Contributions to the Discussion

Contributions AUGUST 21 - 24, 2000

From: Jean Zoundi [zoundi@hotmail.com]
Sent: 20 August 2000 16:54
To: urban-food-l@mailserv.fao.org
Cc: urban-health-l@mailserv.fao.org; urban-planning-l@mailserv.fao.org
Subject: Comments on session 1

Moderator's Note: The author is Dr Jean Sibiri ZOUNDI, Animal Scientist, Institue for Environment and Agricultural Research (INERA).

La situation faite dans la note introductive decrit clairement la situation de l'AUP et des son impact dans la securite alimentaire des zones urbaine. En rapport avec cette premiere session, quelques commentaires peuvent etre faits :

1. Les acteurs impliques dans l'AUP et leurs motivations

De notre petite experience dans l'analyse de l'AUP, il apparait que la plus part des acteurs impliques ont des motivations economiques ; il s'agit ici de faire du " business " et non de la subsistance comme dans les zones rurales. En fonction des types de production et du niveau d'investissement requis, il y a bien sur differentes categories impliquees :
(i) les femmes pour certaines activites de production maraicheres autour des retenues d'eau par exemples - il s'agit le plus souvent d'activites necesitant tres peu d'investissement ;
(ii) les operateurs economiques (commercants et autres acteurs professionnels) pour certaines activites a fort investissements (elevages intensifs : lait, viande, oeufs,... ; ...) De la production a la consommation, il convient cependant de relever le role joue par les intermediaires qui font de l'AUP une systeme economique ou chaque acteur a son role. Une etude recente que nous avons conduite sur l'approvisonnement de la ville de Ouagadougou en viande de volaille montre que l'AUP mobilise beaucoup d'intermediaires. Le role de l'AUP dans la vie economique d'une ville demeure cependant tres peu elucidee (les retombees sur le secteur economique informelle, le developpement des petites unites de transformation,...). Je pense que des investigations dans le domaine pourrait fournir des elements precieux aux decideurs des poliques dans les villes. Ce n'est que par la que l'on peut induire des politiques favorables a l'AUP.

2. Le consommateurs des produits de l'AUP ?

D'une maniere generale, toute la population urbaine est concernee, mais avec des degres d'acces variables selon les categories sociales et les habitudes alimentaires. Quelle que soit la couche sociale, tout le monde est concerne par la consommation des legumes par exemple, ce qui n'est pas le cas pour certains produits comme les oeufs ou le lait,...

3. Les produits offrant le meilleur potentiel

Un des facteurs cles determinants la production en zone urbaine est l'espace. La plupart de nos villes sont saturees et manques d'espaces. Cette situation favorise ainsi les " Productions Hors-Sol " capables de valoriser le peu d'espace disponibles ; cela est aussi valables pour les productions vegetales et animales. Un aspect tres pertinent a considerer a ce niveau est les " Conditions de Production " qui dans plusieurs villes laissent a desirer. Du fait de l'absence totale de politiques de developpement de l'AUP, certaines productions a risques sanitaires sont en plein essor dans quelques villes: production aux abords des piste d'atterissage des avions, utilisation des eaux d'egouts non traitees des centres sanitaires ou des menages pour la production vegetales,... - Cela pose autant de risques sanitaires importants pour la populations. Comment faire pour alerter les decideurs de la politique des villes sur une telle situation ? Cela constitue un enjeu majeur pour la survie de l'AUP ! ! !

Dr Jean Sibiri ZOUNDI,
Animal Scientist, Institue for Environment and Agricultural Research (INERA),
04 BP 8645 Ouagadougou 04, Burkina Faso ;
Tel (226) 340270 ; Fax(226) 340271 ;
e-mail : zoundi@hotmail.com

From: Cai Yizhong
Sent: 22 August 2000 09:29
To: 'Urban-Food-L@listserv.fao.org'
Subject: Urban-Food / Session 1

Dear sir,

Thanks for your mail. Regarding six topic discussing in this E-conference, I would like to reply as follows:
Topic No.1 How much do urban and peri-urban agriculture contribute to overall urban food supply needs?
Answer: Urban and peri-urban agriculture contribute about 60% to overall urban food supply needs.

Topic No.2 What agricultural products offer the best potential for efficient urban production?
Answer:
a. Vegetable. The yearly output of vegetable is about 1315000000 kgs. The supply of fresh vegetable reaches to 4500000 kgs per day.
b. Milk The supply of fresh milk reaches to 246100000 kgs per year.
c. Aquatic products The output of aquatic product is about 268200000 kgs per year.
d. Flower The market needs is quickly increased.
e. Animal and poultry rasing.

Yours sincerely

Cai Yizhong

My Short description:
Cai Yizhong
President of Shanghai Pudong Modern Agriculture Development Co.,Ltd. Shanghai, China

My paper in Urban Agriculture: <<Urban Agriculture In Shanghai>> [no paper added, The Moderators]

From: Valstar, Arine (ESNP)
Sent: 22 August 2000 14:41
To: 'Urban-Food-L@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Contribution to the e-conference: "Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture, Household Food Security and Nutrition"

Contribution to the e-conference "Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture, Household Food Security and Nutrition"

In my previous assignment with the Food and Agriculture Organization in Jamaica, I was involved in a small project in Kingston (urban), and Watson Grove (peri-urban), where women groups were encouraged to engage in home gardening. Their interest in poultry production was far greater than their interest to start a backyard garden, which might be related to the low value attributed to vegetables, and low vegetable consumption in the Jamaican diet. Therefore a project component for poultry production was incorporated in the project, which started earlier than the horticulture activities. The early experiences of the project are documented in "Home-based food production in urban Jamaica" Food, Nutrition and Agriculture, no. 24, available at: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESN/fna24/fna24-e.htm

I would like to answer the questions of the first session, based on the project experience in Jamaica:

* Who is engaging in UPA, why and when?
Women groups were targeted to participate in this project. The women that were interested were generally poor and unemployed, or occasionally employed as seasonal day-labourers.

* Who consumes the output of UPA and how does it affect their nutritional status?
The produced chicken was sold in the same area, either alive, fresh or frozen, and also consumed by the women's families.

* What agricultural product offers the best potential for efficient urban production?
Especially in the slightly more spacious surroundings in the peri-urban area production of chicken seemed to be a good strategy to increase family income and to improve family meals. The impact of poultry production on health of residents, especially in the over-crowded slums, needs to be further looked in to, however, during the first half year no problems had been observed.

* Do streetfood vendors use ingredients from UPA?
The chicken were also used as ingredient for "box-meals", prepared at home or as streetfoods and sold mainly for lunch in the corporate areas of town. The streetvendors were often the same women that engaged in the poultry production.

Arine Valstar
(Arine.Valstar@fao.org)

From: Marielle Dubelling [marid@pgu.ecuanex.net.ec]
Sent: 22 August 2000 18:42
To: 'Urban-Food-L@listserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Urban-Food / Session 1

UPA - Food / Session 1: Contribution from Marielle Dubbeling

My name is Marielle Dubbeling, Urban Agriculture Adviser and co- ordinating a Latin American and Caribbean Programme on Urban Agriculture and Feeding the Cities, aimed at working with local governments. The programme is carried out and financed by the Urban Management Programme (HABITAT/UNDP), IDRC-CFP and IPES (Peru).

Mi nombre es Marielle Dubbeling, Asesora en Agricultura Urbana y coordinando un Programa Regional sobre Agricultura Urbana y Alimentacion de las Ciudades de America Latina y El Caribe. El grupo meta incluye principalmente las ciudades y gobiernos locales. El Programa esta ejecutado por el Programa de Gestion Urbana (HABITAT / PNUD), IDRC-CFP (Canada) y IPES (Peru).

Talking about contribution of UPA to household and urban food security, my first question to the participants is: how do you measure its contribution, in terms of both the indicators you use and the methodology applied, as well as the sources of information you use. In know we could think of hundreds of indicators daling with this topic, but what are the 3 or 5 key-indicators that can be measured in a relatively small period of time and with relatively little costs, that will give us a fairly good idea about UPAs contribution to food security?

Hablando de la contribucion potencial y actual de la Agricultura (Peri) Urbana a la seguridad alimentaria familiar y urbana, mi primera pregunta a los participantes es:
*como medir / monitorear esta contribucion?
* que indicadores claves (maximo 3 o 5 que pueden ser medidad en un tiempo relativo corto y con pocos costos) se debe usar?
* que metodologias han usado para la recollection de datos y que fuentes de informacion?

Saludos cordiales

Marielle Dubbeling
Asesora en Agricultura Urbana (IPES) Programa de Gestion Urbana, Coordinación Regional para América Latina y El Caribe (PGU-ALC / CNUAH-HABITAT / PNUD )
Urban Managment Programme, regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (UMP-LAC / UNCHS-HABITAT / UNDP)
Dirección: Garcia Moreno 751 entre Sucre y Bolivar Casilla 17-01-2505 Quito-Ecuador
Tel. / fax 593-2-583-961, 282-361/364/371
E-mail: marid@pgu.ecuanex.net.ec

From: rede@amauta.rcp.net.pe
Sent: 22 August 2000 23:56
To: 'Urban-Food-L@listserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Urban-Food/Session 1

UPA - Food / Session 1: Contribution from Marielle Dubbeling

My name is Marielle Dubbeling, Urban Agriculture Adviser and co-ordinating a Latin American and Caribbean Programme on Urban Agriculture and Feeding the Cities, aimed at working with local governments. The programme is carried out and financed by the Urban Management Programme (HABITAT / UNDP), IDRC-CFP and IPES (Peru).

Mi nombre es Marielle Dubbeling, Asesora en Agricultura Urbana y coordinando un Programa Regional sobre Agricultura Urbana y Alimentacion de las Ciudades de America Latina y El Caribe. El grupo meta incluye principalmente las ciudades y gobiernos locales. El Programa esta ejecutado por el Programa de Gestion Urbana (HABITAT / PNUD), IDRC-CFP (Canada) y IPES (Peru).

Talking about contribution of UPA to household and urban food security, my first question to the participants is: how do you measure its contribution, in terms of both the indicators you use and the methodology applied, as well as the sources of information you use. In know we could think of hundreds of indicators daling with this topic, but what are the 3 or 5 key-indicators that can be measured in a relatively small period of time and with relatively little costs, that will give us a fairly good idea about UPAs contribution to food security?

Hablando de la contribucion potencial y actual de la Agricultura (Peri) Urbana a la seguridad alimentaria familiar y urbana, mi primera pregunta a los participantes es:
*como medir /monitorear esta contribucion?
* que indicadores claves (maximo 3 o 5 que pueden ser medidad en un tiempo relativo corto y con pocos costos) se debe usar?
* que metodologias han usado para la recollection de datos y que fuentes de informacion?

Saludos cordiales

Marielle Dubbeling
Asesora en Agricultura Urbana (IPES) Programa de Gestion Urbana, Coordinación Regional para América Latina y El Caribe (PGU-ALC / CNUAH-HABITAT / PNUD )
Urban Managment Programme, regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (UMP-LAC / UNCHS-HABITAT / UNDP)
Dirección: Garcia Moreno 751 entre Sucre y Bolivar Casilla 17-01-2505 Quito-Ecuador
Tel. / fax 593-2-583-961, 282-361/364/371
E-mail: marid@pgu.ecuanex.net.ec

Asociacion Recursosparael Desarrollo - REDE
rede@amauta.rcp.net.pe

From: Beatriz Giobellina [ragio@arnet.com.ar]
Sent: 23 August 2000 01:10
To: PLANEAMIENTO - FAO 2000; comida - FAO 2000
Subject: planeamiento y seguridad alimentaria

Urban-Planning / Session 1 / Contribution from Beatriz Giobellina
Urban-Food / Session 1 / Contribution from Beatriz Giobellina

Hola, celebro la posibilidad de discutir estos temas con personas de diferentes partes del mundo. Quisiera exponer algunas ideas en torno a la AUP:

1- El primer tema es una reflexión en la escala internacional:
creo que es preocupante que científicos y funcionarios de organismos internacionales discutamos -desde nuestras cómodas y modernas computadoras- sobre cómo contribuir a la supervivencia de los pobres urbanos por medio de la AUP. Ni con toda la tierra puesta a producir de las ciudades podremos parar la creciente desigualdad entre pobres y ricos del mundo. El hambre no se soluciona con AUP sino con reglas de juego más equitativas entre los países más desarrollados y los países pobres; y, al interior de las ciudades, con políticas de redistribución de la riqueza entre los que se benefician del modelo económico vigente y los que están condenados a vivir cada vez más en la miseria. Temas como la deuda externa de los países pobres, el drenaje de sus recursos naturales para los países industrializados, y la deuda histórica -no reconocida- del colonialismo que permitió una acumulación de riqueza en los actuales países ricos, deberían ser los princ pales temas en debate para atenuar la pobreza y el hambre en el mundo.

2- El segundo tema es una reflexión en la escala nacional:
también es preocupante el avance de las corporaciones internacionales agro-químicas-alimentarias con su estrategia de generación de mayor dependencia en el uso de semillas transgénicas y de agroquímicos; frente a la falta de aplicación del principio de precaución de gobiernos como el de Argentina (segundo productor de alimentos transgénicos del mundo); que sin ningún estudio previo, apostó el 100% de su producción de granos (como la soja, principal rubro de su exportación) a las semillas transgénicas. Otro ejemplo es el caso de productores tabacaleros de Tucumán (noroeste de Argentina, provincia con el más alto índice de desocupación del país y hasta un 50% de población NBI en algunas partes) que -sin saberlo- plantaron tabaco transgénico y ahora deben quemar toda su producción. Si bien esto no es AUP, muestra la vulnerabilidad de pequeños, medianos y grandes agricultores frente a los intereses de las grandes corporaciones internacionale que tienen la capacidad de avanzar sobre la población y sus economías; por lo tanto, pone en crisis estrategias locales de seguridad alimentaria, cuando la del país está peligrando. Creo que la seguridad alimentaria del mundo peligra (y no solo de los países pobres), si no se definen leyes y regulaciones transnacionales para estas estrategias de las corporaciones. Son las universidades, las ONGs y los organismos internacionales, con capacidad de investigaciones independientes, quienes tienen más posibilidad de producir evidencias que sirvan para legislación internacional sobre los impactos de estas estrategias (agroquímicos, transgénicos) en la salud y en la seguridad alimentaria del mundo.

3- El tercer tema es una reflexión en la escala local:
quienes estamos preocupados por la población urbana pobre, a veces manejamos hipótesis de alternativas para una ciudad sustentable (más allá de los cambios necesarios a nivel de políticas internacionales antes mencionados). Quisiera conocer opiniones -y ejemplos si existieran- sobre una posible estrategia de involucrar a población desocupada urbana -cuyo origen sea de áreas rurales, o sea que tenga cultura campesina- en programas de escala intermedia de tipo granjas ecológicas o producción agropecuaria especializada (para segmentos de consumidores con poder adquisitivo, sea del mercado local o global); cuyo objetivo vaya más allá de la mera supervivencia familiar, y sea una posibilidad real de alternativas de empleo e ingreso doméstico. La pobreza y la seguridad alimentaria requiere resolver problemas estructurales de la pobreza; por ello, la alternativa de AUP con valor de cambio y conducida por los gobiernos como estrategias e desarrollo sustentable para pobres urbanos, con políticas de comercialización en todas sus escalas, puede tener efectos sinérgicos:
- genera trabajo y por lo tanto ingresos familiares, lo que significa un desarrollo humano integral
- sustrae a una porción de población de las villas de emergencia urbanas de un destino de miseria, desocupación, violencia, mala calidad de vida, marginalidad social.
- permite una descompresión de las ciudades en términos de desocupación, violencia, políticas asistencialistas, migración rural-urbana, etc.
- genera producción de alimentos frescos, orgánicos, o controlados para evitar impactos en salud
- atiende a una demanda creciente de productos sanos
- arraiga a la población a la tierra y contribuye al mantenimiento y desarrollo de la cultura campesina ancestral, modernizándola y aportándole las ventajas de desarrollos tecnológicos.
- permite salvar y reforzar a los pequeños y medianos campesinos de zonas urbanas que -al no estar valorada la AUP en el planeamiento ni en las políticas urbanas- está desapareciendo al ritmo que avanza el crecimiento urbano insustentable.
-permite frenar el avance descontrolado de las urbanizaciones sobre el recurso no renovable del suelo fértil, pudiendo generar anillos, archipiélagos o áreas de emprendimientos rurales protegidos y regulados de este tipo que no puedan ser aniquilados por el mercado inmobiliario
- permite proteger ecosistemas vulnerables, al priorizarse su ubicación en lugares estratégicos con valor ecológico
- permite invertir en políticas sociales que no sean meros paliativos, sino que contribuyan a una solución eficiente a la pobreza, generando -en el largo plazo- un ahorro social al buscar soluciones. Obviamente con una inversión inicial mayor.

Un gran saludo a todos los participantes.

Arq. Beatriz Giobellina
Esp. Ordenación Territorio y M. Ambiente LIGHaM - FAU - UNT
Laboratorio de Investigaciones para la Gestión y el Desarrollo del Hábitat y el Medio Ambiente
Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo
Universidad Nacional de Tucumán
Casilla de Correo 143 - (4000) Tucumán - Argentina
Tel.: 54-381-4364093 Int. 722/723
Fax: 54-381-4364141
ligham@herrera.unt.edu.ar
ragio@arnet.com.ar

From: Paule Moustier [moustier@cirad.fr]
Sent: 23 August 2000 09:59
To: Urban-Food-L@mailserv.fao.org
Subject: UA / PUA / RUA

Urban-Food / Session 1 / Contribution from Paule Moustier

Dear participants,

My name is Paule Moustier and I am a researcher of CIRAD working on urban / periurban agriculture and food marketing. This is a quick contribution to question 1 session 1 How much do urban and periurban agriculture contribute to overall urban food supply needs, based on case studies in different cities of Africa (Brazzaville, Bangui, Bissau, Yaounde,Dakar, Nouakshott) - see sources below.

Thinking about the relevant indicators, as suggested by Marielle, is a good starting point. Contribution through self-consumption needs to be disagregated from contribution through marketing. Contribution through self-consumption can sometimes be drawn from available budget-consumption surveys. Contribution through marketing is more difficult to establish as it is necessary to plot the origin of food consumed. In the cities of Africa were I worked most of food purchased through market originates from retail markets, where the traders know the origin of the food they sell. Then it is necessary to have some indicators of the quantities sold per retailer. The techniques are different according to the units of sale and may imply some weighing of the produce as the units are not always standard.

In the cities I studied food purchased in retail markets represent the bulk of urban food consumption although self-consumption may represent a substantial source of supply at some periods of the year for unwealthy households - it is noteworthy that self-consumption is mostly seasonal and has to be supplemented by some purchases on the retail market at some periods of the year.

As outlined in Rachel Nugent's paper, the comparative advantages of UA in supplying cities is in question relative to rural areas less constrained by pressure on land. The data I gathered on origin of food on retail markets show a strong complementarity between UA, PUA and RA in food supply (UA : agriculture located inside city; PUA : agriculture located less than 50 km from city center, with competition on land between agricultural and non agricultural purposes):
(i) as regards products : UA / PUA provides more than 80% of the more perishable foodstuff i.e. leafy vegetables, eggs, milk; on the other hand the contribution of UA / PUA is less than 50% for long life-shelf products e.g. onions, rice, smoked fish...
(ii) as regards period in the year, because of possible differences of climate, access to non flooded areas, labour constraints.., urban areas may supply vegetables at different times relative to rural areas, which enables to lessen seasonality of supply.

Hence in order to make urban food supply quantitatively and qualitatively more stable, support programs for both producers and traders should target urban, peiurban and rural areas in different but complimentary ways.

Best regards

Dr Paule Moustier
CIRAD-FLHOR

Sources :
Moustier P. et David, O. 1997. Etudes de cas de la dynamique du maraîchage périurbain en Afrique subsaharienne, document FAO, Programme approvisionnement et distribution alimentaire des villes d'Afrique francophone, 36 p.

Moustier, P. 1999. Complémentarité entre agriculture urbaine et rurale, in O. Smith (ed) Agriculture urbaine en Afrique de l'Ouest, une contribution à la sécurité alimentaire et à l'assainissement des villes, pp 41-55.

From: Isabel Madaleno [isabel-madaleno@clix.pt]
Sent: 23 August 2000 19:30
To: Urban-Food-L@mailserv.fao.org
Subject: contribution to theme 1

Urban-Food / Session 1 / Contribution from Isabel Maria Madaleno

My name is Isabel Maria Madaleno. I'm a Ph.D. in Human Geography and a Researcher at the Portuguese Tropical Institute.

Regarding to the questions in discussion, I'd like to add my contribution related to research I' ve been developing in Brazil in the last three years.

1. How much do urban and peri-urban agriculture contribute to overall urban food supply needs?
About 5 to 50%, according to my sample results in Brazil.The percentage varies much as to the space utilized for UA, it depends on the size of the family and on household income. These results refer mainly to intra-urban spaces. I should say I' ve interviewed 555 families of urban agriculture practitionners in Belém (2800 inhabitants total)and 280 in Presidente Prudente (S.Paulo state), representing about 1050 residents. So I'm not refering to the contribution of UA in terms of the overall city itself, because I don't feel I can do that extrapolation from an empirical study, but I refer to the standard family I' ve researched.

2. What agricultural products offer the best potential for efficient urban production?
Horticulture and medicinal herbs

3. In the areas you are familiar with, who is engaging in UPA,
1/3 (PP) up to half (Belém) the households inquired earned less than 250US$ a month and were engaged in UA. Considering that they usually spent 2/3 of their budget on food, urban cultivation looked quite atractive to them. Yet the most effective UA practitionners were lower-middle income families (less than 600US$ a month), with numerous kids or then enlarged families living under the same roof, because they had better financial conditions to get seeds and poultry, and the imperative need to do so, which is an important consideration, of course. Women constituted 2/3 of UA practitionners, especially engaged with home gardens, while males, unemployed, underemployed or retired prefered the iddle open spaces existent all over the cities, usually occupied with income generating species like beans, cassava, sweet potatoes, lettuce, chicory, etc.

why UA?
To supplement daily diet with necessary vitamins (fruit culture was first, in both cases) and proteins; to relieve food insecurity (most of them are subsistence farmers, so 87% of the spaces and its crops were used for self-consumption); to mitigate pains and diminuish the necessity of conventional medicines (medicinal herbs were second) and doctors; to generate income and employment; or to keep elder people active (there is this big attatchment to the land from former rural inhabitants).

and when (seasonal, emergency, full-time or part-time)?
The majority of the surveyed growers were part-time engaged in agriculture. They ranged from teachers (and even university professors), to nurses, drivers, commerciants, public service workers, policeman and military man, but many were housewifes for whom the garden was a sort of kitchen annex were to fetch spices, vegetables, tea herbs, fruits, to enhance and enrich family meals. It is a female domain the home garden, widely seen as her job and varied in aspect with seasons. In middle and high middle income families this was the maid (usually the cook) domain. But I also found the traditional gardeners, male, full-time UA practitionners.

What is being grown / raised?
1.Fruit culture (Açaí, Papaya, Rose-apple, Guava, Avocado, Banana, Mango, Lime and lemon, Coconut, Cashew, Acerola cherry, Oranges, etc.)
2.Medicinal herbs (Chilean boldus, Citronnelle, Wild Lemmon Bush, Peppermint, even cotton, whose leaves supposedly cure asthma).
3.Vegetables and spices (Indian Pepper, Chicory, Basil, Bunching onions)
4.Chickens and ducks were the livestock found, particularly in Belém (1/3 of households visited)

4. Regarding the different foods produced, who are the consumers?
Consumers are the ones who grow food and raise poultry or their family. The 13% remainder to whom agriculture is an income-generating activity, have their production consummed either by middle-class people engaged with healthy food, because we are talking about crops grown with organic fertilizers or no fertilizer at all (?), or then lower-income families that buy from UA farmers on the streets for the price of the produce is more acceptable than the one practised by supermarkets.

Do they contribute to the diet of households engaged in UPA?
Very much, indeed. There is a clear correlation between food and non-food crops and the meals consummed on a daily basis. We know because we also asked them what they ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner, usually.

Is this contribution occasional, seasonal
Contribution of fruits is seasonal (with few exeptions like açaí, because it gives fruits all over the year); It is occasional in the case of medicinal herbs, for instance.

5. How is the money generated through the sale of UPA used?
It´s used in non-food products like clothes, shoes, in the pharmacy (in spite of...), but also in the supermarket because there are things you eat and cannot grow yourself... (But this refers to 13% only, the others being subsistence farmers)

6. Do street food vendors use ingredients from UPA?
I didn't find evidence of the usage of ingredients from UA, in Brazil, except for some spices. But I must say I have not inquired street vendors on a scientific basis, meaning only occasionnally as a consummer myself I asked them were the produce came from.

If you need to contact me for questions, please do so before the 26th of August, because I'm starting another project, this time on UPA, in Mozambique from Saturday up to 15 September.

Mail Isabel-Madaleno@clix.pt and that's it!

I' ve already published close to ten papers on this research. It was very rich. Thank you for reading it.

From: Cheikh Mohamed El Hafed Ould Dehah [dehah@univ-nkc.mr]
Sent: 23 August 2000 17:57
To: Urban-Food-L@mailserv.fao.org
Subject: Re: Urban-Food / session 1

Cheikh Mohamed El Hafed Ould Dehah a écrit:

Chers Amis Conférenciers
permettez moi de soumettre à votre appréciations ces quelques points de reflexion :

1. Pour le cas de pays comme la Mauritanie l'AUP contribue pour beaucoup à l'amélioration de la valeur nutritionnelle des repas surtout sous forme d'aliments dits "protecteurs" (plus précisément les légumes). En effet pour la ville de Nouakchott, les jardins du Sebkha; contribuent d'une façon appréciqble à l'approvisionnement de la ville en produits maraichers. Concernant les villes de l'intérieur; l'activité maraichère autours des oasis représente une révolution dans les habitudes alimentaire d'une grande tranche de la population qui il y'a encore récemment avait une alimentation de base que l'on peut qualifier de monotone et pour la plupart pauvre en légumes et fruits.

2. A mon avis le maraichage peut offrir un meilleur potentiel pour une production urbaine éfficace si l'aspect hygiène est bien ,aitrisé

3. pour la Mauritanie, c'est principalement les femmes à travers des coopératives féminines qui s'adonnent à cette activité même si les hammes ne sont pas du reste. Cette activité se déroule en général entre les mois d'octobre à juin (en fait la période non pluvieuse) et généralement à mi-temps.

Les carottes , choux, tomates, aubergines, bétterave, salades, menthe constituent l'éssentiel de la production tandis que pour l'élévage de proximité il fait partie des des habitudes en Mauritanie surtout l'élévage de chèvres qui disponibilise une bonne source de proteines de qualité et du calcium pour l'alimentation des plus jeunes (surtout en période de sevrage)

4. En général toutes les tranches de la population consomment les produits de l'AUP de même les femmes des coopératives font de l'autoconsommation ce qui bien sûr enrichie positivement le panier de la ménagère même si en terme de disponibilité / accessibilité on peut parler de saisonnalité

5. Généralement l'argent généré est utilisé par les femmes pour l'achat d'habits, de meubles ou pour cotiser entre femmes. En effet de par nos coutumes il revient à l'homme de débourser pour la marmite et le médicament même si la femme de par sa production améliore sensiblement la qualité nutritionnelle du repas au sein du ménage

6. On ne peut être catégorique sur l'utilisation ou non des produits de l'AUP par les marchands ambulants cependant l'alimentation de rue au delà de toutes ses imperfections en terme d'hygiène est devenue une réalité de tous les jours en Mauritanie qui va en s'accentuant. Le paradoxe est que ce phénomène est nouveau dans nos société ou manger est un acte trés intime pour être déballé en pleine rue.

Cheikh Mohamed El Hafed Ould Dehah
Professeur de Nutrition
Université de Nouakchott
E-mail : dehah@univ-nkc.mr

From: marielle [marid@pgu.ecuanex.net.ec]
Sent: 23 August 2000 23:44
To: PLANEAMIENTO - FAO 2000
Cc: comida - FAO 2000
Subject: Re: planeamiento y seguridad alimentaria

Urban-Planning / Session 1 / Contribution from Marielle Dubbeling
Urban-Food / Session 1 / Contribution from Marielle Dubbeling

I would like to reflect upon the email send by Beatriz Giobellina.
Quisera reflexionar sobre el correo de Beatriz Giobellina.

I think Beatriz puts some very important points on the table. In our new globalised world, all actions at local level are linked with trends and actions at national and international level. I think the paper of Axel Drescher and Jaquinta (Urban agriculture and Planning guidelines, available at the information market) tries to understand the development of UPA in a global context. Of course, we do not pretend solving the structural problems underlying urban poverty with UPA. It is just one of the strategies for a more sustainable development.

Creo, que Beatriz ha mencionado algunos puntos muy importantes. En el nuevo mundo de globalizacion, cada accion a nivel local es influido por acciones y tendencioes nacional e internacionales. El texto escrito por Axel Drescher y Jaquinta (disponible en el mercado de informacion) tambien trata de entender como se desarrollo la UPA en un contexto global. Por su puesto no se pretende solucionar las causas estructurales de la pobreza urbana con la UPA. La Agricultura (peri) Urbana solo es una de las estrategias para llegar a un desarrollo mas sustentable.

Concentrating on the local level however, what I feel still missing is an answer to the question: what is the real objective of the people to engage in urban agriculture. Not what do we think it may contribute. Is it food security? Is it income generation? Is it for physological or cultural reasons (hobby, leisure, growing your own cultural food, growing organic food)? This question has to be answered differentiating groups of actors (poor, middle class, rich; women-men; children-adults- the elderly; migrants or urban residents). Just a rough hypothesis I am trying to validate is the following:
1) UPA is important for poor(er) people as a survival strategy - or as some call it as a response to crisis-
2) They may leave UPA when income level increases
3) They may come back to UPA when the income level increases even more, but then for reasons of recreation, leisure, hobby.

Of course I realise that we cannot make a strict division or distinction. However, if such a general trend is valid, that means that UPA is a very dinamic form of land use with its respective consequences for land use planning and project interventions (for example self-consumption means a focus on other crops than growing for income generation).

Sin embargo, enfocandonos en el nivel local, creo que falta un mejor entendimiento de para que la gente se involucran en la Agricultura Peri Urbana (UPA), y no que pensamos nosotros de sus motivos. Es la segurid alimentaria (autoconsumo), es la generacion de ingreso, es para razones psicologicas o culturas (hobby, recreacion, cultivando cultivos de tu lugar de origen). La pregunta debe ser desagregada por diferentes grupos de actores (hombres-mujeres; pobres-ricos; jovenes-ancianos; migrantes o residentes urbanos). Un hipotesis crudo que trato de validar es lo siguiente:
1) Los pobres se meten en la UPA pcomo estrategia de sobrevivencia - o como algunos lo llaman como respuesta a situaciones de crisis-
2) Cuando incrementa su nivel de ingreso dejan la UPA
3) Cuando incremente aun mas su nivel de ingreso, vuelven a la UPA pero por diferentes razones (hobby, recreacion, comida organica).

Po su puesto, estoy consciente de que no es blanco o negro, que no podemos hablar de divisiones estrictas. Sin embargo, cuando la tendencia general sea valido, significa que la UPA es un uso de suelo muy dinamico, lo que tienen consequencias para la planificacion urbana y las intervenciones programaticas (cultivando para el autoconsumo significa probablemente otros cultivos, que cultivar para la venta)

Hoping for your comments and responses,

Marielle

Esperando sus comentarios y observaciones, les saludo.

Marielle

Marielle Dubbeling
Asesora en Agricultura Urbana PGU-ALC/IPES
Dirección: Garcia Moreno 751 entre Sucre y Bolivar Casilla 17-01-2505 Quito-Ecuador
Tel. / fax 593-2-583-961, 282-361/364/371
E-mail: marid@pgu.ecuanex.net.ec

From: IBSRAM - Africa Office [ibsram@africaonline.com.gh]
Sent: 24 August 2000 16:34
To: Urban-Food-L@listserv.fao.org; Frits Penning de Vries
Cc: marid@pgu.ecuanex.net.ec
Subject: Urban-Food/Session 1/marielle+paule

Urban-Food / Session 1 / Contribution from Pay Drechsel

My name is Pay Drechsel. I am coordinating an IBSRAM project on UPA and organic waste recycling in different cities in Ghana.

I would like to comment on two issues raised in Marielle Dubbeling's last mails, first on farmers' objectives, secondly on the contribution of UA and PUA to food security.

1. "What is the real objective of the people to engage in urban agriculture?"
Here in Kumasi, Ghana, NRI initiated and supported a range of surveys which can answer your question from this part of the world: The most commonly given reason for urban backyard farming or urban livestock keeping is income rather than direct subsistence. Nevertheless, a large proportion of the crops produced in backyards is consumed by the household but to reduce household expenditures on these food items. Among "urban gap" farmers (on unbuilt areas or open spaces), food security might predominate in the poorer areas of the city whilst income is more of a motivation in the richer areas. Most producers are engaged in other occupations, and do not depend on UA. The picture is in part different for the more professional (vegetable) producers in "urban gaps", here 33% are full-time farmers.

With regard to her hypotheses, we could reply:

a) "UPA is important for poor(er) people as a survival strategy - or as some call it as a response to crisis -." Maybe elsewhere, but we should not see UPA as a domain of "poor" people. In Kumasi, there are other job opportunities for "poor" people. In fact, many people engaged in UA are employed in the Public / Civil services or are retailers / traders, living even in part in high-class residential areas. Many urban farmers enter into the activity as hobby, invest capital to establish the plots / farm, generate additional income and are eager to advise anybody to go into this profitable activity if only he / she can acquire land.

b) "They may leave UPA when income level increases". Just 2% of the farmers asked in the "urban gap" survey of NRI said hat they may abandon the acivity when they acquire a better paid job. Most hope that the production may expand in the future and they can continue to generate (additional) income.

c) "They may come back to UPA when the income level increases even more, but then for reasons of recreation, leisure, hobby." High income is certainly an incentive for engaging in UA as many UA activities require capital investment, but these people might not have been urban farmers previously.

For more details, I would like to refer to
NRI <M.G.Adam@greenwich.ac.uk>

References:

KNRMP 1999. Kumasi Urban Natural Resources Studies, June 1999. Kumasi Natural Resources Management Project, KNUST / NRI / DFID

KNRMP 2000. Report on study of agriculture in the urban gaps of Kumasi city. March, 2000. Kumasi Natural Resources Management Project, KNUST / NRI / DFID

2. Paule Moustier provided an excellent answer to Dubbeling's question concerning indicators of the UPA contribution to urban food supply. In Kumasi, Ghana, we used an approach closely related to the one described by Paule, i.e. a household consumption survey (via schools) supplemented by a street-food survey to assess overall consumption from the "buyer-side" . This was complemented by work initiated by NRI considering self-consumption of own produce. A food market survey in all major markets in Kumasi was used as control to assess the amounts of the different food items sold from the "seller-side". This market survey included questions on the origin of the food. As most studies refer to the contribution of UA to urban food supply with perishable products, we like to add some data on four major staple crops consumed (yams, cassava, plantain, maize). We found that the "average" person in Kumasi consumes annually 766 kg of food. 50% of this concerns the four crops mentioned above. The survey showed with respect to these four crops that 12% of the food supply on the markets derives from urban agriculture. About 35% is supplied by peri-urban agriculture and 53% comes from rural areas (e.g. all the yams).

Reference:

LEITZINGER, C. 2000. The potential of co-composting in Kumasi - Quantification of the urban and peri-urban nutrient balance. In: Drechsel, P. and D. Kunze (Eds.) Waste Composting for Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture - Closing the rural-urban nutrient cycle in sub-Saharan Africa. CABI-IBSRAM-FAO (in press)

Dr. Pay Drechsel
Research Coordinator
International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM)
Africa Office c/o KN-UST, Kumasi, Ghana
Tel / Fax: +233-(0)51-60206,
email: ibsram@africaonline.com.gh