《Health Risks and Benefits of Urban and PeriUrban Agriculture and Livestock (UA) in SubSaharan Africa.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Health Risks and Benefits of Urban and PeriUrban Agriculture and Livestock (UA) in SubSaharan Africa.doc（137页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、Health Risks and Benefits of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture and Livestock (UA) in Sub-Saharan AfricaResource Papers andWorkshop ProceedingsAna Boischio, Alison Clegg, & Dali Mwagore, EditorsUrban Poverty and EnvironmentSeries Report #1For additional copies or further information about this documen
2、t, please contact Anne Marie Legault at alegaultidrc.caAugust, 2006 UPE Report SeriesIDRCs mandate is to initiate, encourage, support, and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical, and other knowledge
3、 to the economic and social advancement of those regions.IDRCs Urban Poverty and Environment ProgramInitiative (UPE) supports integrated and participatory research to reduce environmental burdens on the urban poor, and enhance the use of natural resources for food, water, and income security. Contri
4、buting knowledge to inform achievement of the Millennium Development Goals,UPE envisions a world in which urban citizens thrive in healthy and dignified environments where all stakeholders, including those most marginalized, play an active and effective role in sustainable development.The publicatio
5、ns in this series are designed to fill gaps in current research and explore new directions within a wide range of urban environment topics. Some are narrowly focused, analytical and detailed empirical studies; others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of general issues.UPE Reports are publishe
6、d by IDRC staff, consultants, and/or interns. These reports are peer reviewed by IDRC staff but do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of IDRC. They are published and distributed primarily in electronic format via www.idrc.ca, though hard copies are usually available upon request. UPE r
7、eports may be copied freely for research purposes and cited with due acknowledgment.Table of ContentsTable of Contents5Introduction7A. Boischio 7Part I Resource Papers11Health risks and benefits associated with UA: impact assessment, risk mitigation and healthy public policy11D.C. Cole, K. Bassil, H
8、. Jones-Otazo, M. Diamond.Nutritional perspectives in urban and peri-urban agriculture25F. YeudallRisk assessment: malaria in urban and peri-urban agriculture35E. Klinkenberg and F.P. AmerasinghePerceptions of health risks and benefits of urban and peri-urban livestock production in Kampala, Uganda.
9、47G.W. Nasinyama, M.S. Azuba , M. Prossy, G.Nabulo, J. KyaligonzaAssessment of health risks and benefits associated with UA: impact assessment, risk mitigation, and healthy public policy55B. Keraita, P. Drechsel, P. Amoah and O. Cofie.Risk perception, communication and mitigation in urban agricultur
10、e: community participation and gender perspectives75D. Lee-SmithPart II WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS85Day 185Opening session85Welcome85Connie Freeman, Regional Director, Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Nairobi, KenyaOpening speech86Joe Aketch, H
11、is Worship the Mayor of Nairobi, Kenya1. Keynote Presentation - Urban Management Program and UA86Dinesh Mehta, Head, Urban Management Programme, Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya2. Healthy cities, UPA and environmental risk assessment87Ahmed Nejjar, Regional Adviser, Health and Environmental Unit, WHO-AFRO, B
12、razzaville, Congo3. Health risk and benefit assessment in urban and peri-urban agriculture89Donald Cole, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada4. Health risks and benefits of urban and peri-urban agriculture and livestock in Kenya90Alfred Langat, Chi
13、ef Public Health Officer, Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya5. Assessment of risks and benefits of UPA: nutritional and dietary perspectives91Fiona Yeudall, Assistant Professor, School of Nutrition, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada6. Health risks and benefits of urban agriculture in the city of H
14、arare92Dombo Chibanda, Assistant Director of Health Services, Harare, Zimbabwe7. Ecosystem approach to human health93Ana Boischio, Programme Officer, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada8. Risk assessment of solid waste and wastewater re-use in UPA94Philip Amoah, Research Assist
15、ant, International Water Management Institute, Accra, Ghana9. Administrative management of urban and peri-urban agriculture - health and social impacts in the Dakar area96Demba Balde, Engineer, Service National de lHygiene, Dakar, Senegal, and Seydou Niang, Researcher, Institut Fondamental dAfrique
16、Noire, Dakar, Senegal10. Assessment of malaria risks in urban and peri-urban agriculture96Eveline Klinkenberg, Associate Expert, Water and Health, International Water Management Institute, Accra, Ghana11. Health risks and benefits of urban and peri-urban agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: the Ghanai
17、an experience97Agatha Akua Bonney, Metro Director of Health Services, Kumasi, Ghana12. Plenary Discussion Day 198Day 21011. Assessment of health risks and benefits of urban and peri-urban livestock production in Kampala, Uganda101George W. Nasinyama, Head, Department of Veterinary and Public Health,
18、 Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, and collaborators2. Community and municipal perception of health risks and benefits of urban and peri-urban agriculture and livestock: the case of Kampala City102Dan Twebaze, Project Coordinator, Kampala Urban Sanitation Project, Kampala, Uganda3. Risk percepti
19、ons, communication and mitigation: community participation and gender perspectives103Diana Lee-Smith, Regional Coordinator, Urban Harvest, formerly Strategic Initiative on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture (SIUPA), Nairobi, Kenya4. Strategies for institutional partnership on risk analysis in urban an
20、d peri-urban agriculture104Shingarayi Mushamba, Assistant Professor and Senior Programme Officer, Municipal Development Partnerships, Harare, Zimbabwe5. Benefits and health risks of urban agriculture in Nairobi: policy research issues106A.R. Gacuhi, Department of Research Development, Ministry of Pl
21、anning and National Development, Nairobi, Kenya6. Understanding environmental sanitation challenges in Nairobi108David Kuria, Programme Officer, Intermediate Technology Development Group, Nairobi, Kenya7. Plenary Discussion Day 2108Working Group Discussions1111. Group A: Zoonosis and malaria risk re
22、lated to UPA1112. Group B: Solid waste and wastewater use in urban agriculture1183. Group C: Nutrition and diet1214. Plenary Discussion Working Groups125Day 3 - Field visits126Closing Remarks129APPENDIX A: Participant Contact Information130APPENDIX B: Workshop Programme133APPENDIX C: Abbreviations a
23、nd acronyms136 IntroductionA. BoischioFood security and income generation, in the context of current and prospective increased urbanization, are some of the positive outcomes related to the widespread practice of urban agriculture (UA The terms Urban Agriculture and Peri-Urban Agriculture are used i
24、nterchangeably in this document) as a poverty alleviation strategy. An inclusive definition of urban agriculture, which is under consideration in this current document, describes UA as “an industry located within (intra urban) or on the fringe (peri urban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which gr
25、ows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non food products, (re-) using largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area” (Moug
26、eot, 2000). During the period of 1997 to 2004, the Cities Feeding People Program Initiative (CFP PI), within the Environment and Natural Resource Management Program Area of the International Development Research Centre, supported development research aimed at promoting urban agriculture, with the pu
27、rpose of improving food security, income generation, and public health, with special attention to the management of waste, water and land for the benefit of the urban poor. The relevance and challenges of UA have been published in the context of CFP PI activities, available on line See www.idrc.ca/e
28、n/ev-23584-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. In brief, there are indications that in Kampala, for example, people involved in UA have a better nutritional and health status than those who are not involved (Maxwell et al., 1998). At the urban level, UA does provide a significant amount of food for local consumpti
29、on. In spite of the difficulties of measuring the food contribution of UA for urban consumption, there is indication, for example, that UA activities produce around 70% of vegetables and 70% of poultry consumed in Dakar, where UA is heavily practiced (Nugent, 2000). The health and economic benefits
30、of UA are well recognized among scholars, urban farmers, and international development agencies, including those linked to the United Nations, such as FAO See www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/coag/Coag15/X0076e.htm and UNDP, which have been involved in supporting activities for promotion of benefits and mit
31、igation of adverse consequences. Further reflections on and evaluations of CFP PI activities have indicated that in spite of UAs benefits, there are challenges, such as land tenure and health risks, that must be addressed at the development research level. In fact, health risks associated with UA ve
32、ry often constitute a barrier for policy support to UA development. It was suggested by external reviewers that CFP should support health risk mitigation research, in order to facilitate the policy influence of UA. In 2005, CFP evolved into the Urban Poverty and the Environment (UPE) Program Initiat
33、ive, which has a comparatively broader scope, addressing the mitigation of urban environmental burdens on the urban poor, considering issues from UA to water and sanitation; from solid waste management to natural disaster vulnerability, and considering land tenure and gender as cross cutting issues.
34、 Research on the mitigation of health risks in UA has been included in the UPE agenda. Health risks associated with UA vary according to the specific activity and context. A few examples of risks include hazardous biological and chemical exposures among farmers and consumers as a result of wastewate
35、r use on vegetable crops; transmission of zoonotic diseases in the context of (usually confined) livestock activities; and malaria transmission possibly increased due to irrigation and drainage schedules.The purpose of health research activities supported by UPE is to promote the production of knowl
36、edge and actions that mitigate UA health risks and enhance its benefits, with policy support, based on multi stakeholder participation. A set of activities has been implemented. These began in 2003, with a workshop on “Health Risks and Benefits of Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture and Livestock (UPA)
37、 in Sub-Saharan Africa”. This workshop took place in Nairobi, with the participation of academics, policy makers and non governmental organizations. Health risk mitigation and benefits enhancement activities have been supported by both CFP/UPE and Ecohealth Program Initiatives. Methodologically, rec
38、ommended frameworks for these research activities are Ecohealth (ecosystem approaches to human health) and risk analysis. The Ecohealth framework is designed to promote a holistic view of human health and environmental sustainability, based on a transdisciplinary, participatory and equity/gender sen
39、sitive methodology. Transdisciplinarity refers to the integrated form of carrying out research by teams of scientists from various complementary disciplines, in dialogue with local knowledge systems and experts. Transdisciplinarity characterizes a collaborative working process that allows researcher
40、s to go beyond the limits of individual fields and expertise in order to generate new logical frameworks, new methods, new intuitions, and new insights, all born from the synergy that ensues from the collaboration. Participation of community representatives and stakeholders is envisaged here as a pr
41、ocess whereby the research beneficiaries influence and actively participate in making decisions related to the research and ensuing development initiatives. Addressing issues of gender and social equity in the research agenda permits the building of a framework that allows for a better understanding
42、 of local knowledge systems and of differences that characterize the way in which men and women cooperate, divide responsibilities and resources, and control them. Risk analysis includes the components of risk assessment, perception, communication and mitigation, where stakeholders, policy makers an
43、d researchers share the same data production, analysis and interpretations. Risk assessment can be defined as a process for describing and quantifying the risks associated with hazardous substances, processes, actions, or events. The four steps of risk assessment include: hazard identification and/o
44、r assessment, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment (dose-response), and risk characterization or risk estimation.The compatibility of these two different methodological approaches, Ecohealth and risk analysis, and the need to understand the links between human activity, socio-ecological conditio
45、ns and human health, for the purpose of implementing actions to enhance benefits and mitigate health risks of UA, thus addressing poverty alleviation, constitute the basis of the health risk mitigation activities in UA.This PublicationThis document sums up results from an IDRC-supported workshop hel
46、d in Nairobi in 2003, where UPE activities related to health risks in UA were initiated (following up on previous CFP PI research experiences For examples, please see www.idrc.ca/en/ev-23584-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html). Part I of this document includes six resource papers prepared by specialists working in
47、 various areas related to the health risks and benefits of UA. Part II contains the proceedings of the workshop activities in Nairobi, where academics and decision makers discussed the risks and benefits of UA from different perspectives. After this initial workshop in 2003, three pilot projects wer
48、e implemented in 2004: Smallholder dairy production in Nairobi, Kenya; Safeguarding public health through control of food borne diseases, in Morogoro, Tanzania; and Providing fresh vegetables to the city, in Dakar, Senegal. Team members from these pilot projects had the opportunity to meet and share their research goals, methods and experiences on two occasions - an inception workshop at Lake Elementaita Lodge in Kenya, in 2004, and a final workshop in Bagamoyo, Tanzania, in 2005. Proceedings of t
