Development of expert-driven standards for agriculture and biodiversity
Involvement of local communities in Wildlife Friendly™ enterprises
Financing the community gardens
The implementation of a community garden of about 6000 square metres costs around 33 000 USD. This includes working devices (e. g. spades and hoes), irrigation system and sun protection, measures of soil improvement such as organic fertilizer and humus, construction timber for the compost heap and planting beds, plants, seeds, petrol for the delivery of materials and machines, and personnel costs for two agricultural engineers who help residents create the garden. Costs vary depending on the size of the garden.
The implementation of the community gardens is financed through donations from private and public persons and foundations. In 2015, a German branch was founded in Berlin (Städte Ohne Hunger Deutschland e. V.) with the objective to support Cities Without Hunger's work in Brazil financially and public relations work abroad, especially in Germany, but increasingly at an international level.
After one year, community gardens are self-supporting. Gardeners earn their income selling their produce. Cities Without Hunger still provides technical support and lends bigger machines like tractors when needed. The NGO also supports network-building actions to integrate the gardens in São Paulo's wider economy, e. g. through delivery partnerships with restaurants.
Cities Without Hunger depends on donations to finance the implementation of community gardens.
After one year, the gardens are self-supporting and gardeners earn their livelihoods by selling their produce.
The NGO keeps providing technical support and fostering socioeconomic integration of the garden projects after the one-year implementation phase.
Financing the implementation of the garden projects through donations does not guarantee planning security. If this building block is to be replicated, attention must be given to finding reliable sources of funding.
Even though community gardeners manage their gardens autonomously after a year, technical support and machines are shared amongst them via Cities Without Hunger. In that resepct, the NGO plays an important role as project coordinator.
Law on Urban Agriculture for the city of São Paulo
CITIES WITHOUT HUNGER contributed to the passage of a bill on urban agriculture in São Paulo in 2004 (Lei 13.727, de 12 de Janeiro de 2004). By this law, the institutional and legal framework for urban agriculture in São Paulo was created.
Hans Dieter Temp, founder of CITIES WITHOUT HUNGER, made an effort to push for the implementation of that law, i. a. going to Brasília to support his case.
The key lesson learnt here is that a well-functioning and transparent communicative connection with governmental institutions is crucial for achieving far-reaching goals of urban planning. The need for urban agriculture projects, though, was recognised by citizens at a local level, whereas the city administration had not realised such action on their own account.
The project aimed to improve governance of land and water resources at the community-level in order to enhance community resilience to water hazards and promote sustainable drylands management. This entailed several measures:
Establishment of a water resource management committee that is responsible for the water retention structure, for undertaking early warning and preparedness for flood and drought; and for ensuring that water is proportionally distributed. The committee also liaises with wider landscape management programmes and the government and NGOs.
Demarcation of the migratory route for pastoralist communities in order to reduce potential conflict over animals entering farmlands, and farms encroaching into rangelands.
Establishment of revolving funds for agriculture (seed bank) and livestock drugs to sustain livelihood activities and provide continued services over the longer term period.
The Eco-DRR project complemented another larger initiative by UNEP, known as the Wadi El-Ku Catchment Management (WEK) Project in North Darfur, implemented along the same wadi and roughly at the same time. The WEK project demonstrate how effective and inclusive natural resource management can improve relationships over natural resources, therefore contributing to peace-building and improving the livelihoods of conflict-affected communities.
Natural resource governance requires stakeholder dialogue to understand needs of the communities involved and for successful implementation of the measures. Furthermore, involving necessary authorities (e.g. linking the water management committee to government and NGOs for technical assistance and finance; and involving government and all relevant stakeholders for the demarcation of the migratory route) helps to ensure sustainability of the project. Having these activities replicated through other projects (e.g. WEK and other projects) is also important. Indeed the demarcation of the migratory route was extended from the 10KM to a total of 120KM route.
Building strong partnerships at the local and national level and working with the local community is essential for the implementation and overall success and sustainability of the project.
Furthermore it was essential to connect the local communities to government bodies and ensure the state takes joint ownership of the activities so that any future support that is needed can be sought from the government.
UNEP had strong longstanding partnerships (with local stakeholders and local and national implementing partners) in place in the project area.
In a fragile context like in Sudan, having long standing partnerships are vital for the success of the project.
During implementation of community based activities it was learned that community level projects must make it least demanding of time and energy from community members, and ensure the right timing of activities to match communities’ schedule, as project activities generally require voluntary work.
Moreover, when communities see clear evidence of the benefits of the interventions, they then become more willing to implement and continue with similar activities on their own in the future. Interventions that show less direct livelihood benefits require good dialogue and awareness raising campaigns.
