preventing urban agriculture based on the incorrect assertion that maize growing increases the malaria risk. In Harare, Zimbabwe UPA has traditionally been banned. As it is illegal, no policy measures have been introduced to address the environmental or health risks of UPA. Under pressure from residents the municipal authorities have backed down from implementing the ban but there is still no agreement for effective management of UPA.

It is only through co-operation between health authorities, agriculturists and land use planners that appropriate environmental management strategies can be developed to manage the health risks related to UPA. This may include the involvement of government agencies to monitor water, soil and waste water quality, collaboration with malaria control programmes as well as agricultural extension programmes to educate farmers.

Training, education, extension and information:

The need for education and training of UPA practitioners was a recurring theme throughout the conference. Many urban farmers are not aware of the health risks of using waste water, and simple risk reduction strategies that they can employ. It was felt that there is a need for education about the potential health risks of UPA and waste re-use, and training in good agricultural techniques including composting, irrigation and drainage, and crop selection for different water qualities. The lack of training has an impact on UPA. In West Bengal, a loss of local skills regarding traditional wetland management can be observed due to the rapid disappearance of such habitats.

In Harare it is felt that loss of local farming techniques has led to an increase in erosion and environmental damage. It is felt that producer and consumer education is a very important and cost effective approach to reducing negative health impacts.

The role of education and information is underestimated. School gardens, garden exhibitions, educational material (books, videos, press releases, etc.) are important means to create awareness of UPA in the public and among policy makers. Changes in the extension approaches are essential to ensure safe food production in urban and peri-urban environments. In Dar es Salaam, the Urban Vegetable Promotion Project supports the government extension structure in the city to deliver services directly to urban farmers. A goal is the implementation of suitable and effective agricultural extension guidelines to limit negative environmental impacts and maximise gains. UPA needs more training and support than traditional farming, especially with respect to environmental questions in and around cities.

Planning and planning tools:

The conference expressed the need for comparative studies (e.g. Samoa compared to Caribbean Islands) to better understand planning procedures and tools. UPA needs to be placed in the context of a broad understanding of large community food systems. We need indicators to understand the multiple roles of UPA, and systems for monitoring and certification of food produced.

The use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for integration of UPA in urban planning is seen as an important tool for planning but an obstacle as well because of high purchasing and maintenance costs. However, simple GIS are now becoming affordable. Such systems avoid duplication of efforts among different interests, making integrated planning possible through a central urban information source. Most low-cost GIS systems are compatible with the expensive ones today.

The use of Remote Sensing is another option for data-gathering. Simple approaches, such as the use of aerial photography, form another option -- although not cheap. Such methods must be accompanied by field work and data collection. This would also provide epidemiological information about human diseases, and provide improved understanding of distribution of food, social services, etc. In a broader context GIS can be used to map urban food systems and rural-peri urban-urban linkages.


IV. Some Experiences from the field and research presented

South Africa: Integration of agriculture in urban planning in Port Elizabeth and Kimberley for both vegetable production and small scale animal husbandry.

Durban: Public open space and green belt management through urban agriculture. Funded by Provincial Recreational Council. Council provides a democratic procedure for deciding on use of the land.

Dar es Salaam: The Urban Vegetable Promotion Project works with urban gardeners (men and women, mainly low-income groups) and about 70 government extension workers and their superiors in more than 40 wards in the city to improve vegetable production in the inner city of Dar es Salaam. Community building, formation of farmers groups, training and extension for farmer groups and credit facilities are major project components.

Mali: Project is looking into development of UPA in relation to urban waste management in West Africa.

Israel and Palestine: Bio-intensive urban vegetable garden in Jerusalem, Eco-farm in West-Bank, plus educational workshops and activities.

Samoa: Demonstration and training site.

Bangladesh: Mirzapur Farm, (since 1985). Three stabilisation ponds from a failed project for treating sewage were converted into fish ponds. Raw sewage (125-270 m3 / day) from a community of about 3000 inhabitants collects at a sedimentation pond before the wastewater (containing 45,700 cfu/ml total coliform) is pumped into a plug-flow canal covered with duckweed. It takes 22 days to reach the outlet of the canal and the effluent falls within the World Health Organisation (WHO) standard for water discharges. The resulting sludge and water is used for growing bananas.

Quito: The Urban Management Project (UMP) signed an agreement with the Municipality of Quito to study the incorporation of UA into urban planning. The following action is planned: - Study the incorporation of UPA in the Strategic and Land Use Plan Quito 2020, starting with identification of different types of land and water uses and agricultural potential. - Identify present and potential types of UPA for each land use and identify the interventions necessary to develop these systems in a sustainable way (training, technical assistance, organisation, credit, marketing etc.). - GIS will be used in creating and analysing land use maps - Propose norms/regulations/incentives for productive use of municipal and private terrains in an inner-city area in Quito (pilot area). - The Department of Planning will consider how to institutionalise UPA in municipal policy making and relevant agencies (Planning, Economic Development, Parks and Gardens) - The activities will be shared with and commented upon by the UMP City Working Group on Urban Agriculture and Food Security of 35 cities.

Belem: The municipality of Belém and the Pará state government sponsor and strongly support a green belt development area, on public land located in the Northern islands of Outeiro and Mosqueiro, where the growing of vegetables and fruit, and the raising of chickens and ducks are widely stimulated. The municipal government has resettled a few entire families on public land, given them inputs, technical assistance and continues to monitor their work. In the S. Paulo state town of Presidente Prudente, the municipality has been engaged in a project called "Feed Prudente". Agriculture related municipal services stimulate the use of non-built plots by low-income families for vegetable gardens, especially because the municipality lacks funds to clean and maintain those public areas. They also give legal advice to the families that want to farm private land, securing rent contracts with the owners. Additionally, extension services lend or give away inputs such as ploughs, seeds and water pumps.

St.Petersburg: St-Petersburg Urban Gardening Club. The majority of the urban farmers are united in gardening companies and dacha cooperative societies. With help of the local authorities the infrastructure of the dacha complexes (transmission line, roads, shops) is being improved. This includes special bus and suburban train routes timed for seasonal agricultural needs. Pensioners can travel free-of-charge on the urban budget special line. The city agricultural wholesaler centres are organised and they are ready to buy produce from gardeners that they do not want to sell themselves. Five percent of the selling area of all food market places is reserved for the urban farmers.

North America: Native Crops Project, Greater Victoria, British Columbia, proposes that unique and value-added products can be promoted by farming with native plant species that were traditionally used by First Nations as food sources. With the added implementation of a demonstration and ethno-botanical garden, educational and interpretive sessions can discuss the benefits, agricultural uses, and cultural history of native site-adapted plants.

V. Actions recommended by e-conference participants:

Information Needs

Organisational Needs

Policy Development Needs


Appendix 1: Papers submitted to the conference 3


Food Security and Nutrition:

Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems in West African Cities. Yemi Akinbamij, International Trypanotolerance Centre in Banjul, The Gambia.

La cría de cerdos en asentamientos irregulares: Una experiencia uruguaya de Agricultura Urbana. Alain Santandreu, Gustavo Castro and Fernando Ronca, Departamento de Salud Ambiental - Facultad de Veterinaria. Universidad de la República. Montevideo, Uruguay.

UPA and Food Security in Bamako. Hallassy Sidibé, SNV-Mali, Bamako, Mali.

PUA in the Northwest of Russia: Preliminary Analysis of the Findings. Oleg Moldakov, St-Petersburg Urban Gardening Club.


Health and Environment:

The Health Impacts of Peri-urban Natural Resource Development. Karen Lock and Martin Birley.

City Food and Health in Brazil. Isabel Maria Madaleno, Instituto de Investigaçao Científica Tropical, Lisbon, Portugal.

Protección Sanitaria en el Uso de Aguas Residuales y Lodos de Plantas de Tratamiento. Guillermo León Suematsu, CEPIS, Lima, Peru.

Cases on safe use of sewage for fertilisation. Jacky Foo (Coordinator-IBSnet)

Postings on malaria endemicity in West and central Africa. Thomas Teuscher, Health Research Consortium, Bouake, Cote d'Ivoire.

Action plan on urban food and nutrition from WHO-Europe. Aileen Robertson, WHO Nutrition, Copenhagen, Denmark.



Peri-urban agriculture near Paris. Manuel Béguier, Conseil Régional d'Ile-de-France, DECV, Paris, France and D. Pujol, Direction Régionale de l'Agriculture et la Forêt d'Ile de France, CACHAN, France.

City farming and sustainability from the children's perspective. Oliver Ginsberg, BdJA educational consultant, Berlin.

Urban Agriculture as the Combination of Two 'Impossible' though Sustainable Trends. Leo van den Berg, ALTERRA Green World Research, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands.

Defining Periurban: Understanding Rural-Urban Linkages and Their Connection to Institutional Contexts. David L. Iaquinta, Nebraska Wesleyan University and Axel W. Drescher, University of Freiburg, Germany.

Kommunale Agrarpolitik: Wandlungen, Motive und Chancen am Beispiel von Landkreisen und Großstädten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frieder Thomas, University of Kassel, Germany.

Agriculture as a Sustainable Use of Urban Land. Joe Nasr, The Urban Agriculture Network, Washington, D.C., USA.

Urban Agriculture as a Concept in Urban Planning in South Africa: Example from Port Elizabeth. Lena Jarlöv, Dalarana Research Institute, Falun, Sweden.

We are a part of the earth and the earth is a part of us. Aileen Robertson, World Health Organization, WHO-DK, Kopenhagen.

Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States. Jerry Kaufman and Martin Bailkey, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, USA.

Use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for mapping urban agricultural activities and open space in cities. Stefan Dongus & Axel Drescher, University of Freiburg, Germany.


Appendix 2: Contacts/Participants


First Name Surname Affiliation



D Aalders   CAN p
Gulia Abbate ENEA, Nat. Agency for Energy, Techn. and the Env.



Jovita Abensur Rios IMAGEN Educativa PER f
Michael Ableman Center For Urban Agriculture USA f
Martin Adam University of Greenwich GBR f
John Afele Ontario Agric. College, University of Guelph CAN f
Clarita Aganon Central Luzon State University PHL f
Teotimo Aganon Central Luzon State University PHL f
Yemi Akinbamijo   Gambia  
Marta Alcocer   MEX  
Andres Alencastre Calderon Asociacion Ecociudad PER fhp
? Alexandre   FRA  
Joerg Amend German Development Cooperation (GTZ)


Nicole Anami   ? pf
Jamie Anderson   ? fh
Marcela Regina Andre Lopez   MEX pf
Michel Ansay Institut de la Vie BEL h
Vladimir Arana CARE, ISOCARP PER pfh
Adriana Aranha Secr. de Abastecimento e Segurança Alimentar BRA f
Teti Argo ITB IDN p
Julio M Arias School for Field Studies CRI pfh
Jesus Arias Chavez   MEX p
Francisco Janvier Arroyo y Galvan Duque institute for training and research in agroecology MEX hpf
Peter Atkins University of Durham GBR f
? Austin   ? hpf
Héctor Avila Sanchez CRIM-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México MEX p
Frolan Aya Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Michael Ayala Ayala Coordinadora Ecuatoriana de Agroecología ECU f
Antoaneta Yoveva Sustainable World Foundation BUL p
Roberto Azofeifa Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería CRI f
B Bacon   ? h
Nurwati Badarulzaman University MYS p
Martin Bailkey Dep. of Landscape Architecture, Univ of Wisconsin USA p
Doyle Baker FAO Farm Management and Prod. Econ. Service ITA f
Bachtar Bakrie Agency for Agricultural Research and Dev.; Dep of Agr. IDN phf
Herb Barbolet FarmFolk/CityFolk CAN fhp
David Barkin Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana MEX fh
Carlos Barrios Napurí Instituto CRECIMIENTO PER f
Hugh Bartling   ? hp
F Basket   ? hpf
J Batac   PHL batacj0@bl; p
Wilfried O. Baudoin FAO ITA f
Bettina Baumgartner   CH fhp
Ruvicyn Bayot Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Manuel Beguier Regional Council FRA fhp
Ann Bellows   USA hpf
Johan Bentinck   NLD p
Laura Berman FoodShare Toronto CAN p
Anke Bielfeldt   DEU  
Marlou Bijlsma Inst. of Food Nutrition and Family Sc., Univ. of Zimbabwe ZW


Georgette Bilonda Mpenda UNESCO COG f
Francisco Blanco Calderón FUNDAVER MEX p
Micaela Bocanegra Rodríguez   MEX


Iaala Boulbir direction de l'urbanisme DZA p
Manon Boulianne Université du Québec à Hull CAN f
Tanya Bowyer-Bower Dep of Geography. SOAS, Univ. of London fhp  
Peggy Bradley Institute for Simplified Hydroponics USA p
Kelli Brew   ? f
Michael Brewster   ? p
Julian Briz Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ESP p
Berend Brock University of Amsterdam NLD hp
Robert Brook University of Wales, Bangor GBR f
Jonathan Brown CitySeeds USA f
Allison Brown   ? f
Wietse Bruinsma ETC NLD hfp
Maria Bruno Consejo Escolar ARG h
Charles Buberwa private TZA h
Ulrich Buechsenschuetz FU Berlin DEU hp
Tom Bulten   ? hpf
S.W. Bunting   GBR f
John A Butterworth Natural Resources Institute, Univ. of Greenwich GBR hpf
Teresa Calderon FAO ITA hf
Paul Calvert Self Employed IND hpf
Horacio Campana   ARG h
Hans Carlier   NLD f
Annika Carlsson-kanayma ESRG SWE f
Nair Rocio Carrasco Sanez CEPREN PER fh
Olivia Carrion Sanut A.C. ? ph
Gustavo Castro Facultad de Veterinaria (Universidad de la Republica)


Angela Caudle   USA p
Steve Cavanaugh   ? f
Hazett Cervantes Morales CICEANA MEX pf
Gasper Chambi Private Company TZA h
Ould Dehah Cheikh Mohamed El Hafed Universite de Nouakchott MRT f
Mona Chhabra   GBR hp
Karem Chicata IMAGEN Educativa PER p
Horacio Chicata Blancas IMAGEN Educativa PER h
Oumar Cisse Université de Montréal SN ph
Paul Clark   ? hpf
J Coate   ? hf
Mary Cockram NGO USA  
Kevin Cook University of Surrey, Royal Geographical Society GBR f
Rodger Cooley Heifer Project International USA f
Ralph Coolman Rutgers University USA pfh
Michael Corbin Malaspina University & British Columbia Inst. of Technolgy CAN agrologic& f
Ana Cordova Cornell University USA hpf
Gez Cornish HR Wallingford Ltd GBR f
Sean Cosgrove Toronto Food Policy Council CAN p
Helen Costello   ? f
Monique Cote Universite de Montreal CAN hpf
Justine Coulson   GBR  
John Cropper   ? fhp
Simeon Crucido   PHL f
Silvia Patricia Cruzatt CGIAR-International Potato Center PER hf
John Curry FAO ITA? f
Parviz Dabir-Alai   GBR p
An Dang Thi Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR) VNM h
Andres Dasso   PER f
Esther Day American Farmland Trust USA h
Edemir de Carvalho Universidade Estadual Paulista BRA p
Kirk de Ford North-West Educational Laboratory USA hp
Kirk de Ford Tabor Tilth Urban Farm USA h
Pieter de Necker Dep. of Geogr. and Env. Studies, Univ. of Stellenbosch SAF hpf
Marc de Staercke european federation of city farms BEL fh
Camille de Stoop Environmental Development Action (ENDA) ETH hf
Henk de Zeeuw ETC NLD hpf
Bernd Decker UNCHS KEN p
Laura Declementi Ministry of Foreign Affairs ITA f
Leoncia Del Mar Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Mamadou Boye Diallo IRAG/DNE GIN f
Stefan Dongus   DEU p
Djibril Doucouré Institut Africain de Gestion Urbaine SEN p
Elizabeth Dowler University of Warwick, UK GBR h
Pay Drechsel IBSRAM GHA hf
Axel Drescher UNI Freiburg DEU hfp
Marielle Dubbeling Urban Management Programme- UMP-LAC ECU fph
Nadine Dulac   NLD fp
Mihail Dumitru RISSA Rumania    
Jaime Durango FAO ITA? f
Michael Dutton University of Natal ZAF f
Derek Eaton Wageningen University and Research Centre NLD hp
Josilien Edouard TECSULT International CAN f
Peter Edwards   GBR f
Florence Egal Economic and Social Department, FAO ITA hfp
Freda Eisennberg Ferrandino & Associates Inc. USA p
Shimshon P. Elazar   CAN f
Christina Engfeldt FAO/GII ITA p
Carl Erickson Solar Ice Company USA f
Walter Fabietti   ITA p
Safietou Toure Fall ISRA SEN fh
Vilda Figueroa   CUB f
André G. Fleury Ecole Nationale Supérieure du Paysage FRA pf
Dick, Foeken African Studies Centre NLD f
Jacky Foo Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm SWE phf
Jose Foronda Municipality of Marilao PHL f
  Foster-Marshall   ?  
Ankie Frantzen UNDP MRT hp
Evan Fraser University of British Columbia CAN fhp
Antígona Garcia Sancho Fundación Terra ESP p
James Garrett IFPRI USA fhp
Mandiou Gassama CEK Kala Saba MLI fph
John Gathecha UNDCP KEN h
Michelle Gauthier FAO ITA hpf
H.J. Gibbon Natural Resources Institute UK hp
Oliver Ginsberg BdJA DEU p
Beatriz Giobellina   ARG hpf
Giovanni Giovanni   ITA fh
Sofia Rosio Godomar UN Office Humanitarian Co-ordination in Iraq (UNOHCI) IRQ hpf
Alberto Gómez Perazzoli   URY h
Sergio Gonzalez Colegio de Postgraduados MEX phf
Franz Greif Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics, Vienna AUT p
Johan Groot Nibbelink Delft University of Technology NLD p
E. Fallou Gueye Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research (ISRA) SEN hpf
Ndèye Fatou Gueye Institut Africain de Gestion Urbaine SEN h
Bekithemba Gumbo Civil Eng. University of Zimbabwe; IHE-Delft Zimbabwe pfh
Kristina Gunnarsson   SWE fhp
Andressa Gutierrez Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
David Hall   ? f
Jangkung HandoyoMulyo   ? pf
Klara Hansen ICLEI DEU f
Anna Hardman M. I.T. Dept of Urban Studies and Planning USA p
Chris Hardwicke   ? hpf
Anuradha Harinaravan   ? f
Phil Harris Henry Doubleday Research Association GBR f
Siegfried Heinz   DEU fh
Hank Herrera NorthEast Neighborhood Alliance USA fph
Nelson Herrera Izurieta   ECU f
Tera Hoffman Portland State University USA f
Denis Hoffmann FAO ITA? hpf
Robert J. Holmer Xavier University College of Agriculture PHL f
Georgina Holt University of Reading GBR f
Robert Home University of East London GBR p
L Horriga   ? hf
Patricia Howard-Borjas   NLD  
Joe Howe university of manchester GBR p
Ellen Huntley Florida Organic Growers USA h
Zubaida Hussain   PAK h
David L Iaquinta Department of Sociology, Nebraska Wesleyan Univ. USA p
Wadembere Ismail Universiti Sains Malaysia Malaysia p
Petra Jacobi GTZ TZA p
Jan Andries Jacobs Faculty of Military Science, University of Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA


Lena Jarlöv Dalarna Research Institute SWE fph
Lionel Jayanetti   GBR f
Sana Jelassi   TZA hpf
H Joseph   ? f
Myra Jovellana Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Alfredo Julian   MEX f
Robert Kabbert humboldt university DEU  
Jones Kabwoto Private Company TZA h
Mary Rose Kaczorowski National Congress of Neighborhood Women USA f
Victor Kadima Wa Kadima UNESCO COG h
Carmencita Kagaoan Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Tamala Tonga Kambikambi University of Zambia ZMB fh
Faustin Kamuzora IDM Mzumbe TZA f
Mohammad Karaan University of Stellenbosch ZAF f
Gerry Kasten   CAN  
Raanan Katzir Min. of Agr. ISR fhp
Eli Kaufman   ISR hpf
Jerry Kaufman university of Wisconsin-Madison USA p
Richard Kellems Brigham Young University USA f
Jay Kelly Rutgers University USA h
T Kerr   ? hpf
Sanjay Kharod   ? f
Suzan Kiango Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives TZA f
Henri Kibaka Luwangu UNESCO COG p
Johan Kieft   ?  
Neeltje Christina Kielen FAO Land and Water Management Division      
Benjamin Kiersch FAO Land and Water Management Division      
? Kipp   ? h
Naomi Klaas   CAN  
Cecile Knai WHO DNK f
Fiona Knight Ontario Public Health Association CAN f
Mustafa Koc Centre for Studies in Food Security CAN f
Ufuk Cem Komsu   TUR h
Guido Kuchelmeister TREE CITY DEU hp
Dagmar KUNZE FAO-Regional Office for Africa GHA f
Josephat Kyaruzi Private Company TZA h
Sylvie Lacroux UN Centre for Human Settlements UNCHS(Habitat) KEN p
Jude Ray Laguna Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Anne-Maj Lahdenpera UNCHS KEN fph
Wordsworth Larbi   GHA p
Steven Larrick University of Nebraska Lincoln USA hpf
Andrea Lasker University of Wisconsin - Madison USA ph
J Lauderdale   ? f
Jean-Charles Le Vallee World Bank CAN hf
Diana Lee-Smith United Nations (UNCHS, Habitat) KEN p
Michael Levenston   CAN  
Maren Lieberum   Zimbab f
Jo Lines London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine GBR h
D Lippoldt   ? f
Kenneth Lo   ? f
Karen Lock London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine GBR h
Bernard Lohr ICIPE ? f
Frank Lohrberg University Stutgart DEU p
Anan Lololi MSc Student Environmental Studies Food security CAN f
Charlie London   ? p
Noreen Lopez Martineau Environmental Studies Centre GBR h
Ernesto Lovato   ECU hpf
W Lozano   ? hf
Joyce Luma   ? f
Judith C.N. Lungu School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zambia Zambia h
Duncan Macqueen Natural Resources International Ltd GBR hp
Isabel Maria Freire Madaleno Instituto de Investigacao Cientifica Tropical- CEPTA fh  
Carlos Madera Instituto Cinara-Universidad del Valle COL f
L.C. Malaba Div. of Nutrition, Dep. of Biochemistry, Univ. of Zimbabwe h  
Silvana Mariani Técnico ARG fh
Robin Marsh University of California, Berkeley USA f
Adrienne Martin   GBR p
Manuel Martinez FAO ITA f
Paula Mascarenhas Universidade do Minho PRT h
Lun Mateo Central Luzon State University PHL f
Kosta Mathey TRIALOG DEU fhp
Peter Matlon UNDP USA hpf
Dan Maxwell   KEN pfh
Rosa Mba Nsue FAO GNQ p
Beacon Mbiba University GBR fhp
David McCall North End Community Gardening Association CAN f
Yenny Melgar CIED PER f
Marcel Mengelers RIKILT NLD h
Gunther Merzthal IPES PER hpf
David Midmore Central Queensland University ?  
Malongo Mlozi University TZA fh
Oleg Moldakov St-Petersburg Urban Gardening Club RUS fhp
Elham Monsef Safe the Children UK ETH f
Jennifer Moody   ? pfh
Luis Morante Alvarado Colegio de Ingenieros del Peru PER  
Joaquin Moura   BRA hfp
Pauke Moustier CIRAD FRA f
Bilonda Mpenda UNESCO COG f
Pia K. Muchaal International Development Research Centre CAN h
Edwin Mugerezi Private Company TZA h
Michael Muleba CARE International ZMB f
Emmanuel Mutale Bartlett School of Planning, University College London GBR


Paul Muwowo Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries ZMB fph
Joe Nasr The Urban Agriculture Network USA fhp
Hermilio Navarro-Garza Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas MEX h
Jenyfer Neumann Univ. of British Columbia, Sust. Dev. Research Institute CAN fhp
Thi Thu Ba Nguyen FAO Vietnam VNM h
Thinh Nguyen Duc Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources VNM h
Seydou Niang IFAN Ch. Diop SEN h
Lucy Nichol Oxford Brookes University GBR p
Farshad Nourian   ? p
Rachel Nugent FAO ITA hfp
Fiona Nunan University of Birmingham, International Devel. Dep. GBR, h
Yolande Nzou   GBR hpf
Christine Oakley   ?  
K Obusu-Mensah   CAN  
Gretchen Ocampo Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL, f
Adedayo Ogunmokun University of Namibia NAM h
Nelima Okhoya   ITA f
Thor Orig Manila Bulletin Publishing Corportation PHL hpf
Nicoline Oudwater Natural Resources Institute GBR  
Harrison kwach Ouma   KEN h
Kofi Owusu-Daaku Dep. of Biol. Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah Univ.    


Duodoluwa Oyedele Obafemi Awolowo University, Ife Ife NGA h
Opoku Pabi   GHA hp
Edwin Palacios Hilario ALPA PER p
A Palme   ? f
Deep Narayan Pandey Indian Institute of Forest Management IND fh
Rene Parenteau School of Urban Planning, University of Montreal


Enrique Parets   CUB hp
Neha Patel Portland Community Gardens, Oregon State Univ. USA fh
Hartmut Paulsen Deutsche Welthungerhilfe/Agro Acción Alemana PER f
Mirtha Paz   PER fh
Robert Pederson 6 a Day/The Danish Cancer Society DNK hf
J Pender   GBR hp
Walter Alberto Pengue GEPAMA - Center for Advanced Studies - UBA ARG p
Enrique Perez-Gutierrez Interamerican Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture

CRI hpf
Arturo Perez-Vazquez Imperial College GBR f
D Peters International Potato Centre (CIP) VNM,  
James Petts   GBR fhp
Danilo Pezo   ? f
Josephine Pingco Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Rafael L. Pinto Facultad de Agronomia de la Univ. de Buenos Aires ARG f
John Poling Community ConneXion USA h
Ana Maria Ponce CIP/Condesan PER f
Fe Porciuncula Central Luzon State University PHL f
Marcelo Precoppe Michigan State University USA h
Reg Preston   ? hf
Jorge Price IPES PER hpf
Wiryono Raharjo Universitas Islam Indonesia IDN p
M. Ataur Rahman   CAN  
Carole Rakodi Dep. Of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff Univ. GBR hpf
Yolanda Ramírez Villacorta   PER


Fiona Ramsey UNDP-UNCHS-Worldbank Programme Cote d'Ivoire p
KV Padmanabha Rao   IND hpf
Alexandre Repetti Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) CHE hp
Stefan Reyburn   ? p
Caspian Richards   GBR  
Juergen Richter DSE DEU hpf
Paul Riethmuller   CAN  
Salvacion Ritual Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Juan Rivera University GBR f
Wayne Roberts Toronto Food Policy Organization, City of Toronto CAN hpf
Aileen Robertson World Health Organization, UN DEN pfh
Philippa Robertson FAO ITA? f
Jesse Robertson-DuBois American Farmland Trust USA p
Ruben Rodriguez Flores CEPIS/OPS/OMS PER rrodrigu@cepis.ops-oms p
Jorge Celso Rodríguez Sánchez UNIVERSIDA DEARTH CRI h
Jordi Romero Lengua Fundación Terra ESP f
Marlene Roy International Institute for Sustainable Development CAN p
Enrique Rubio   URY hp
Laura Russo FAO ITA hpf
Irene Sadowski   ? f
Alejandro Salazar Universidad Catolica de Chile FRA f
Laura Saldivar-Tanaka Cornell USA f
Hugo Sanchez Guerrero Universidad Nacional COL f
Digna Sandoval Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Juana Sandoval Mendoza Consultoría para una Planeación Altern, A.C. COPAL MEX fp
Alain Santandreu Centro Latino Americano de Ecología Social URY phf
Mary Agnes Sastrillo Bureau of Agricultural Research PHL f
Doralice Sátyro Maia Universidade Federal da Paraíba BRA f
Camillus J Sawio Univ. of Dar es Salaam, Dep. of Geography TZA p
Ron Sawyer Sarar Transformacion MEX f
? Schalker   ? f
Janine Schonwald Técnica de proyecto ARG hf
William Seiders FAO ITA f
Eugénio Sequeira Liga para a Protecção da Natureza - LPN- Portugal PRT p
Brad Shapansky   CAN f
Annie Shaw ECHO (Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization) USA pf
David Shiffert Eagle Heights Community Gardens, Univ. of Wisconsin USA f
Issa Sidibe CIRDES BFS hpf
Hallassy Sidibe SNV - Mali MLI f
P&C Siersma   ? p
Michael Simmons   USA  
Brian Simpson   CAN  
Ian Sinclair University of NSW AUS p
Lucio Jose Siqueira Laura Andrade Foundation BRA pfh
Jessica Sisco   ? p
Susan Smalley Michigan State University USA hpf
Jac Smit TUAN USA p
Alejandro R. Socorro Castro Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Cienfuegos CUBA AGROPEC@UCF.EDU.CU


Michael Sofer Tel-Aviv University ISR f
Ejia Soini ICRAF ? f
Cosmas Sokoni University of Dar es Salaam TZA fhp
Paul Sommers Cal. State University, Pomona ? f
R Soto   ? h
Sylvain Souchaud Migrinter migrations internat. espaces et societes FRA f
Eduardo Spiaggi   ARG hp
Carolyn Stephens Environmental Epidemiology Unit, LSHTM London GBR  
Heather Stouder   ? pf
Muriel Strand   CAN hpf
Jay Sweta   ? p
Maurico Teixeira Banco do Nordeste BRA hpf
Lindsay Telfer York University CAN hp
Lea Tenore Faculty of Architecture, "D'Annunzio" University IT


Raúl Terrile Centro de Estudios de Producciones Agroecológicas ARG h
Thomas Teuscher University DEU fhp
Frieder Thomas Fachbereich Stadt- und Landschaftsplan., Univ. Kassel DEU hp
Kevin Thomas Leeds Metropolitan University GBR p
Eric Thys Institute for Tropical medicine BEL f
Irene Tinker City and Regional Planning, Univ. of California USA


Conny Toornstra   BOL p
Vera Top   ? f
Alidji Toure   MLI p
Serge Treche Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement (IRD) FRANCE


Louis Tremante University of Chicago USA fhp
Roberto Ugas Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina PER hf
Arine Valstar FAO Food and Nutrition Division ITA fhp
Leo Van den Berg Alterra, Wageningen University and Research Centre NLD phf
Annoek Van den Wijngaart FAO Regional office THA f
Marianne Van Dorp International Agricultural Centre (IAC) NLD hf
Rene Van Veenhuizen ETC NLD p
Katrien Van't Hooft ETC NLD h
Raul Vera Catholic University of Chili ? f
Colido Vieira Governo PRT f
Leonidas Villalobos   ARG f
Eduardo Villamor   USA f
Hector Villaverde   URY fph
Hermann Waibel UNI Hannover DEU f
Robert Waldrop Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House USA fhp
David Ward FAO Animal Production and Health Division      
Heleen Weeda Centro Boliviano de Estudios Multidisciplinarios BOLIVIA


Gerda Wekerle Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University CAN


JW Whistle none USA f
Ruth Whyte LifeCycles Project Society CAN f
Wilko Willemsen ETC-ILEIA NLD p
Cathy Wirth   ? hpf
Anke Witzel   DEU fp
Gisele Yasmeen University of British Columbia & Agor Associates CAN ph
Tiffany Yim   ? p
Cai Yi-Zhong   CHN f
Sansan Youl INERA Burkina faso BFA f
Erika Zain El Din Fac. de Agronomía- Univ. Nacional de Tucumán hp
Martin Zaltron LMC AUS  
Carlos A Zelaya FAO-Honduras HON f
Robin Zimbler UNC - Chapel Hill ? p
Corrie Zoll Philips Environment, Transportation, Community USA hpf
Jean Zoundi INERA BFS f
  ?   ? hpf
  ?   ? hpf
  ?   ? h
  ? Espacio de Salud AC ? hpf
  ? FAO-Mali MLI f
  ? FAO-Vietnam VNM h
  ?   ? hpf
  ? Cornell University USA f
  ?   ? ?
  ?   ? hpf
  ?   ? hpf
  ?   ? f
  ?   CHE hpf
  ?   PER f
  ?   ? f
  ? UNICEF ? hf
  ?   SEN f
  ? UDEP ? ph
  ?   Uganda    
  ? Tel-Aviv University ? h
  ?   MEX  

1 University of Freiburg, Germany, U.N. FAO, and Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture and Forestry at ETC-Netherlands, respectively. Co-moderators were Karen Lock, Visiting research fellow, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK , and Florence Egal, FAO 2 More information on the Havana workshop (papers and poster presentations) is available at 3 All these papers are available at

Last Updated on 09/01/01