Gardens of Hope: Urban Micro-Farming

GARDENS OF HOPE
URBAN MICRO-FARMING AS A COMPLMENTARY STRATEGY FOR
MITIGATION OF THE HIV-AIDS PANDEMIC
Proceedings of the study visit to Johannesburg and Cape Town, South Africa
17-25 August 2005
Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF), ETC Urban
Agriculture, Leusden, the Netherlands
Abalimi Bezekhaya, Cape Town, South Africa
EU-ACP Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), Ede,
the Netherlands

Proceedings of the study visit to Johannesburg and Cape Town, South Africa (17-25 August 2005)
2
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
Introduction to backgrounds, aims, participants and programme of the study
visit and workshop.
2. Urban Micro-farming and HIV-Aids; A need for systematisation of
experiences and scaling up
An introduction to the key issues by the organisers of the study visit
3. Presentation of experiences
Short presentations of the experiences gained by the organisations
participating in the study visit (see the introduction to this paragraph for an
overview of the 20 cases presented during the study visit)
4. Conclusions and recommendations
A summary of the main conclusions and recommendations to local and
national policy makers and donor agencies
5. Follow up actions
An overview of the follow up actions planned by the participants.
ANNEXES
1. List of participants
2. Role and main sources of protein and micro-nutrients
3. Overview of nutritional characteristics of selected food products

3
List of abbreviations
CBO Community Based Organisation
CHW Community Health Worker
CSO Civil Society Organisation
IGA Income Generating Activity
NGO Non-Government Organisation
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MOH Ministry of Health
PLWHA or PWA People Living With HIV-AIDS
TOT Training of Trainers

4
1. INTRODUCTION
The problematic
In countries of Southern Africa at least one of five adults is suffering from HIV-AIDS,
of which the main part in the urban areas. South Africa alone has a total of 4.2 million
HIV infected people. Over one third of 15-years olds may die of AIDS.
What strikes when visiting families affected by HIV-AIDS in low income
neighbourhoods, is that such families normally first and for all ask for food, rather
than medicines, counselling or care. However, strange enough, food is rarely made
the focus of HIV-AIDS mitigation programmes and many HIV-affected households
find it difficult to follow the nutrition recommendations provided to them due to lack of
cash and access to fresh nutritious food
Research results1
clearly indicate that adequate nutrition –although it cannot cure
HIV-infection- can enhance life expectancy and the quality of life of HIV-infected
persons substantially. Balanced diets are essential to maintain body weight and
muscle tissue, replace lost vitamins and minerals, strengthen the immune system
and thereby reduce the susceptibility to co-infections and enhance the ability to fight
such infections (e.g. diarrhoea, TB, respiratory infections), improve the response to
treatment and delay the onset of full blown AIDS.
On the other hand we observe in cities in Southern Africa that poor urban people are
increasingly seeking to survive by gardening and raising of animals in their back yard
gardens and on vacant public land (e.g. along rivers, roads, below power lines, in
flood zones, on ex dump sites, etcetera). Also an increasing number of community
centres, schools, hospitals and clinics allow community groups to use part of their
land for food production by poor and vulnerable people, often involving families
affected by HIV-Aids or caring for orphans.
Urban farming is emerging strongly in Sub-Saharan Africa as a survival strategy of
the urban poor and families affected by HIV-AIDS with lack of purchasing power and
low access to nutritious food and as a response to the growing food needs of the
rapidly growing cities (especially perishable products like green vegetables, milk,
poultry meat, etc.).
Several Churches, NGOs and Municipalities actively supporting community based
food production projects in resource poor neighbourhoods because they recognised
food and nutrition needs of the urban poor and vulnerable.
The study visit and workshop on Urban Micro-Farming and HIV-AIDS
Against the background sketched above, it is understandable why the Resource
Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF), operated by ETC Urban
Agriculture, Leusden the Netherlands2
took the initiative to organise a study visit and
workshop on Urban-micro farming and HIV-Aids, in cooperation with Abalimi
Bezekhaya and other South African Civil Society Organisations (CSO’s) that are
1
See the presentation by H. de Zeeuw below
2
See www.ruaf.org for more information on RUAF and the Cities Farming for the Future programme that ETC and
regional RUAF partners are implementing.

5
promoting small scale urban farming activities in Cape Town, Johannesburg and
other cities in South Africa.
The EU-ACP Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)
provided the financial support.
The Conference Company (TCTC, Cape Town) provided the logistical support
needed to realise the study visit and workshop3
.
The organizers brought together a variety of stakeholders including senior staff of
Municipal Health and/or Agriculture departments, NGO’s and CBO’s from various
countries in Southern Africa. Part of them is involved in urban gardening and
livestock programmes, while others are implementing HIV-AIDS programmes with a
strong nutrition component (and some do already both)4
.
The study facilitated the exchange and analysis of experiences among these
stakeholders regarding the potentials and limitations of urban food production as an
additional strategy for mitigating the effects of the HIV-AIDS epidemic.
This with the following aims:
• To identify successful approaches and critical factors in the design and
implementation of urban micro-farming activities
• To enhance the impacts and sustainability of existing urban micro-farming
activities and their relevance for HIV-AIDS infected persons and their families
• To facilitate the inclusion of urban micro-farming in HIV-AIDS programmes
implemented by NGO’s and local and national government
• To establish a platform for information exchange and mutual support in the
field of Urban Food Production and HIV/AIDS
The key questions that were looked into during this study visit and workshop
included the following:
• Which factors determine the success or failure of micro-farming projects that seek
to improve nutrition and income of households affected by HIV-AIDS?
• How to select the right project locations and participants?
• How to enhance their access to land and water for urban micro-farming projects
close to their homes? How to enhance security of land use for urban micro
farming?
• How to overcome the labour constraints that are experienced by HIV affected
families?
• What are recommended nutritious crops, animals and technologies?
• What is optimal plot size for one family, taking into account nutritional needs and
available labour?
• What risks associated with urban farming have to be taken into account?
• How does the way these projects are organised influence their social impacts
(positive and negative)?
• What lessons have been learned regarding the organisational and institutional
aspects of (various types of) micro-farming?
• How to reduce the risks associated with farming activities in densely populated
areas?
• How to finance urban micro farming projects?
3
Thanks Michele, Wendy, Ndashe !!
4
See Annex 1 for the list of participants.

6
• How to monitor the impacts of these projects on nutrition, health, livelihood and
life expectancy of HIV-AIDS infected persons and their families?
• How to scale up from local successful initiatives?
• How to ensure the sustainability of micro farming projects?
The programme for the study visit and workshop was as follows:
August 17 and 18 Participants present their experiences
August 19 and 20 Visits to urban micro-farming projects in/around
Johannesburg
August 21 Travel to Cape Town; rest
August 22 and 23 Visits to Urban micro-farming projects in/around Cape Town
August 24 and 25 Analysis of experiences gained;
Formulation of conclusions and recommendations;
Planning of follow up actions
The following micro-farming projects were visited:
• Nomvano Food Garden in Mamelodi Pretoria, supported by Food and Trees for
Africa. Contact Jeunesse Park (011-803 9750)
• Leumo Le Botse letswa Tshemong project at the Pimville Clinic, Soweto,
supported by Food and Trees for Africa. Contact: Jeunesse Park (011-803 9750)
• Kathlehong Home Food gardens project, East Rand, Johannesburg, supported by
Food Gardens Foundation. Contact Hilda Pheto (011- 880 5956)
• Sparrow Rainbow Village HIV Hospice, Maraisburg, Johannesburg. Contact
Corrine Mclintock (011-472 6628)
• Urban Farmers Cooperative in Diepsloot, Johannesburg supported by Cooperative
and Alternative Policy Centre. Contact: Constance Pendula (083-7401584)
• False Bay Hospital Community Garden in Cape Town. Contact: Wendy Crawford
(082- 8261333)
• Sezeni Support Group for HIV/Aids Garden in Cape Town, supported by Art of
Living. Contact: Nyameka Ndashe (021- 7892494)
• Masizame Womans Group in Driftsands, supported by Soil for Life. Contact Pat
Featherstone (021- 794 4982)
• Women for Peace Project in Mfuleni, Cape Town supported by Soil for Life.
Contact: Pat Featherstone (021-794 4982)
• Thando Community Centre in Touws River supported by Soil for Life. Contact: Pat
Featherstone (021-794 4982)
• Ntwasahlobo School and Community Garden Project in Cape Town supported by
Abalimi Bezekhaya. Contact: Rob Small (021- 3711653).
• Siyazama Community Allotment Garden Association (SCAGA) in Macassar,
Cape Town, supported by Abalimi Bezekhaya. Contact: Rob Small (021- 371 1653).

7
2. URBAN MICRO-FARMING AND HIV-AIDS; A NEED FOR SYSTEMATISATION
OF EXPERIENCES AND SCALING UP
Ir. Henk de Zeeuw
Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF)
ETC Urban Agriculture
Leusden, The Netherlands
INTRODUCTION
The participants to the study visit cum workshop on urban micro-farming and HIV-
AIDS come from a variety of backgrounds: practitioners from the health sectors and
their colleagues in agriculture, people from NGO’s as well as from local government
and research.
With this presentation I seek to establish a common ground and a starting point for
the exchange of experiences during this study visit, by:
a. Summarizing some facts on the relation between poverty, nutrition and HIV-Aids
b. Defining urban micro-farming and its potential for enhancing food security and
nutrition
c. Listing some key questions that we want to explore during this study visit (and
thereafter)
d. Formulating some working hypothesis regarding the design of effective urban
micro-farming projects that aim at enhancing food security and nutrition of HIV-
AIDS infected and affected persons.
POVERTY, NUTRITION AND HIV-AIDS: SOME FACTS
A vicious circle exists between poverty and inequalities and HIV-Aids with
malnutrition as the key link. Poor households are more exposed to HIV Aids and are
more severally impacted by HIV Aids. Women, who are key actors in household food
security and care giving, are particularly vulnerable to the effects of the disease and
its impacts.
The vicious circle is as follows:
• Poverty and inequalities lead to nutrition deficits and higher exposure to HIV-
infection.
• A person who is malnourished and acquires HIV is more likely to progress
faster to AIDS because the body is already weak, is more susceptible for co-
infections (like tuberculosis, pneumonia, diarrhoea), reduces the body’s ability
to absorb nutrients, and leads so to weight loss, muscle wasting and nutrient
deficiencies (A,C,E, Selenium, Zinc). The parasitic infestations and
malnutrition may result in increased oxidative stress and immune
suppression, which leads to increased HIV replication in the body (higher viral
loads) and hastens the transition from HIV to full Aids and finally to death.
• Families affected by HIV-AIDS tend to have higher expenses due to costs
related to treatment, while income tends to go down. As a consequence,
these families tend to save on food expenditures by reducing food quality and
quantity (food constitutes 50-70% of expenditures of poor families), although
the presence of HIV-infected persons requires more food and better diets.

8
• In their effort to try to cope to this situation, these families often also apply
other survival strategies that on the long run work out negatively on family
livelihood: taking children out of school, young women becoming sex worker,
reallocation or splitting up the family, taking loans to fill the gaps, etcetera). As
a consequence: deepening poverty and malnutrition. Remaining family
members are more at risk now to become HIV infected. Especially young
women are much more susceptible for contracting HIV-Aids; in South Africa,
Zimbabwe and Zambia young women are three to six times more infected by
HIV-Aids than young men, a/o due to their sub-servient status in the
household/community and becoming a sex worker as a survival strategy. Also
orphans are particularly susceptible since they are likely to be more
malnourished and more exposed to unsafe sexual behaviours.
Enhancing food security and nutrition of vulnerable households should receive much
more attention in programmes seeking to mitigate the effects of the HIV-AIDS
pandemic.
Research results5
clearly indicate that:
• Adequate nutrition cannot cure HIV-infection, but can enhance life expectancy
and the quality of life of HIV-infected persons substantially. Balanced diets are
essential to maintain body weight and muscle tissue, replace lost vitamins and
minerals, strengthen the immune system and thereby reduce the susceptibility to
co-infections and enhance the ability to fight such infections (e.g. diarrhoea, TB,
respiratory infections), improve the response to treatment and delay the onset of
full blown AIDS.
• HIV-infected adults and children have increased energy (10-30 %) and protein
needs (up to 15 %)6
and need sufficient amount of vitamins and minerals to
compensate for losses and increasing inefficiency of the body. However, in
practice the food intake and food quality of HIV infected and affected persons is
often declining rather than improving amongst others due to loss of income and
loss of appetite due to depression, painful sores in the mouth, side effect of
medicines, etcetera.
• HIV infected pregnant and lactating women need special attention, since they
already need extra energy, proteins and micro-nutrients for their pregnancy and
lactancy, next to the extra requirements due to HIV-infection. Their situation can
be compounded by existing socio-cultural habits and gender relations that restrict
their food intake and food quality. Mother to child transfer of HIV-infection is
highly affected by nutrition (of mother and infant).
• Adequate nutrition is also essential to optimize the benefits of ARV-treatment: the
ARV’s are more effective if the treated persons are well nourished which is
normally not the case in low income neighbourhoods. “It is like building a house.
If you have a roof but there are no walls and no foundation, the house is not very
useful. If you include drug therapy but you do not have adequate nutritious food,
you will not be able to fight the infection”7
. Hence, food and nutrition programmes
are becoming all the more important with the increasing access to ARV-treatment
in developing countries.
5
See literature references at the end of this paper
6
WHO concludes that data regarding increase in protein requirements due to HIV-infection are
insufficient and hence states that HIV-infected persons do not require more protein than the level
recommended for healthy persons. However, HIV-infected persons often have pre-infection malnutrition
and protein deficiencies need proper attention, especially by increasing food intake to required levels
and improving nutritional quality of the food (FANTA-AED, 2004).
7
UN-AIDS, 2001, Nutrition Policy Paper, Volume 20

9
Many HIV-Aids mitigation programs include a nutrition education component for the
HIV-affected people and their families. However, the impact of such nutrition
education is generally low since the recommended foodstuffs are not locally available
or cannot be afforded by the poor families. Access to food is one of the main
problems of HIV impacted communities. Accordingly, enhancing access to food of
good quality forms a crucial entry point for programmes assisting such communities.
Such food security and nutrition programmes have there largest impacts at the early
stages of HIV-infection before developing into stages requiring antiretroviral drugs
(ARV’s) treatment (that is however the stage that most people do not know yet that
they are infected with HIV).
Often food aid is used to supplement the diets of HIV-infected persons through
specific programmes providing food handouts (e.g. through clinics and community
centres) to families affected by HIV-Aids or caring for orphans. However, the
organisations involved in such programmes rapidly recognise that this is not a
sustainable solution and that a more structural solution is needed to ensure access of
HIV-infected families to nutritious food and income.
Local food production projects can possibly fulfil such a role in a sustainable way.
URBAN AGRICULTURE
Urban micro-farming can be defined as the growing of plants and raising of animals,
and related activities like water harvesting, composting, food processing and
marketing, by urban people (especially poor and unemployed people) for food,
income, medicinal herbs, shade/micro-climate on small tracts of land in home yards
and in vacant public or semi-open spaces in the built up city (along and in rivers,
roads, below power lines, in flood zones, on ex dump sites, etcetera) and in the peri-
urban area.
For the purpose of this study visit, the following types of micro-farming may be
distinguished:
a. home gardens (attached to the private house; includes cellars, barns,
balconies, rooftops, window sills, green walls).
b. community gardens (garden area split up in small family plots; often on
public or semi-public grounds)
c. institutional gardens run by schools, hospitals, prisons, factories
d. open field plots (small holders, especially peri-urban, owned or rented)
Urban food production in the South is in many cases a response of urban dwellers to:
inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to food supplies, partly due to either a
lack of availability of food or a lack of purchasing power and inadequate access to
formal employment opportunities.
Urban farming is emerging strongly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the fastest urban
growth is occurring in countries least equipped to feed their cities, but recently a
strong increase was also observed in other regions with acute economic crisis (e.g.
Zimbabwe).
Urban agriculture may contribute to:
Increased urban food security and reduced malnutrition through
enhancing access to fresh nutrient-rich foods of urban populations suffering
from food insecurity and malnutrition.
Increased income opportunities for the urban poor through agricultural
activities: a. self-provisioning reduces family expenditures on food. As the

10
urban poor are found to be spending 60-80% of their income on food, any of
these actions can have a major impact on household well-being.
b. sales of surpluses or exchange for other products the family needs
Social inclusion: urban agriculture projects help to restore the self esteem
and hopes of disadvantaged and stigmatised people and their acceptance in
the wider community
An improved living urban environment by cleaning up and greening the
neighbourhoods, improving the micro climate (shade, less dust) and recycling
of solid and liquid wastes.
An increasing number of cities (e.g. Kampala, Dar es Salaam, Dakar, Addis Ababa,
a/o) and national governments (e.g. Botswana) in Sub Saharan Africa are
recognising the importance of urban agriculture and adapting their policies and
programmes regarding urban farming.
New approaches are currently underway to reinforce the formal establishment of
allotment garden schemes and other forms of urban agriculture in cities in Sub
Saharan Africa.
URBAN MICRO-FARMING AND HIV-AIDS: CREATING GARDENS OF HOPE
Urban micro-farming has good potential to enhance food security and nutrition of
HIV-infected persons and their families. However, urban micro-farming projects have
received little attention of central and local government and research institutes and
few attempts have been made to systematise the existing experiences. Before the
potential of urban micro-farming can be fully realised, many questions have to be
dealt with.
Some of these questions are:
• Which factors determine success or failure of micro-farming - projects that
seek to improve nutrition and income of households affected by HIV-Aids?
• How to select the right project locations and participants?
• How to enhance their access to land and water for urban micro-farming
projects close to their homes? How to enhance security of land use for urban
micro farming?
• How to overcome the labour constraints that are experienced by HIV affected
families?
• What are recommended nutritious crops, animals and technologies?
• What is optimal plot size for one family, taking into account nutritional needs
and available labour?
• What risks associated with urban farming have to be taken into account?
• How does the way these projects are organised influence their social impacts
(positive and negative)?
• What lessons have been learned regarding the organisational and institutional
aspects of (various types of) micro-farming?
• How to finance urban micro farming projects?
• How to monitor the impacts of these projects on HIV-Aids infected and
affected persons?
• How to scale up from local successful initiatives?
• How to ensure the sustainability of micro farming projects?
We will use the opportunity of this study visit to compare a number of experiences
gained in Southern Africa and jointly draw some lessons for future programmes.
From review of recent literature and discussions with some local experts indicate
some lessons are emerging regarding factors to take into account when designing

11
urban micro-farming projects aiming at enhancing food security and nutrition of HIV-
AIDS affected families. I present them here as working hypothesis, open to
discussion:
In order to maximize the effect of urban micro-farming projects for HIV-AIDS
affected families:
a. Micro-farming projects should target on whole communities with a high
number of poor and food insecure households (rather than on people living with
HIV-Aids directly). This because:
° Stigmatisation should be prevented;
° Greatest overall impacts of nutritional support is to be expected in the
early stages of the disease (but when most people even don’t know that
they are effected, due to lack of testing facilities and stigma) when
improving the quantity and quality of nutrition is most effective to
prolonged period of relative health by preventing /stabilizing loss of
weight, preserving/gaining physical strength, preventing diarrhoea and
speeding up recuperation from infectious diseases; This for their own
benefit and for the benefit of those who depend on their income and care
(children, elderly). Also mother-child transfer of HIV-Aids will be reduced.
In this way vulnerability to the impacts of the disease of the whole
household is reduced;
° A second stage targeting might be used to young under-employed adults,
especially young women (high risk group);
° By focussing on the community the project may also contribute to
breaking the vicious circle between malnutrition and HIV-Aids.
b. Urban micro farming projects should be based in community based
organisations and social networks and bottom up participatory planning and
“learning in action” approach
c. Urban micro-farming projects should also involve institutional actors at
higher levels in order to ensure:
o provision of required support to local initiatives (e.g. access to land and
water);
o coordination among local initiatives and between these and city or
national programmes;
o upscaling of locally successful community supported initiatives;
o creation of a supportive policy environment (e.g. legalization of urban
agriculture and inclusion in urban land use planning).
d. Urban micro-farming projects should be strongly linked with the services
provided by conventional HIV-AIDS programmes, including:
° Awareness raising and education on HIV-AIDS (special eating needs for
people living with HIV-Aids, mother to child transfer facts and infant
feeding choices; importance of testing, local remedies for frequent health
problems;
° Nutrition education: promotion of key foods and nutrients, changing
dietary and food preparation habits, promotion of water and food hygiene,
additional feeding after infection to compensate food loss, herbal
treatments and remedies (See FAO manual);
° Early treatment of opportunistic infections like TB and pneumonia;
° Provision of anti-retroviral drugs.

12
e. When designing Urban micro-farming projects one should give special
attention to the following issues:
° Securing access to land of acceptable quality (community gardening);
° Securing availability of irrigation water and choice of low cost and labour
saving irrigation techniques; water harvesting; reuse of household
wastewater;
° Training and guidance regarding the management of community gardens
and how to deal with most frequent problems when working with HIV-Aids
affected families;
° Training of participants in adequate selection of adequate species
(nutritious food see table 1 for nutritional values of a large number of
crops; attention for indigenous foods), easy to grow, labour and capital
extensive, pest and drought resistant) and production technologies for
space confined and low input but high output agriculture. E.g. through
farmer field schools and farmer- to- farmer extension. Organic production
methods, soil fertility maintenance (composted wastes, animal fertilizer)
and IPM are among the priorities;
° Provision of equipment and inputs (especially compost, seeds and young
stock). These inputs initially have to be provided at a subsidised price but
should preferably be provided in such way that sustainability is enhanced
(provision of equipment and tools and inputs as a revolving fund,
establishment of community seed production units, establishment of
saving schemes and rotating micro-credit, etcetera). At later stages of the
project/groups self financing has to be increased and subsidy to be
lowered;
° Measures against theft (fencing or guards);
° Mechanisms for processing and/or marketing of surpluses.
f. Food for work or food for training can play a role in the urban farming project:
° during the initial stages of the project (land preparation, composting,
etcetera). This especially if the participating families are undernourished
and lack sufficient strength;
° as a form of payment to participating volunteers.
The food should be supplied through the community based organisations that
run the local programme (and which should have the required logistical and
management capacities of storing, transporting and distribution of food)
g. Financing of urban micro-farming projects
In most cases “shared financing” will be needed with contributions (in kind, in
staff time, in cash) from various sources: national government (e.g. funding,
food for work, drugs, technical advice), local government (e.g. legal support,
access to land, access to water, technical advice, fencing), hospitals and
schools (access to land, bio medical support), NGO’s (project management,
group development and management support, training, etcetera), CBO’s
(ensuring community participation, individual care for HIV-infected persons,
etcetera).
The main arguments for government support to local micro-farming initiatives
have been found in the first chapter of this paper:
° by improving food security and nutrition the effect of ART-programmes
will be greatly enhanced;
° by enhancing local food production capacity, longer term food security
and nutrition can be realised, breaking the vicious circle between poverty,
nutrition and HIV-AIDS.

13
Information sources
The following information sources have been consulted when preparing the paragraph in this paper
regarding HIV-AIDS, food security and nutrition:
WHO (2005) Consultation on Nutrition and HIV-Aids in Africa, Durban South Africa, 10-13 April,
2005
STUART GILLESPIE AND SUNEETHA KADIYALA (2005) HIV/Aids and Food and Nutrition
Security, From evidence to action. Food Policy Review 7, IFPRI, Washington DC
FANTA-AED (2004) HIV-AIDS a guide for nutritional support, Washington DC
WHO/FAO (2002) Living well with Aids. A manual on nutritional care and support for people living
with HIV/AIDS, FAO, Rome
UN-ACC Sub-Committee on Nutrition (2001) Nutrition and HIV/Aids Nutrition Policy Paper # 20,
ACC-SCN, Geneva
PIWOZ E.G. AND PREBBLE E.A. (2000) HIV/Aids and Nutrition. A review of literature and
recommendations for nutritional care and support in Sub-Saharan Africa. Academy for Educational
Development, Washington DC, 2000
HADDAD L. AND GILLESPIE S. (2001) effective food and nutrition policy responses to HIV/Aids:
what we know and what we need to know. Food Consumption and Discussion Paper IFPRI,
Washington DC 2001
UN-AIDS. Nutrition Policy Paper, Volume 20

14
3. PRESENTATION OF EXPERIENCES GAINED BY THE PARTICIPANTS
In this paragraph you will encounter the following cases:
3.1 Momo Masoka. The Urban Food Security Programme of Action Aids
International, Zimbabwe
3.2 Rob Small, Christina Kaba and Sindi Mahusa-Mhlana. The Urban Agriculture
Programme of Abalimi Bezekhaya, Cape Town, South Africa
3.3 Pat Featherstone. The Food Gardens Programme of Soil for Life, Cape Town,
South Africa
3.4 James Onyango. The Nutrition and Food Security Programme of Kenya Aids
Intervention Prevention Project Group (KAIPPG), Kakamega, Kenya
3.5 Jeunesse Park. The Permaculture Food Gardens Programme of Food &
Trees for Africa, Gauteng, South Africa
3.6 Ssemwanga Margaret Azuba and Richard Kabuuka, Urban Farming and HIV-
AIDS initiatives supported by Kampala City Council, Kampala, Uganda
3.7 Innocent Balagizi Karhagomba. The Urban Agriculture Programme of the
Diobass Platform, Bakuvu, DR Congo
3.8 Simon Chanda Fikansa. The Integrated AIDS Programme of Catholic Diocese
Ndola, Zambia
3.9 Américo Cassamo. The Urban Agriculture Programme of Maputo City
Council, Maputo, Mozambique
3.10 Bonginkosi Njokwe and Jon McCosh. The African Roots Project, Institute of
Natural Resources, Scottsville, South Africa
3.11 Noah Sigauke. The Improving urban livelihoods project of ITDG - Southern
Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe
3.12 Godwin Chisenga. The HIV-AIDS Programme of Catholic Aids Action,
Windhoek, Namibia
3.13 Joseph Tembo. The Community School Based Urban Agriculture Project of
Project Concern International, Lusaka, Zambia
3.14 John O. Onyatta. Urban agriculture surveys by National Council for Science
and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya
3.15 Abedaye Ogunmokun. Urban agriculture studies and pilot projects by
University of Namibia, Oshakati, Namibia
3.16 D.L. Keboneilwe and M.E. Madisa. Policy development and implementation
on Urban Agriculture by Ministry of Agriculture Botswana, Gabarone,
Botswana
3.17 Nyameka Ndashe. Sezeni Food Garden Project, Art of Living Foundation,

15
Cape Town, South Africa
3.18 Wendy Crawford and Karen Jordi. False Bay Hospital Garden Project, Cape
Town, South Africa
3.19 Ann September. The Emerging Farmers Projects of Wes-Kaap Ubuntu
Farmers’ Union, Cape Town, South Africa
3.20 Sebenzile Nxumalo. The urban gardening pilot project of AMICAALL-
Swaziland, Mbabane, Swaziland

16
3.1 URBAN FOOD SECURITY PROGRAMME OF ACTION AIDS INTERNATIONAL
Momo Masoka
ACTION AIDS INTERNATIONAL
Harare, Zimbabwe
INTRODUCTION TO AAI AND ITS FOOD SECURITY PROGRAMME
ACTION AIDS INTERNATIONAL (AAI) was founded in 1972 to help children living in
poverty. Since then the organization has moved from providing short term relief
assistance to long term development assistance and finally to the rights based
organization the organization now is. Today AAI is operational in more than 42
countries globally, with more than 20 of them in Africa. The country offices are
coordinated by four regional offices in Nairobi (Africa), Brussels (Europe), Bangkok
(Asia) and Rio de Janeiro (Americas)
Our vision is a world without poverty and injustice in which every person enjoys
his/her right to a life with dignity. Our mission is to work with organizations, alliances
and movements at all levels to foster approaches rooted in a global identity and
consciousness and formulate alternatives that will eradicate poverty and injustice in
Africa
Since 2003 Action Aid International (Zimbabwe program) has been supporting nine
local NGOs in Harare and Bulawayo on a food security program targeting poor and
vulnerable households affected by HIV/AIDS. The overall goal of this project is to
improve the livelihood security of poor, marginalized and vulnerable households
affected and/or infected by HIV and AIDS, especially women and children. More
specifically the project has aimed to improve household food security through food
aid and own food production in low input gardens. This project has been part of the
protracted relief program that DFID has been supporting in Zimbabwe since 2003.
In supporting urban agriculture this project is seeking to augment the food aid
component by assisting households to produce a wide variety of foods to improve the
quality of their diet through consumption of a greater quantity of nutritious foods and
sale of surpluses. The project has also sought to use these gardens to produce
medicinal and nutritional herbs, particularly important for people living with HIV/AIDS
(PLWHA).
Urban agriculture8
is not a new phenomenon n Zimbabwe’s urban landscape and
dates back many years. However, its prevalence and significance has grown in line
with worsening urban poverty, particularly after Zimbabwe adopted the structural
adjustment in 1990. With the continued macroeconomic decline, rising
unemployment and the HIV/AIDS pandemic, urban agriculture has become key
source of livelihood for many urban households in Zimbabwe in recent times.
8 In this paper urban agriculture is viewed as the production of crops and/or livestock in areas
designated as urban. It may occur within residential properties or in open public land.
Depending on prevailing land use regulations such urban agriculture may be a legal or illegal
(Masoka 1997).

17
At its inception this project sought to support individual household gardens within
their residential areas or other open spaces that these households had access to9
.
The project also introduced the concept of low input gardening (LIG) that uses locally
available resources to help beneficiaries plan and manage their crops without
expensive chemicals to achieve healthy, productive gardens. LIG uses ideas from
other approaches such as permaculture, integrated land-use design, and sustainable
agriculture. Specifically designed for urban areas, the LIG approach maximises the
diversity of food that can be grown in small plots. This sustainable approach to
livelihoods is tailored to meet the specific needs of people affected by HIV and AIDS
(e.g. crop diversity for nutritional needs and gardening approaches that require
minimal financial and physical resources).
Beneficiary training has encompassed land use design, seasonality, water access,
pests, use of compost/mulches, soil structure, seed collection, nurseries, and food
handling, preparation and preservation. The project trains local volunteers who then
train beneficiaries.
As a strategy to minimise the risk of loosing public land areas (given the fluid policy
environment in Zimbabwe and the current ‘clean up’ operation) the project has
partnered with local schools in both Harare and Bulawayo. These schools have
offered land for LIG within their premises.
To improve sustainability of this partnership, the schools have become active
participants, not just providers of land. The schools have made LIG a part of their
curriculum and so their gardens will likely be secure from possible policy change
restricting land use in future. In these school gardens the heads of schools, teachers
and students are all involved and participate.
The project beneficiaries also take part in maintaining these gardens. This gives the
project collective ownership. Vegetables from these gardens are consumed by the
children from vulnerable families jointly identified by the school and the local IP.
School teachers have been trained on LIG and they in turn, train their students. So
far a total of 33 school gardens have been established and another 49 more are
planned.
In both the household and community garden beneficiaries grow leafy vegetables
(Cabbage, rape and other traditional vegetables), root or tubers, and herbs.
9 Since 1980 local authorities had tolerated open space cultivation in urban areas but the
legislation governing urban land use prohibited this and this legislation has not been amended
(Mbiba 1994).

18
RESULTS OBTAINED
An assessment of the project results so far has found that the benefits of the LIG
approach include economic returns, increased food security and nutrition as well as
psychosocial benefits, such as increased self-esteem, improved group cohesion,
decreased stigma, and increased community support. Furthermore the herbs being
produced in these gardens have been used for medicinal purposes, improving the
health of HIV affected beneficiaries.
Urban gardens are an essential part of urban livelihood systems particularly of the
poor and vulnerable.
LESSONS LEARNT
Access to Land and Water
Access to land for cultivation by poor households has always been a big challenge in
Zimbabwe’s urban areas. Most poor households do not have houses of their own and
often live as tenants in backyard cottages (before the ‘clean up’ exercise). Most such
tenants often do not have access to land to cultivate their crops. But with creativity
even under those conditions agricultural activities are taking place.
Production Issues
In this project beneficiaries grow a wide variety of crops including vegetables, herbs
and trees. Although the projects gives beneficiaries a start up seed kit, they are
usually free to grow crops of their choice including indigenous and wild plans. Our
emphasis has been to ensure that beneficiaries grow crops that are nutritious, have
medicinal value, help with soil fertility improvement and also offer insecticidal value to
protect the garden from pests.
Due to space limitations in the urban areas the project has not used micro irrigation
although there is drip kit technology on the Zimbabwean market.
To ensure sustainable availability of seeds and tools, the project has provided start
up tools and seeds to all beneficiary households. Furthermore the project also
cooperates with agents that provide training in permaculture and LIG. These
institutions are also key sources of seeds and seedlings, particularly of herbs and
other trees.
Labour has been one major problem for households affected by HIV/AIDS as some
of them are ill or have large numbers of young and dependant orphans. To minimise
this problem, the project has targeted the household instead of the sick individuals in
the household. Where the affected households have more than one adult member
this strategy has worked well.
Security of produce is an important factor. Produce in open places is often vulnerable
to theft. The school gardens have tended to be safer as most schools have security
arrangements.
Organizational and institutional issues
Training and mobilisation of beneficiaries is a crucial factor. Beneficiaries need to be
trained in an ongoing process. Most of the growers are poor with limited agricultural
or horticultural skills. Mobilising the communities motivates them to continue working.
It is important to de-stigmatise the project. Although our project targeted households
affected by HIV/AIDS, it would not have survived if it had been viewed as an

19
HIV/AIDS project. For instance, when this project was first introduced in schools, only
children from HIV/AIDS affected households were targeted to work in school garden.
Immediately it became apparent that the other children viewed the project as an
HI/AIDS project and nobody wanted to be associated with it; not even the
beneficiaries. The strategy had to be changed to involve all the children to remove
the stigma.
For the success of household gardens:
• a large pool of volunteers is needed to work with a small number of households,
providing training and monitor progress. Working with a small number of
beneficiaries gives the volunteer more time to support the beneficiaries and to
attend to their own (the volunteer’s) needs and to restrict transport needs
• The beneficiaries need to be organised into groups of say 20 to 30 households to
make mobilisation and training easier. Even if gardening activities will be
organised at household level, bringing the participants together provides
opportunities for peer influencing, training, support and motivation.
In school gardens:
• The whole school needs to be actively involved in the project: the head of the
school, the teachers and all students.
• There needs to be a strong cooperation between the households participating in
the school garden and the school authorities.
In order for urban agriculture to succeed in Zimbabwe, there is a need to develop an
enabling policy and regulatory environment that guaranties access to and
security of tenure for the poor. In Zimbabwe, following the ‘clean up operation’ many
poor household were displaced following the destruction of their homes. Many
households being supported by the project lost their gardens in this process. Even
where the owners were not displaced some of these gardens destroyed. However, in
uluwayo recently a process of multi-stakeholder policy formulation and action
planning has started.

20
3.2 URBAN AGRICULTURE PROGRAMME OF ABALIMI BEZEKHAYA
Rob Small, Christina Kaba and Sindi Mahusa-Mhlana
ABALIMI BEZEKAHAYA
INTRODUCTION TO ABALIMI BEZEKHAYA AND ITS ACTIVITIES.
ABALIMI BEZEKHAYA (“Planters of the Home”) is a registered civil society
organisation founded in 1982. Abilimi has a core of 12 permanent staff and an
additional group of about 14 contract staff and volunteers, who work on the Board
and on associated Special Projects that directly enhance core delivery
effectiveness10
.
ABALIMI is based at the Agri-Business Place in Phillipi, Cape Town and in two non-
profit People’s Garden Centre’s (supply and training) in Nyanga and Khayelitsha.
ABALIMI runs two core programmes:
a. the Urban Agriculture Programme (UAP)
b. the Cape Flats Greening Programme (CFGP).
The UAP and CFGP currently support about 200 community agriculture and
environmental projects and approximately 3000 home gardens (vegetable and
recreational) throughout the townships in Cape Town.
The most important associated special projects currently underway are
• The Schools Environmental Education & Development project (SEED, since
2000), which capacitates teachers to develop and utilise school gardens as
outdoor classrooms.
• The Agri-Business Place Phillipi, a new partnership project (since June 2005)
which aims to provide all round services to emerging agricultural entrepreneurs.
ABALIMI supports approximately 100 urban agriculture projects and 2000 home
vegetable gardens every year. The majority of the urban agriculture projects are
Community Allotment and/or Communal Gardens run mainly by women (average
age: 35 yrs plus) based in school yards and in a few servitude (commonage) areas.
Another type of urban gardens supported by ABILIMI are the Institutional gardens:
gardens initiated by institutions in support of their own core programmes (e.g.
outpatients gardens at clinics or educational gardens at schools).
The majority of the ABALIMI-supported gardens have been initiated by community
groups or individuals as part of a survival and/or subsistence strategy to cope with
poverty.
In Cape Town and surrounding there is a growing movement for Urban Agriculture
and Urban Greening, represented by the Vukuzenzela Urban Farmers Association
(VUFA), the School Environmental Teachers Association (SETA) and an emerging
Green Streets Association.
ABALIMI provides support to this movement, through the ABALIMI Core
10
See the ABALIMI Friends Newsletter and Website for more info on Abalimi’s activities and a list of
donors and funders.

21
Programmes and associated Special Projects, including the following activities (or
Key Result Areas):
• Project Implementation: delivery of actual projects on the ground, with
infrastructure.
• Resource Supply: subsidised and free start-up agricultural and horticultural
inputs to gardens
• Training: basic training in gardening , with long term on-site follow-up
(intermediate and advanced training is now being developed)
• Organisation Building: facilitation of Savings Mobilisation and Horizontal Action
Learning
• Networking: facilitation of partnerships in order to add value to all movement
initiatives (agricultural or non-agricultural) and linkage to lobbying organisations
and networks. ABALIMI itself is not a lobbyist, but only inputs into lobbying
formations.
• Research, Monitoring & Evaluation: facilitation of RME in the movement and
development of RME tools for the movement and for internal evaluation and
Action Learning.
• Financial & Organisational sustainability for ABALIMI: HRD, Resource
Mobilisation, Accounting and Management of ABALIMI to ensure that ABALIMI
remains effective as service provider to the movement.
RESULTS OBTAINED
Important results obtained by the core programmes include:
• Relative nutritional security at household level: most of the gardeners are
producing seasonal organic vegetables which impact on nutritional security and
health at household level. People may still be hungry, but are less at risk of
disabling nutrition-related disease11
.
• HIV-AIDS support: This is growing naturally out of the impulse for nutritional
security. Neither ABALIMI, nor the movement it supports, have a developed
programme or policy for HIV-AIDS support. However, there is a programme
emerging out of the movement itself, which begins simply with a regular and free
seasonal supply of fresh vegetables by the community gardeners themselves to
families and organisations in their communities which are struggling to feed
people with HIV-AIDS. Furthermore, institutional gardens (at clinics and at NGO
11
Empirical studies on the nutritional impact of seasonal organic vegetables at household level have not
been done. Only anecdotal evidence and personal testimony from hundreds of gardeners exists to
prove this fact.

22
care centres) are beginning to emerge which could become permanent supply
sources of fresh organic vegetable to patients.
• Income from sales of surplus vegetables: the community gardens (who are
mostly at early-mid subsistence level) have been known to save between R1000-
R20 000 per year in their bank accounts. These savings are irregular and often
under-declared. Most of the savings are used for essential cash-based items like
fuel, school fees, transport etc. Group savings are normally kept until year-end
and distributed among the members as a sort of “Christmas Bonus”. There is also
a trend within the community garden associations to use the group savings for
setting up internal micro-loan schemes to members or for bulk buying of inputs or
equipment. Much more needs to be done to facilitate Savings Mobilisation in the
movement, whereby the community projects can collaborate to pool savings and
thus obtain leverage in the cash economy.
• Job creation: ABALIMI has established through empirical field studies and
action-research that one job can be created for every 250-500m2 of wasteland
converted into gardens, selling organic vegetables to the local community at
street prices (worth 1300-R1500/month after costs) or to the Cape Town retail
market at premium prices (worth up to R 3000/month). These facts have been
communicated to the movement and are being taken seriously, although few
people are yet willing/or able to put in the 7 days per week/365 day per year effort
needed to achieve own job creation and job security. There is still a broad-based
feeling that “there must be an easier way”.
• Social benefits: group organic gardening generates important outcomes among
the urban poor12
. Among these benefits are the individual and group
empowerment among women (and also men if they are awake enough to their
feminine side) whereby women have entirely assumed leadership of the
movement, with good men in support roles. Because of this empowerment,
women are able to hold their family and community culture together, while the
men go off looking for the mythical “job”.
LESSONS LEARNT
Taking the development continuum into account
Interventions with regard to setting up urban agriculture projects should be clear
about their objectives and the development level of the groups they will be working
with.
In this regard ABALIMI has now developed, from field experience, a draft
Sustainability Index (SI)13
which tracks the development continuum of community
farming projects, with measurements, from survival level into subsistence level, into
livelihood level and finally into commercial level.. Linked to the SI is a field worker
career path and a gardener/farmer career path, capable of taking even illiterate
people through a continuum to gain accredited capacities at trade certificate level.
Programme designers should design interventions which are “level appropriate”:
each level in the development continuum has its own requirements and sustainability
criteria. This will avoid the mistake being made here in South Africa where agencies
are still trying to create commercial growers in quick-time, out of people who are not
yet competent at Subsistence or Livelihood level, and who are often unclear if they
even want to be farmers at all.
12
Also on this subject -other than one or two studies done some years ago- little field research has been
implemented due to lack of funding. However, anecdotal evidence and personal testimony from
members in the movement make it crystal clear that the social impacts are substantial
13
The SI will be made available freely once it is finalised (by Mid July 2006)

23
The most important kind of gardens to start with are the survival and subsistence
gardens, which enable nutritional security. These gardens can only be sustainable if
land, water and fertility inputs are functionally free or extremely cheap, as there is
little or no cash available in families at survival or early subsistence level for
purchasing inputs. Accordingly, technologies should by low cost and simple although
high fertility, energy and water efficiencies must be achieved.
ABALIMI targets to bring all community farming groups to the Livelihood stage,
characterized by a mix of self provisioning and commercial activities at the garden
centre as well as other value-adding initiatives (e.g. restaurant, compost production,
vegetable shop, etcetera).
Access to land and water; subsidized inputs
It is an absolute fact that agriculture anywhere in the world cannot survive without
being subsidised (via price controls, special loans, cross-subsidies or grants).
Agriculture is not a normal straight-line business that merely adds value to cheap raw
material. Thus survival and subsistence gardens and farms must also be subsidised-
especially by provision of free land and very cheap or free water and organic
fertiliser. The poor, for their part, are usually happy to work hard physically, together.
People are often also prepared to pay for their seed, which can be cheaply supplied
from decanted bulk stock.
Permanent non-profit and wholesale supply centres are critical as a first step: without
supply of cheap or free resources, there will be no gardening or farming of any sort,
ever. There is no farmer on this planet that pays the full cost of their inputs.
There is absolutely no need for large areas of land to achieve nutritional and relative
food security at household level. One square meter of sprouts or fresh quick growing
greens can make the essential difference to one person as far as nutritional security
is concerned. Even 10-20 m2 of intensive organic garden can supply base-line
nutritional security to one family of 5-6
souls and 100 m2 can provide all fresh
greens a family needs year-round.
Water can be recycled, harvested,
conserved in the soil and deployed
through drip lines or equivalent. Only 3-
4 litres per square meter per day is
needed during dry periods. If there is no
rain and no surface water, invest in
wells or boreholes. If there is no water at
all, get a job elsewhere or invest in a
coffin.
Production aspects
Free access to bio-mass/organic municipal waste (we are not talking about human
faeces) is essential and relationship with stock owners -particularly cattle owners- is
vital. ABALIMI is about to start a campaign for “one cow-one garden”. One cow
produces 10 tons of manure per annum, if kraaled overnight. This is enough to
supply up to 1ha of community garden with all annual fertility requirements. Of
course, small livestock should also be included, but small livestock, like fruit, is
something that has a tendency to vanish if not kept under armed guard. But
vegetables and cows (and goats) are less vulnerable to “vanishment”.

24
It is easy to begin organic gardening at a basic level, but to progress takes study and
time and commitment to develop the required skills.
Organizational and institutional aspects
The “consumer culture mindset”, where people perceive land-based lifestyles to be
backwards, and group dynamics, leading to disruption of production, are probably the
two most important limiting factors to the development and continuity of agricultural
projects and growth in the movement.
However, we are learning to facilitate the inevitable organisational crises in such a
way that they are learning and growth opportunities, not failures. The main tool used
is Horizontal Action Learning Exchange, where the gardeners analyse problems and
decide on solutions themselves. Group wisdom usually finds the right way, if
everyone can be properly “heard” and group process is not diverted by dominant
individuals.
There has to be a number of service providers who supply what the gardeners and
associations do not have, with a good understanding of the requirements of each
level in the development continuum.
As far as nutritional security/HIV-Aids is concerned, there has to be a nutrition
education component to ensure that the quality of the food is not destroyed in the
(over)cooking process. ABALIMI still has to find a permanent partner in the nutrition
education sphere, but in the mean time we work with a few different organisations.
Once micro & meso models have been developed and tested by civil society
organisations (social entrepreneurs), the State should adapt and test the models on a
macro scale. The State is functionally no good at innovation, but once an innovation
has been trialed and tested the State has the capacity to apply it.
As an alternative to the State, the movement itself can “take to scale” provided it is
well organised and sufficient funding can be obtained. The movement can enable
itself through Horizontal Action Learning, Savings Mobilisation and cheap Micro-
Loans between members and Local Economic Trading Systems (LETS)14
Community Investment Programmes (CIP’s) use all the above tactics, to incentivise
communities to design and execute own development programmes which address
the full range of community needs, including food security through urban
agriculture15
.
Ongoing grant finance from enlightened funding agencies is vital to keep the
development process in the movement rolling, by investing at all levels in the
development continuum, and using the tools and approaches mentioned above to
finalise in detail a sustainable model for food, nutritional and cash security16
for
permanent local livelihoods and jobs (with urban agriculture as a key component!!),
which the State could then take to scale.
14
For more info on LETS, see: www.ces.org.za
15
For more information on CIP’s, contact Dr Norman Reynolds at marketnr@iafrica.com
16
Food security does not necessarily lead to cash security – e.g. a farmer can eat very well and have no
cash- and cash security does not automatically lead to food security – e.g. a rich man may starve his
family. Food security and cash security do not always equal nutrition security – e.g. there are millions of
fat people who live on starch and meat. At survival or early subsistence level the focus is on nutritional
and food security. When moving to Livelihood and Commercial levels, reaching cash security too gets
more emphasis.

25
3.3 FOOD GARDENS PROGRAMME OF SOIL FOR LIFE
Pat Featherstone
SOIL FOR LIFE
INTRODUCTION TO SOIL FOR LIFE AND ITS PROGRAMME
SOIL FOR LIFE is a registered not-for-profit NGO that was established in March
2003, formerly operating as the Western Cape branch of Food Gardens Foundation,
a national NGO based in Gauteng. There are four full-time staff and seven part-time
staff. The organisation has a Resource and Training Centre based at a school in
Constantia and all operations are carried out from here.
Our vision is to make a significant and positive contribution to the health, self-
confidence and family finance of indigent people in the Western Cape. Our aims include
improving the nutritional and economic status of individuals and communities in
urban and rural areas, to develop human potential and to balance human needs with
nature’s capacity to sustain life now and in the future.
SOIL FOR LIFE is implementing the following activities:
• We run hands-on practical education and training courses in: small-scale organic
food and herb production, soil improvement methods, waste recycling, health and
nutrition, including medicinal and culinary herbs, nursery skills and plant
propagation, food processing and preserving. The latter courses have been given
to equip groups with the skills necessary to start a home business to boost
household income. Part of these trainings are implemented for the City of Cape
Town and there are many gardens have been started as a result.
• Initial supply of compost, seed and basic tools
• We provide ongoing support and advice to gardening groups that have been
trained by SOIL FOR LIFE. However, many of the groups that have been trained
do not have any follow support, since SOIL FOR LIFE does not have the financial
resources to support all these projects.
• We encourage the development of local networks and support groups.
• We form partnerships with related NGO’s and Community-Based Organisations.
RESULTS OBTAINED
SOIL FOR LIFE’s work in indigent communities is important because:
• People are enabled to put safe, fresh, nutritious food on the table every night.
• Exercise, fresh air, good food, and the reduction of stress (all spin- offs of the
food-growing culture) build strong immune systems and help in the fight against
AIDS, TB, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and poor mental health.
• A food-growing initiative within any community removes social, cultural and
economic barriers.
• Raising living standards and generating local trade circulates income within
communities and pays for education and social services.
• People create jobs for themselves and others.
• The re-use of waste by community gardeners reduces the burden on local
authorities and landfill sites.

26
Food gardens make a significant difference to the lives of many people. The food
gardeners are obviously eating better. Many people are eating large quantities of
green vegetables (particularly important because of significant Vitamin A content)
from these gardens (and this includes thieves!)
The food gardeners have some money to spend on things which they could not
previously afford and they are getting all the advantages of healthy, outdoor exercise,
companionship, new skills, a marginally improved life, and learning to work with other
people as a group
Many people also have gardens at home – the transfer of skills and appropriate
technology is what SOIL FOR LIFE wants to happen.
It has also been noticed that well-managed and productive community and home
food gardens catch the attention of locals who, in turn, are inspired and encouraged
to attempt the same for themselves using SOIL FOR LIFE methods.
Lastly, with massive land degradation in South Africa, and alarming losses of topsoil,
and the consequent loss of good agricultural land, how are we going to feed our
burgeoning population? Consider what it would mean in terms of increasing the
amount of cultivated land and reducing hunger if people could be encouraged to
establish food gardens at their homes, community centres, clinics, churches,
wherever there is vacant land; if everyone in South Africa had a food garden, no
matter how small.
In 2004 a survey was implemented on the impacts of six food gardening projects that
SOIL FOR LIFE implemented for the Department of Social Services and Poverty
Alleviation, with the following outcomes:
• Between the six groups over four hundred people are being fed, as well as
some of the food finding its way into the larger community. If more attention
would be paid to replanting, (i.e.: just over one-half of the beds was planted at
the time of the survey), there could be even more food available for
community consumption.
• Sales of surpluses generate an average of R14.42 per week per seller, which
in these communities is a significant amount and makes an enormous

27
difference between a poor diet and shortage of food and an adequate diet, so
contributing to improved nutrition in the community as a whole. With greater
attention to better replanting and production methods, and more home
gardens, the surplus for sale would undoubtedly increase.
• The people themselves are very aware of the difference these gardens have
made to their lives. Nearly fifty percent of the gardeners no longer buy
vegetables elsewhere, and must therefore save money in this way, as well as
eating more nutritious food. Also nearly half of the gardeners indicate that the
gardens made life easier, presumably because finding food, or money for
food, is now less problematic. Well over one third have found a great
improvement in health, either their own, or their families. One tenth remark on
how making money from vegetable sales has improved their livelihood. The
impact appears to have been considerable, out of all proportion to the input.
• The areas in which these projects are located are often areas of transition,
with a movement of many people into and out of the area, so stability of the
garden projects is a problem. Additionally some, like Mfuleni, have aging
populations and death and disease have taken a toll of a number of the
gardeners. A typical example is Driftsands, where the original twenty-eight
members were later joined by eight TB+ patients. Of the latter, four have died
and only one remains in the project. Of the original twenty-eight, only twelve
remain in the project, and there has only been one new member
subsequently.
• Often there are also other internal problems. For example, Nolungile is a
large garden located on a school property, and the school administration is
not happy with the inability of the group to contribute to water costs. In some
cases it has been difficult for SOIL FOR LIFE to operate without interference,
from other groups or interested parties, in its methods and the administration
of the projects. Yet despite these setbacks, there are some very positive
results are evident.
• A disappointing aspect is the small number of food garden beds being made
at gardeners’ homes. This may be due in part to the absence of space and
lack of security of tenure in the informal settlements. It is always considered
best when the gardens are at the home of the producer.
• The range of vegetables being grown (twenty-seven different vegetables) is
impressive and a good indication of the growth in the attitude to eating
vegetables. It is also a good sign that these communities are eating a more
varied and, probably, a more balanced diet. However, with the exception of
green peppers, they are still eating the well-known vegetables.
LESSONS LEARNT
Factors influencing the success or failure of the urban agriculture projects
Lead by example. Whether it be home or community gardeners, nothing works as
well as seeing other inspiring examples of productive gardens. By encouraging
networks and support groups, standards are set and people are excited to emulate
what they have seen.
It is important to have a well-trained and motivated community person co-ordinating
the project and to have a train-the-trainer programme in place.
Working with groups of women, rather than men. If you want something said, ask a
man. If you want something done, ask a woman (Margaret Thatcher). Older women
tend to have better staying power and motivation.

28
Working with people who have a rural background, and who are not too
sophisticated. In other words, people who are not aspiring to white- or blue-collar
jobs.
It is important to take into account that many participants in these projects are
characterized by:
- Poor nutrition levels – low energy and interest
- Low energy levels – either of infected people, or those who are affected by
infected family members because they act as carers.
- Apathy and ignorance. Low self-esteem/lack of self confidence. No vision.
- Dependency syndrome and the mindset ‘no money, no work’.
A mentorship programme (subsequent to the initial training course) which lasts for at
least two to three years, during which time farming groups undergo an extension of
the training, problems are sorted out, techniques are checked for correct
implementation and people are motivated and supported. The importance of a follow
up programme cannot be expressed strongly enough. It not only ensures correct
implementation, but also provides opportunities for further training and motivation
and the solving of problems, either with crop production, or with people.
Service providers need to stay with projects for five, six or seven years. This is not
generally possible with the way funding occurs. And therefore few groups reach the
status of true self-sufficiency or sustainability. There is, however, the problem of
changes within the group over this period.
It is no good teaching people how to grow food without teaching them about good
health and nutrition. People also need to learn other skills associated with

29
sustainability: food processing and preserving, food storage, seed-saving with a
capital S.
Access to resources
• Small is beautiful, and bountiful. Large pieces of land are not necessary to make
a difference to a family’s (or a community’s) nutritional status. Use production
methods which are high yielding in limited spaces. Reduce soil compaction, and
increase levels of organic material. Even simple mulching improves the harvest.
• To increase the area of land under cultivation, food gardens must be established
in individual homes, community centres, clinics, schools – wherever there is a
small bit of earth capable of producing food.
• South Africa is a semi-arid country and water is a problem. Water harvesting off
roofs and other flat surfaces – can be achieved with minimal effort and simple
technology using urban waste. Grey water usage, drip irrigation and water-
conserving methods of production (e.g. mulching) should be encouraged.
• Use of labour saving and easy to manage technologies: mulching, no till, raised
beds, crop rotation, vermiculture, drip irrigation
In order to reduce external resources needed:
° Optimal use of locally available resources i.e. reuse of urban wastes and
° Sourcing of second hand tools and equipment
° Local production of own seedlings in seed beds and simple nurseries and
seed collection from crops and trees.
° Exchange of tools/services/products among community gardening groups
and households: Trade vegetables for labour, manure, compost with
community members and join the Community Exchange System (CES)
and trade with a local currency (not money).

30
Production aspects
Food gardening, the SOIL FOR LIFE way, produces high yields of top quality, much-
needed food in small spaces quickly, easily, cheaply. Within eight to ten weeks of
planting, a household can be eating.
SOIL FOR LIFE methods work along the maxim – healthy soil, healthy plants,
healthy people; and people are taught how to first feed the soil. South Africa loses
about 500 million toms of topsoil every year and, along with it, go about six million
tons of plant nutrients which are not replaced. It has been estimated that fertiliser use
accounts for the addition of 1kg of nutrients for every 19kg lost forever. No wonder
there is widespread malnutrition and depressed immune systems.
Mulching is strongly advocated since it solves a myriad of problems.
Liquid fertilisers – from seaweed, manure, compost, weeds and so on – boost plant
growth and production.
The production of leafy green vegetables are encouraged: NZ spinach, morog, CM
Kale, walking stick cabbage, sou sou marrows, etcetera. All high in Vitamin A to
boost immune systems.
Especially the production of “cut and come again” crops is promoted (e.g. New
Zealand spinach, CM kale and red Chinese mustard) since these are not only hardy,
highly productive and nutritious but also important labour savers.
The main (technical) problems we face are:
• Upgrading the soil. Getting sufficient supplies of organic waste to fill trenches,
mulch and make compost is a time-consuming and frustrating exercise.
Partnerships with local councils, businesses etc help.
• Installing and maintaining drip irrigation systems.
Keep it simple. The attempts to increase food production through intensification and
increasingly complex technology will only lead to increasing degradation of soils and
soil erosion, and an increasing need of materials and resources. Apart from climate
problems, lack of assured water supplies, poor fertility and difficult topography there
are other problems such as poor communications, long distances from markets, lack
of transport, high input costs, lack of credit. We need a type of ‘survival agriculture’
where illiteracy, lack of infrastructure and other such problems do not limit food
production by every kind of community at every stage of development. There are
methods to turn things around.
Organisational and institutional aspects
Things happen slowly. No major changes happen overnight.
Partnerships with other NGO’s and community-based organisations strengthen our
efforts in the field. Partnerships with Local councils and provincial government are
important to get access to land and for the provision of organic waste, infrastructure
etc.
A productive and cost effective strategy to multiply our efforts are train-the-trainer
type of programmes for staff of other NGO’s, clinics, church groups and other
organisations that work specifically with HIV-AIDS patients and other vulnerable
groups. This training allows these organisations to implemented urban agriculture
projects with their own people.

31
There is a scarcity of funds to get projects well off the ground and on their way to
self-sufficiency. Sustainability does not occur overnight. It takes a long time and
therefore requires funding for a quite lengthy period.
Our main sources of funding for these projects are the Department of Social Services
and Poverty Alleviation. The Department of Agriculture has supplied some
infrastructure. Other potential sources include the Department of Health, the City of
Cape Town and private corporations.
Sustainability comes faster if all available resources in communities are used
maximally.

32
3.4 NUTRITION AND FOOD SECURITY PROGRAM OF KENYA AIDS
INTERVENTION PREVENTION PROJECT GROUP
James Onyango
KENYA AIDS INTERVENTION PREVENTION PROJECT GROUP (KAIPPG)
Kakamega, Kenya
INTRODUCTION TO KAIPPG AND ITS PROGRAMME
KAIPPG is a grassroots service NGO working with marginalized communities in the
rural and peri-urban areas of Kenya, founded in 1996. Its mission is to addresses
HIV-AIDS problems holistically through linkages with various aspects of community
welfare. It attempts to build the capacity of communities to realize their full potentials
and bring about positive change. It focuses its work on improving the status of
women, children and youth living in the rural and peri-urban areas, through direct
support and increased access to knowledge and information about the links between
HIV/AIDS and other social concerns such as poverty, agriculture, nutrition, gender
and general health. KAIPPG fosters an approach of self-empowering activism, which
in turn helps in the development of programs to address the identified community
needs. KAIPPG trains people to help themselves and encourages communities to
collect, preserve and disseminate indigenous health and agricultural knowledge and
techniques.
Currently KAIPPG has 12 paid staff, 2 program volunteers and a large team of
community-based volunteers. The paid staff include, 4 Nutritional Field Workers
attached to the Nutrition and Food Security Project, 2 nurses attached to the
community care and support program, 1 Projects Coordinator, 1 Administrator, 1
Accountant, the Chief Executive and 2 support staff.
KAIPPG addresses the holistic needs of the HIV/AIDS affected households in rural,
urban and peri-urban areas of Kakamega, Kenya through its Nutrition and Food
Security Program. This Program was initiated in 2000; initially targeting 240
HIV/AIDS affected rural households. In 2003, the project was scaled up to reach 720
households, including 180 urban and peri-urban communities, particularly slum
dwellers.
The primary objective of this program is to improve nutritional and economic status
and overall food security of rural and peri-urban communities and households made
vulnerable due to HIV/AIDS in Kenya. The strategy is to build an innovative and
integrated program that holistically addresses the food, nutritional and economic
needs of HIV/AIDS affected communities and other vulnerable households in a
sustainable way. The project attempts to holistically improve the status of the entire
household where the children live; links families with each other, with local and
national agencies, healthcare workers, and other "helping" entities so that a web of
support and well-being can be established. The current program is serving 720
households enrolled on 24 NFS of 30 beneficiaries each, of which 6 NFS comprising
180 participants have been developed in urban centres.
The success of this program is based on proper development of participatory
processes that allow involvement of project beneficiaries plus other strategic partners
from the time of project conception, planning, implementation and evaluation. To
achieve this, the project went through a series of activities as briefly outlined below:

33
Community Mobilization and Nutritional Needs Assessment Activities
The project started by stakeholder mapping and mobilization of communities. This
was done through field visits and community sensitization workshops. This process
helped in identification and sensitization of the community and other stakeholders on
the proposed project and define the roles of the various stakeholders The
stakeholders identified included community health workers (CHWs), trainer of
trainers (TOTs), provincial administration (PA), Ministry of Health (MOH) and Ministry
of Agriculture (MOA), NGOs and other Community based organizations (CBOs)
within the project area.
KAIPPG conducted 3-day non-residential community sensitization workshops in each
targeted project sites. First workshop day focused on making the project known to
the community and identifying and familiarizing with possible stakeholders and
partners in each project area. Community leaders, MOA extension officers, MOH
personnel and the PA were invited to attend. This enabled all stakeholders to identify
their roles and assist in the identification of project beneficiaries. Approximately 60
people participated in each of the workshops. Day two focused on conducting the
nutritional needs-assessment. The needs assessment helped to determine the
common crops grown in the particular areas, the farming resources already available
within the groups, the seasonal calendars, establish the community action plans,
determine respective roles of each stakeholder and develop the participatory
monitoring and evaluation tools. Day three focused on developing criteria for
selection of project beneficiaries.
Establishment of Nutritional Field Schools (NFS)
KAIPPG established 24 community-based non-formal learning centres, called
Nutritional Field Schools (NFS) in 24 sites. Of these, 6 project sites comprising 180
participants were developed in urban centres of Busia, Mumias and Kakamega, while
18 sites comprising 540 participants were in rural areas in Bungoma, Teso and
Malava/Lugari districts in Western Kenya.
Using participatory methodologies, 30 people per site were selected from vulnerable
households. The 30 people were organized to comprise one NFS. Priority was given
to older orphans; widows, low-income women and older vulnerable children who are
PLWHA or HIV/AIDS affected household members. KAIPPG worked closely with its
already existing community groups to identify group members from their home-based
care beneficiary clients and those already enrolled on our other projects.

34
Establishment of beneficiary plots and demonstration sites
Each member of the NFS donated a small plot (about half acre), from the family land,
on which to grow crops. KAIPPG rented small farms for the participants who did not
own or have access to the family land, while the multi-storey gardens (sack gardens)
were developed for the urban-based clients. The crops to be grown were selected
on the basis of their nutritional components, with priority being given to indigenous
crops and vegetables. NFS members were then supplied with farm inputs and
supplies, and equipment. Certified maize and sorghum seeds, vegetables, and
fertilizers were purchased from authorized dealers and supplied to the beneficiaries.
One farm demonstration plot was centrally established on each field school where
NFS members met once a week to receive training and share issues of concern and
successes. Community members donated the land for the demo plots. Where this
was not possible KAIPPG rented the farm from the municipal land. Formal classes
were held during the NFS meetings, facilitated by Nutritional Field School facilitators,
Ministry of Agriculture Extension Officers and Nutritionists. The facilitators used the
demonstration plots to show how to effectively prepare the soil, proper plant spacing,
cultivation techniques, pest control, harvesting techniques and dietary intake for
OVCs and PLWHA.
Training of Vulnerable Households in Nutrition and Food production
The participants were taught relevant skills and techniques to enable them acquire
the needed nutrition and patient care skills, maximize crop harvest and have the
potential to become more economically and socially empowered.
The NFS participants who completed the above training and who were able to apply
new skills of food/crop production and utilization were linked up to our Information,
Communication and Technology project, which trains communities in integration of
Information and Communication Technologies in HIV/AIDS prevention, gender and
agricultural development. This in turn empowered the project beneficiaries to serve
as facilitators in dissemination of information to the new field schools in their
catchment areas, as the project further expands.
Apart from the weekly meetings, small inter-care group meetings were held to share
experiences on counselling, team strengthening and motivation and as a means of
relieving stress. When the group members harvested their crops, they donated 5% of
their total produce to new groups earmarked for subsequent growing seasons, in
order to replicate and expand the project with minimal external inputs. During the
weekly formal classes at the demonstration plots, community members were given a
chance to ask questions on cross cutting issues, which were then addressed by the
NFS facilitators. Condom distribution was also done on demand after every weekly
session at the demonstration plots.
Stigma reduction
Reduction of stigma and raising the status of PLWHA was among the key
anticipations of the project. KAIPPG achieved this through:
• Trainings on the NFS
• Organization of post-test clubs (PTC) and other community self supporting
initiatives. PTC members are NFS participants that have undergone an HIV test
and have knowledge of their current status. Its primary aim was to link
beneficiaries and provide opportunities for them to share their burdens and
experiences. By the close of 2004, 11 PTCs had been formed. Through the
PTCs, clients were able to know each other, form strong webs of support and
access ARV treatments. KAIPPG developed proposals for the PTCs to seek

35
funding for initiation of their own Income generating projects directly from the
National AIDS Control Council (NACC).
• Facilitation of joint meals with PLWHAS. KAIPPG provided the beneficiaries with
food during the NFS classes. This ensured that the process of food preparation,
feeding and teamwork was more practical, with the food being bought from the
community, prepared as part of the learning process and eaten by all those
participating on the NFS classes. Since all beneficiaries were eating together as a
group, this reduced stigma. Since food was prepared on the spot and eaten
jointly, beneficiaries could not divert the money meant for their food into spending
it on other pressing needs at the expense of the food.
Collaboration and Linkage of Clients to health facilities and other support
networks
In order to ensure that a comprehensive package of care and support services are
provided to PLWHA and affected family members, KAIPPG worked with its home-
based care volunteers and those trained by other institutions to encourage and
motivate NFS participants and reinforce the nutritional training component of the
project. CHWs are uniquely positioned to promote compliance with revision of diets
geared for the client with opportunistic infections, eating disorders, and certain food
intolerance related to HIV/AIDS. NFS members were provided with the opportunity to
visit with previously trained NFS members to get a first hand view of the changes
made in household dietary regimes as well as the impact the program made on food
production and marketing.
Apart from linking beneficiaries with each other into a sort of web, KAIPPG created
strong linkages with several governmental and non-governmental agencies. CHWs
strengthen the linkage of project clients with health facilities for early diagnosis and
treatment of infections, such MSF Spain, for ARV access by the clients, hospitals and
clinics in the districts of operation for the purpose of facilitating referral of the patients
and provision of VCT and ARTs, among other services.
KAIPPG also linked up NFS members with K-REP and SMEP-micro-financing
organizations, so that members could access resources to start up small businesses
and expand crop production. The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute in Busia and
Kakamega provide some researched varieties of root crops (such as potatoes and
cassava) to our project clients; MOA and MOH provide technical expertise to the
whole project.
The provincial administration assists with the security of the farm plots and safety of
widows and orphan headed plots. These networks facilitated the provision of a
complete care continuum to our targeted communities. It is hoped that these
networks will further be strengthened as the project progresses in the subsequent
phases so that they will survive and be sustained even after the end of the project.
RESULTS OBTAINED
Improvement of household food security and nutritional status of PLWHAS
The project helped the most stigmatised groups (HIV/AIDS-infected and affected) to
be self-sufficient in long-term food supply, and to improve the nutritional status of
children. This in turn provided them with greater psychosocial empowerment and
adaptability. Monitoring information shows that the households are maintaining their
improved gardening practices, nutritional habits and methods of caring for PLWHA.
In addition longevity of life and a delay in progression from HIV to full blown AIDS,
has been observed in 65% of HIV infected individuals who were enrolled on this
program.

36
Improvement of household economic sustainability
In addition to linkages with micro-financing institutions, households sold other
products of their agricultural activities such as animal cakes and margarines, thus
generating extra income. This helped to improve both the livelihood of families and
their general long-term economic and social standing.
Skills development:
The project trained communities in caring for the PLWHA in the home, good
nutritional habits, proper knowledge on the importance of VCT and ARV treatments
and also in reliable, innovative, and simple methods of food production and
processing, record keeping and farm planning.
This skill development ensured that the communities were adequately equipped to
implement the project on long term basis using their own resource people
The organization was successful to prove to the community that through proper
farming practices food security can be attained. The plots produced yields, which
were approximately 65% to 70% higher than the previous productions.
Stigma Reduction and Empowerment of orphan-headed households
The project activities made that the urban and peri-urban communities’ negative
attitude towards farming and stigma towards PLWHA began changing.
Other benefits and beneficiaries
The project had benefited many people, either directly or indirectly. Each of the 720
beneficiaries was from a household of 8 persons on average, totalling to
approximately 5,760 beneficiaries. Apart from this, all NFS were open to attendance
by other members of the neighbourhoods. An additional 1350 persons not initially
registered on the program participated in NFS classes. Local business communities
also benefited due to sale of farm equipment and supplies to the project, as were the
micro-financing institutions to which the groups were linked.
Several local NGOs and Farmers’ Groups have adopted the nutritional field school
model.
LESSONS LEARNT
The success or failure of urban agriculture projects that aim to positively influence
nutrition and income situation of households affected by HIV-AIDS is dependent on a
number of factors, which are presented below.

37
Creating access to Land and water
Urban families normally have very restricted access to land and water for food
production. In many urban centres open space for agriculture is limited and the faster
the urbanisation, the more limited that space becomes. For this reason, the efficient
protection of open spaces in inner cities is an important issue. Farming can be done
on strips of land at the sides of roads, railways and power lines, as well as along
riverbanks and on seasonally flooded land. In most countries, power lines are
situated in non-residential areas and so, in the same way as river banks, the land
over which they pass is often used as illegal dumping sites. These strips may be
converted for agricultural use. Experiences in Kenya have shown that by creating
community gardens in such areas, illegal dumping and squatting on such land can be
prevented. Sack gardens can be developed within the inner cities where there is
limited space and water. Hand drip irrigation can be used in resource constrained
agricultural areas.
Overcoming labour constraints: group and livelihood approach
HIV-Aids affected households encounter severe restrictions in labour availability for
farming (or other productive activities). It is for this reason that organizing people into
groups is important. Groups assist in tending each other’s farms, as it is understood
that the failure of one individual within the group would be seen as failure of the
whole group. Group activities such as merry-go-rounds can be used to raise funds
that can help in meeting the labour and other productive needs of PLWHA. Where
the program has trained family and community care givers, these can be used to
assist the PLWHA with day to day social chores including tending of the farms.
Urban farmers to a large extent have other urban jobs too. This limited their
availability and focus on training on the field schools. It is in this context that the
program did not restrict itself to agricultural activities but took the whole of the
people’s livelihood strategies into account.
Most people, who get infected with HIV while residing in urban areas, immigrate to
their rural homes during their final time of illness. It is important that during the
planning of the program methods that are sensitive to these dynamic processes
should be considered.
Dealing with rapid change
Change is a dominant feature of the urban context for many people, either real or
anticipated. The rapid changes in the urban settings can be a major impediment to
project sustainability. Housing insecurity, land insecurity, rapid changes in land use,
immigration, shifting work opportunities, soaring land prices and an increasing
interference of urban political and economical power groups will all have varying
implications on the sustainability and long term impacts of the micro-farming
program.
Availability of high quality but affordable gardening Inputs
Access to the necessary inputs for gardening from a local, sustainable source is an
important element for successful gardening. Such inputs include seeds, seedlings
and saplings, a regular water supply, environmentally friendly soil improvement
techniques and pest control, fencing, proper farming tools and capital where needed.
Community Participation
Involvement and participation of the community in project initiation, design,
implementation and evaluation will ensure active participation and ultimate ownership
of the project by the beneficiaries. Having two-way channels for information

38
exchange is instrumental for achieving sustainable, improved gardening practices.
Self- created local community groups are necessary for creating a voice through
which the marginalized can be heard.
Technical assistance, demonstration and training
Technical support is especially important when new gardening techniques are being
promoted such as growing new or increased number of varieties or year-round
vegetable production, and when all these have to be linked up with HIV/AIDS care,
support and mitigation. Training and other group activities around a central
demonstration garden can serve to demonstrate different varieties, hybrids or other
important garden techniques such as composting, use of natural pesticides, year
round production, sack gardening and other topics relevant to community needs.
Nutrition and HIV/AIDS education within the gardening activity
Counselling to change feeding/eating behaviours and adopt positive attitudes for
PLWHA is generally an important component of food-based strategies. Similar to
understanding the indigenous approach to gardening, an understanding of the
cultural context, feeding practices and interaction of drugs with food will guide
nutrition education to achieve good health and sustainable behavioural changes.
The garden or nursery can also be utilized as a focal point for nutrition education and
social marketing to promote increased consumption of micronutrient rich foods. In
addition, messages about a variety of other issues that influence nutrient absorption
and overall health such as prevention of childhood illness, timing of meals/foods,
intake of tea and other factors that inhibit nutrient absorption can be presented to
households, HIV/AIDS care givers, orphan guardians, mothers and household
members.
Broadening from gardening to animal husbandry
KAIPPG has begun integrating animal husbandry, fish, bee and mushroom farming,
with its home gardening program. This is because of the important success of related
pilot activities, as well as the fact that animal foods are a very good source of
micronutrients, and that their bioavailability is better than that of micronutrients of
cereals and vegetables.
Implementing Integrated and multi-stakeholder programs
Since agriculture is not a job of choice for most urban dwellers, it is strongly
recommended that the program integrates other activities, such as the arts and
communication, non-agricultural economic activities, into the program. Involvement of
other stakeholders in program implementation will facilitate comprehensive support
across a wide spectrum of community needs. Funding for support of the post-test
clubs (PTC) should be provided within that of the nutritional activities in order to
facilitate effective community mobilization for VCT and ARTs. The PTCs are very
effective fora, not only for stigma reduction and PLWHA’s economic empowerment,
but also for educating people on the importance of VCT and ARTs, including where
and how to access these services. This approach will make the program more
attractive to all cadres of people - youth, women, men and the elderly- and lead to
greater program impact and sustainability.
Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring facilitates the identification of problems and the development of solutions
based on sharing between the beneficiaries and the program managers. Indicators
are dependent on the program objectives and should include some that can be
monitored locally. Continued integration of lessons learned from implementation and
evaluation efforts is one of the key aspects to the successful scale up of this
program. Evaluation and planning should be conducted at key intervals during the

39
program period to improve the program. Follow-up of program clients and
involvement of other partners in the monitoring and evaluation framework will ensure
that problems are identified and tackled before they get out of hand.
Semi-annual Participatory Project Review workshops were held with strategically
selected beneficiaries, CHWs and partners, in order to assess the impact of the
project. Achievements made during the implementation, challenges and lessons
were shared, and action plans for subsequent phases developed. These workshops
are normally broad-based so as to share the lessons from other projects of the
KAIPPG program as this not only helps in creating synergies, but also to establish
ways and linkages for the communities’ project sustainability in case of the
unavailability of future donor support.
Combination of funding sources
A project of this nature requires both external sources of finance and reasonable
contributions from both the beneficiaries and other local stakeholders. For instance,
the overall institutional, administrative and logistical support to this project was
provided by KAIPPG, using funding from USAID through Pathfinder International.
The farm tools and equipment were donated by WORKAID -a British charity- while
the ICTs component of the program was funded through CTA/IICD/IDRC/HIVOS
GenARDIS Small Grants Program. On the other hand, the project beneficiaries
provided labour and where possible, land. The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
(KARI) provided some certified seeds while MOA and MOH provided technical
support.
Technology development
There is still limitation of local technical knowledge in urban agriculture with no or
minimal research having been conducted. More research is needed as well as
capacity development for institutions undertaking urban micro farming in the context
of HIV/AIDS.

Gardens of Hope: Urban Micro-Farming

Gardens of Hope: Urban Micro-Farming

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Gardens of Hope: Urban Micro-Farming

Similar a Gardens of Hope: Urban Micro-Farming (20)

Más de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

Más de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Último

Último (20)

Gardens of Hope: Urban Micro-Farming