Cities Farming for the Future

Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities

Cities Farming for the Future

Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities

Edited by

René van Veenhuizen
ETC – Urban Agriculture

Published in the Philippines in 2006 by International Institute of Rural Reconstruction and ETC Urban Agriculture

Copyright © ETC – Urban Agriculture, 2006
ISBN 1-930261-14-4

Copyright: ETC – Urban Agriculture. All rights reserved. For educational purposes parts of this book may be copied, provided that written agreement has been granted by the publishers. We also ask that you do not sell copies of this book without permission from the publishers.

For permissions please contact:
ETC – Urban Agriculture
P.O. Box 64
NL–3830 AB, Leusden
The Netherlands.
Tel: +31 (33) 432 6039; ruaf@etcnl.nl

IDRC and RUAF Foundation publish e-book editions

Correct citation:
Cities Farming for the Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. Edited by René van Veenhuizen. Published by RUAF Foundation, IDRC and IIRR.
Includes bibliographical references.

Lay out and Cover Design: Lilibeth T. Sulit
Language Editing: Chesha Wettasinha
Printed in the Philippines

Contents

Foreword

The livelihood of a large number of people in cities in developing countries, especially the poor and women, depends completely or partly on urban agriculture.

These agricultural activities take place in various parts of cities, both in the built-up area (in back yards, along streams and railway reservations, on vacant public or private land) as well as in the rapidly changing sub- and peri-urban areas.

Attention to urban agriculture is steadily increasing. Research undertaken in the last two decades indicates that urban agriculture has multiple roles and functions and plays an important role in:

• enhancing urban food security, nutrition and health;

• creating urban job opportunities and generation of income especially for urban poverty groups and provision of a social safety net for these groups;

• contributing to increased recycling of nutrients (turning urban organic wastes into a resource);

• facilitating social inclusion of disadvantaged groups and community development; and,

• urban greening and maintenance of green open spaces.

However, the potential adverse effects of urban agriculture on health (eg. the risks associated with irrigation of food crops with urban wastewater) and the environment (eg. pollution of underground water by agro-chemicals) also need to be recognised. Balancing of the positive and negative impacts that agriculture may have in a specific city, depends to a large extent on the measures taken by the local authorities to enhance the benefits of urban agriculture while reducing the associated risks.

Conventionally, city governments looked upon agriculture as incompatible with urban development and as a relict from rural-urban migration that dwindles as cities and urban economies grow. Urban agriculture was not given any policy attention, other then restricting it as much as possible or permitting it only as a temporal use of the sites concerned until urban functions took over its use.

Activities of the partners in RUAF (International network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security), in cooperation with UN-Habitat/UNDP's Urban Management Programme in Latin America, IDRC's Cities Feeding People programme, FAO's PAIA Food for the Cities, CGIAR-Urban Harvest and other organisations, have demonstrated to local authorities in many countries that urban agriculture is more pervasive than ever before. These cities have recognised that agriculture and related activities form an integral part of the urban socio-economic and ecological system, link to several critical urban issues, and need proper policy attention and support. Such recognition has led to policy changes in many cities and the design of adequate programmes on urban agriculture involving various stakeholders from governmental and private sectors.

Since 1999, the RUAF partners have been playing a crucial role in improving access to information on urban agriculture of local authorities, NGOs, farmer organisations and other stakeholders, and in enhancing the capacity of such organisations to engage in local participatory processes of diagnosis and strategic action planning on urban agriculture.

This publication presents a vivid picture of the progress made since the ground breaking UNDP publication "Urban Agriculture" (published in 1996) and the DSE publication "Growing Cities, Growing Food; Urban Agriculture at the Policy Agenda" (Bakker et al., 2000).

The publication is a well-balanced combination of the experiences gained by local RUAF partners in cities in developing countries with the expertise of leading researchers in their respective thematic fields. The book's focus on policy and action orientation makes it a valuable resource for local policymakers, urban planners, organisations of urban farmers, NGOs and other stakeholders in urban agriculture. The book will enhance their understanding of the role urban agriculture can play in promoting inclusive, green and productive cities and provide ways to facilitate safe and sustainable urban agriculture.

For United Nation agencies and other international donor organisations, this publication provides some important directions to consider regarding the role of urban agriculture in the context of achieving the Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty by 2015. Experiences documented in this publication provide evidence of how local authorities deal with urban agriculture in the context of food security for the urban poor. Urbanisation of poverty in the developing countries is becoming a serious concern, and international agencies need to support programmes and activities that promote development of safe and sustainable urban agriculture systems and integration of these in the urban planning system.

Dinesh Mehta
Coordinator
Urban Management Programme
UN-Habitat
May 2006

Preface

Five years after the publication of "Growing Cities, Growing Food; Urban Agriculture at the Policy Agenda" (DSE 2000, edited by ETC-RUAF), this new book by RUAF looks at the situation of urban agriculture as it is today.

"Cities Farming for the Future" integrates results of recent research on the potentials, risks and dynamics of urban agriculture and presents early experiences with the development of policies and action programmes on urban agriculture.

The book provides new insights and interesting examples for senior and mid-level officers in municipal departments, governmental organisations, NGOs, farmer organisations and community-based organisations and is of high value for those that are to influence policies and programme development.

The book opens with a general introduction on agriculture in an urban context with the growing attention of policymakers and international organisations for urban agriculture as a backdrop. Chapter 2 presents the multi-stakeholder policy making and action planning (MPAP) approach as well as some lessons learned by the RUAF partners in the past years.

In chapter 3, the authors discuss urban planning and traditional and new approaches and tools to enhance access of urban producers to land and other resources. Chapter 4 reviews lessons learnt from urban studies on access to credit and investment. Chapters 5 to 9 deal with the various social, economic and ecological dimensions of urban agriculture. Chapter 10 to 14 discuss the main urban agriculture production systems and how these can be made safe and sustainable. Each chapter also presents a selected bibliography and a compilation of the main websites of relevant resources. Together these chapters give a comprehensive overview of the actual "state of the art" in the development of sustainable urban agriculture.

The RUAF network

This book is a collaborative effort of the partners in the International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF), including seven regional centres in developing countries and one international resource centre (see the authors page for contact information), and many other organisations with which RUAF is closely cooperating.

The initiative to establish the RUAF network was taken during a meeting in 1996 of the international Support Group on Urban Agriculture (SGUA), consisting at the time of nearly 40 international organisations. In 2004 the RUAF Foundation was established to create an independent and legal basis for the network.

The central aim of the RUAF Foundation is to contribute to urban poverty reduction, urban food security, improved urban environmental management, empowerment of urban farmers and participatory city governance by enhancing policy awareness on benefits and risks of urban agriculture, capacity development, facilitating local policy formulation and action planning on urban agriculture, and promoting networking and exchange of experiences.

During the first few years of its existence the RUAF partners focused their activities mainly on facilitation of networking and exchange of experiences, organisation of debates on key issues in urban agriculture, improving access of local stakeholders to information through establishment of databases, websites and production of the Urban Agriculture Magazine and other publications, and awareness raising in international, national and local organisations.

Cities Farming for the Future

In 2005 the RUAF partners started the Cities Farming for the Future programme (RUAFCFF) focusing their activities on 20 pilot cities (3-4 per region). Core funding for the RUAFCFF programme is provided by DGIS (the Netherlands) and IDRC (Canada), while various other organisations are supporting specific activities (case studies, workshops, publications and pilot projects).

In the pilot cities, the partners are implementing the following main strategies:

• Local capacity development: the creation of regional training capacity (training of trainers) and the training of staff of over 80 local organisations in the pilot cities on urban agriculture and multi-stakeholder policy formulation, action planning and implementation.

• Facilitation of multi-stakeholder policy development and action planning: the establishment of local multi-stakeholder platforms on urban agriculture and facilitation of gender sensitive and participatory formulation of local policies and action plans and co-funding of pilot projects.

• Knowledge management and networking: systematisation and dissemination of the experiences gained in the pilot cities; production of guidelines and other materials for specific stakeholder categories; maintenance of databases and websites, and the publication of Urban Agriculture Magazine.

• Establishment of monitoring systems on urban agriculture in the participating local organisations in order to ensure learning-from-action and provision of feedback to policymakers and urban planners on the socio-economic and ecological impacts of their urban agriculture policies and projects

• Gender mainstreaming ensuring the integration of gender in all RUAF supported training and planning and monitoring activities, and promoting the integration of gender in the policies and programmes of the participating institutes

More information on the RUAF Foundation, its programme and the ongoing activities in the pilot cities can be found on the website www.ruaf.org. This website also contains all RUAF publications, back issues of the Urban Agriculture Magazine and on-line bibliographic and contacts databases.

The Way Forward

The authors of the chapters and the cases presented in this volume indicate a number of challenges ahead, including:

The capacity development regarding urban agriculture and urban food security in municipal departments and governmental and civic organisations has to be extended to a larger number of cities and countries. Next to training courses at national and city levels also distance learning (internet, radio) and city-to-city exchanges and study visits can play an important role here.

The support to local initiatives regarding design of effective and efficient policies on urban agriculture and urban food security has to be continued and broadened. This requires amongst others that national governments start giving more attention to urban agriculture and build it into their poverty alleviation strategies, agricultural policies etc. Although much progress has been made at city level, the number of countries that have explicitly integrated urban agriculture into their policies is still rather limited. This restricts the support that city governments and other local stakeholders receive from government organisations.

The monitoring of benefits and risks associated with urban agriculture and the impacts of innovative policies and programmes on urban agriculture needs more attention in order to facilitate further improvement of such policies and programmes. Since perceived health risks are en important reason why city governments sometimes are hesitant to facilitate urban agriculture, the implementation of more health impact assessments is recommended as well as the design of adequate accompanying measures that enhance the food safety of urban agricultural products.

Too often policies and action plans regarding urban agriculture do not differentiate sufficiently between the various categories of urban farmers, especially between 1) home and community gardening, 2) small scale semi-commercial urban farmers and 3) larger scale full commercial farmers, which differ strongly in their purpose, support needs and impacts.

More attention is needed for the strengthening of urban farmers organisations both to enhance their participation in local policy making and action planning as well as to foster farmer education and innovation in urban farming systems to make these safe and more productive.

More (participatory) training and action research with urban farmer groups is needed in order to develop safe and viable urban farming systems (farmer field schools, participatory technology development)

These farmer groups also need more support in micro-enterprise development (eg. home based processing) and marketing (quality control, own label, farmers' markets) and strengthening linkages between various farmer groups and other stakeholders (value chain approach). This also requires stronger involvement of the private sector (banks, credit institutions) in order to finance investments in farm and enterprise development.

Also development of creative ways to improve farmers access to vacant urban land and enhance their security of usufruct needs further attention. In that especially strengthening the position of female farmers regarding land titles and usufruct rights is of importance.

Recent developments in Europe, USA and Canada as well as in larger metropoles in Southern countries indicate that the promotion of multi-functional land use, combining food production functions of urban agriculture with other functions such as provision of recreational services, maintaining green open spaces in the city, landscape and biodiversity management, creation of better urban micro-climate etcetera, may prove to be an important condition for the sustainability of urban agriculture. Fostering multi-functional land use would require that urban planners include agriculture as part of green belts, city parks and other vacant open spaces creating mutually beneficial results for farmers (access to land that is legally protected from construction activities) and the city (urban greening, maintenance of the green open spaces).

The RUAF partners are planning to produce another major publication on urban agriculture in five years from now. We hope to be able that we can report on many more achievements than has been possible in this book "Cities Farming for the Future" and its predecessor "Growing Cities, Growing Food" five years ago.

Henk de Zeeuw
Director
RUAF Foundation

Chapter 1
Introduction Cities Farming for the Future

Cities Farming for the Future

René van Veenhuizen

Attention to urban agriculture has increased markedly during the last couple of decades. The number of activities to promote urban agriculture at international, national and local level has grown, but urban farmers in many cities in the world still struggle to get their main survival strategy recognised by city authorities. The demand of policy makers and local practitioners for inspiring examples of successful policies and actions in cities is therefore growing. Urban agriculture contributes to a wide variety of urban issues and is increasingly being accepted and used as a tool in sustainable city development. Currently the challenge is its integration into city planning and facilitation of its multiple benefits for urban inhabitants. This book seeks to present the current state of affairs regarding urban agriculture and sustainable urban development.

Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture can be defined as the growing of plants and the raising of animals for food and other uses within and around cities and towns, and related activities such as the production and delivery of inputs, and the processing and marketing of products. Urban Agriculture is located within or on the fringe of a city and comprises of a variety of production systems, ranging from subsistence production and processing at household level to fully commercialised agriculture.

Urban agriculture is generally characterised by closeness to markets, high competition for land, limited space, use of urban resources such as organic solid wastes and wastewater, low degree of farmer organisation, mainly perishable products, high degree of specialisation, to name a few. By supplying perishable products such as vegetables, fresh milk and poultry products, urban agriculture to a large extent complements rural agriculture and increases the efficiency of national food systems.

Bosnia, a widow user a plot supplied free by the municipality

Having reviewed the literature, Mougeot (2000) concludes that the most important distinguishing character of urban agriculture is not so much its location - or any other of aforementioned criteria - but the fact that it is an integral part of the urban economic, social and ecological system: urban agriculture uses urban resources (land, labour, urban organic wastes, water), produces for urban citizens, is strongly influenced by urban conditions (policies, competition for land, urban markets and prices) and impacts the urban system (effects on urban food security and poverty, ecological and health impacts).

Growing urban poverty, hunger and lack of formal employment, as well as the special opportunities that a city provides for farmers (including the growing urban demand for food, herbs and plants, proximity to markets and availability of cheap resources such as urban organic wastes and wastewater) have stimulated the development of a diversity of agricultural production systems in and around cities, often specialised in perishable products, such as green leafy vegetables, milk, eggs and meat, taking advantage of vacant open spaces in and around cities.

Although some forms of urban and peri-urban agriculture are based on temporary use of vacant lands, urban agriculture as such is a permanent feature of many cities in developing as well as developed countries.

Potentials and Risks of Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture, as with other urban activities, has both positive and negative social, environmental, and economic impacts and externalities. Externalities are transformations of the physical or social environment caused, in this case, by urban farming beyond the limits of its productive system (Fleury and Ba, 2005). The risks of urban agriculture relate to human health and the environment, if certain associated risks are not taken into account and consequently proper preventive and guiding measures are not implemented. The main potentials and risks of urban agriculture can be summarised as follows:

Urban food security and nutrition

The contribution of urban agriculture to food security and healthy nutrition is probably its most important asset. Food production in the city is in many cases a response of the urban poor to inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to food, and the lack of purchasing power. In urban settings, lack of income translates more directly into lack of food than in rural settings (cash is needed to buy food). The costs of supplying and distributing food from rural areas to urban areas, or importing food for the cities, is rising continuously, and its distribution within the cities is uneven. As a consequence, urban food insecurity will continue to increase (Argenti, 2000).

In addition to enhanced food security and nutrition of the urban producers themselves (Nugent and Bourgue 2000), urban agriculture produces large amounts of food for other categories of the population. It was estimated that 200 million urban residents produce food for the urban market providing 15 to 20 percent of the world's food (Margaret ArmarKlemesu, 2000).

Health

Improved access to fresh food as described above, directly relates to improved health. In most discussions, though, the health risks of urban agriculture are referred to in a negative context. A review of literature (Birley and Lock, 2000, Danso et al., 2003) indicates that, although insight into the potential health risks of urban agriculture is growing, detailed information on the actual health impacts of urban agriculture is still scanty (which pretty much is the case today). However, the health risks associated to urban agriculture should be taken seriously and health impacts assessments and adequate regulatory and preventive measures should be put in place. But the fear of contaminated food and other health risks should not be exaggerated and need to be compared to those of rural agriculture.

The main health risks associated with urban agriculture can be grouped into the following categories:

• Contamination of crops with pathogenic organisms as a result of irrigation with water from polluted streams and insufficiently treated wastewater or the unhygienic handling of the products during transport, processing and marketing of fresh products;

• Spread of certain human diseases by mosquitoes and scavenging animals attracted by agricultural activities;

• Contamination of crops due to prolonged intensive use of agrochemicals;

• Contamination of soils and products with heavy metals due to traffic emissions and industrial effluents;

• Certain diseases transmitted to humans by keeping livestock in close proximity without proper precautions being taken.

Local economic development

Urban agriculture is an important source of income for a substantial number of urban households. In addition to income from sales of surpluses, farming households save on household expenditure by growing their own food. Since poor people generally spend a substantial part of their income (60 – 80 percent, Mougeot, 2005) on food, the savings can be substantial (see also chapter 7). Urban agriculture also stimulates the development of micro-enterprises for the production of necessary agricultural inputs (eg. fodder, compost, and earthworms), the processing, packaging and marketing of products and the rendering of other services (eg. animal health services, bookkeeping, transportation).

Social inclusion and gender

Urban agriculture may function as an important strategy for poverty alleviation and social integration of disadvantaged groups (such as immigrants, HIV-AIDS affected households, disabled people, female-headed households with children, elderly people without pension, youngsters without a job) by integrating them more strongly into the urban network, providing them with a decent livelihood and preventing social problems (Gonzalez Novo and Murphy, 2000). The role of urban agriculture in building of communities is discussed in chapter 6. Urban and peri-urban farms may also take on an important role in providing recreational and educational functions to urban citizens or play a role in landscape and biodiversity management.

A large majority of the world's urban farmers are women (around 65 percent). Promotion of urban agriculture without due attention to gender aspects may lead to a (further) increase in women's burden of work.

Urban environmental management

The disposal of waste has become a serious problem in many cities. Urban agriculture can contribute to solving this problem by turning urban wastes into a productive resource through compost production, vermiculture, and irrigation with wastewater (see chapters 8 and 9). Urban agriculture and forestry can also have a positive impact upon the greening of the city, the improvement of the urban micro-climate (wind breaks, dust reduction, shade) and the maintenance of biodiversity (see chapter 14) as well as the reduction of the ecological foot print of the city by producing fresh foods close to the consumers and thereby reducing energy use for transport, packaging, cooling, etc. Research in the Netherlands has shown that greenery around homes has a positive effect on people's health.

However, urban agriculture could contaminate local water sources if overly high inputs of chemical fertilisers and pesticides are used (discussed in chapters 9 and 11). The wastewater discharge from intensive poultry farms for instance can be high in micro-organisms and could contaminate drinking water supplies. Inappropriate farming practices may - under certain situations - lead to reduction of vegetation or siltation of water bodies. Because of the under-valuation of urban agriculture and the stiff competition for land, urban agriculture is often pushed back to the marginal areas within a city such as wetlands and hill-slopes, where it may harm the fragile ecosystems if not properly guided.

Growing Attention for Urban Agriculture

Cuba, Argentina and Brazil (Zero Hunger Campaign) are well known examples of countries where substantial government support is given to the development of urban agriculture. Other countries such as Botswana, Zambia, Benin and China are preparing policies favourable to urban agriculture, often as part of a broader strategy (eg. Food Security Policy, Poverty Reduction Strategy, Sustainable City Development Policy or Irrigation Policy). An increasing number of city governments has or is formulating policies and programmes on urban agriculture (Rosario in Argentina, Kampala, Dar es Salaam, and Bulawayo in Zimbabwe).

This trend is also reflected in a number of "Declarations on Urban Agriculture" in which local and national level policy makers have stated their formal commitment to develop policies and programmes on urban agriculture, as was the case of the mayors present at regional meetings in Quito (2000 – see box 1.2), Dakar (2002), Addis Abeba (2003) and Beijing (2004) and the ministers present in the Regional Ministers Conference on Urban Agriculture in Southern Africa, Harare, 2003 (see chapter 3).

The growing attention of local and national policy makers and practitioners is also reflected in the growing demand (eg. to the RUAF partners) for inspiring examples of successful policies and programmes on urban agriculture as well as for training and (co-) funding of research and action programmes.

This can be attributed to several factors among which are:

• The fast urbanisation process and the "discovery" that both urban poverty and urban food insecurity are rapidly increasing. The quick urbanisation process has created vast problems for urban authorities. Most cities have not been able to create sufficient employment opportunities for its population leading to a rapid development in the so-called informal sector, including urban agriculture.

• The growing body of research data on urban agriculture and urban food security providing data on the presence and persistence of urban agriculture in cities in the South and its importance for urban food security and income generation for the urban poor. Since the early nineties, IDRC's Cities Feeding People programme has encouraged action research on urban agriculture. In 2000, the international research organisations belonging to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) included urban agriculture in their research agenda and initiated a group-wide research programme on urban agriculture under the name "Urban Harvest" with activities in many countries. Since then, several national research organisations have been including urban agriculture in their regular programmes (eg. in Argentina, Kenya, Senegal, and Niger).

• The growing attention to urban agriculture and urban food security by international organisations such as FAO, UNDP and UN-Habitat and the growing attention given to such issues at International Summits. In 1996 some 40 international organisations involved in urban agriculture created the International Support Group on Urban Agriculture (SGUA) to establish a joint agenda and to coordinate their activities. UNDP and UN-Habitat have included urban agriculture in the Urban Management Programme (Latin American section) and have been working with municipalities in the region on the integration of urban agriculture into urban policies and planning. Recently this initiative has also been taken up by the African Network of Urban Management Institutions (ANUMI, 2005). FAO has integrated urban agriculture in its agenda and created an interdepartmental working group on urban agriculture and food security (now renamed as PAIA Food for the Cities). The FAO has organised regional consultations, in Stellenbosch, Bangkok and Nairobi (the last one in cooperation with UN-Habitat, IDRC and RUAF). Special sessions and panels on urban agriculture were organised at the UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul 1996, the WHO Healthy Cities Conferences in Athens 1996 and in Belfast 2002 and at the Habitat World Urban Forum Barcelona 2004, to mention a few.

• The growing capacities at regional and local levels regarding urban agriculture. IDRC organised regional training of trainers workshops in Senegal (1999), Quito (2001), Nairobi (2003) and Beirut (2005). Regional networks on urban agriculture have started functioning in Latin America (AGUILA), Francophone Africa (Réséau Francophone Agriculture Urbaine), the Middle East and North Africa (MENA Urban Agriculture Network) and South East Asia (Peri-urban Development in South East Asia - PUDSEA). RUAF has established regional resource centres on urban agriculture and food security that have been very instrumental in pooling and disseminating the growing body of knowledge on urban agriculture and facilitating networking and capacity development at regional and city levels.

As a result of such developments, as well as the pressure by local poverty groups, urban farmers and NGOs, many city authorities have acknowledged the potential of urban agriculture and are collaborating with other local stakeholders in efforts to maximise the benefits of urban agriculture while reducing the associated risks.

City Dynamics; the context for urban agriculture

Rapid Urbanisation

The number of people around the world who live in and around cities is increasing steadily. The "State of the World Cities" by UN- Habitat (2004) predicts that by 2030, 60 percent of the world's population will live in cities. The growth of cities is due to the natural growth of the urban population and to migration from the rural areas to the cities, with the former gradually becoming more important than the latter (Drescher and Iaquinta, 1999). There is general consensus that urban populations will continue to grow rapidly in most developing countries in the decades to come.

Chicago Grant Park; combining food production, leisure and architecture.

The extent of urbanisation varies by region (UN-Habitat, 2004). Latin America, which is the most urbanised region in the developing world, has more than 75 percent, or 391 million, of its people living in cities and the urban population in the region will approach 539 million, or 81 percent of its projected total population of 665 million, by 2020. With the exception of Brazil, the urbanisation pattern in most countries in the region typically involves one very large city that accounts for much of the country's urban population. In 2005, sub-Saharan Africa's urban areas accounted for 34 percent of the total population of 611 million, which will approach 440 million, or 46 percent of its projected total of 952 million, by the year 2020. Global economic processes have stalled in sub-Saharan Africa, while the urban population is quickly growing, causing severe consequences for the livelihoods of people in urban areas. In Asia and the Pacific, urban areas today account for 35 percent of the total population of 3,515 million, and is expected to grow to 1,970 million or 46 percent in the next 15 years. An increasing number of the region's poor live in urban areas.

Increasing urban poverty and food insecurity

Many cities cannot cope with such massive population growth. City authorities around the world face enormous challenges in creating sufficient employment, in providing basic services such as drinking water, sanitation, basic health services and education, in planning and maintaining of green spaces, in managing urban wastes and waste water and in decentralisation and creation of efficient local autonomy.

The increase in urban poverty is accompanying the urbanisation process and poverty is concentrating gradually in the urban areas ("urbanization of poverty", Baud, 2000). A massive 40 percent of the population of Mexico City, for instance, and a third of Sao Paulo's population is at or below the poverty line. According to UN-HABITAT, slum populations in urban areas of developing countries were estimated at 870 million in 2001 and are expected to increase by an average of 29 million per year up to 2020.

Water mimosa culture in Binh Chanh district, Ho Chi Minh City

Growing urban poverty goes hand in hand with growing food insecurity and malnutrition in the urban areas. Both in the South and in the North, especially in the bigger cities, the urban poor find it increasingly difficult to access food. Food composes a substantial part of urban household expenditures (60-80 percent for poor households) and the lack of cash income translates more directly into food shortages and malnutrition (Mougeot, 2005) in the city context.

This indicates that cities are quickly becoming the principal territories for intervention and planning of strategies that aim to eradicate hunger and poverty and improve livelihoods, requiring innovative ways to stimulate local economic development in combination with enhancing food security and nutrition. Urban agriculture is one such strategy.

Urban sprawl

Rapid urbanisation leads to a continuous extension of the city into the rural suburbs, bringing large areas under the direct influence of the urban centres. Around cities there are dynamic and expanding zones of interaction between urban and rural areas. This peri-urban interface (Brook and Dávila, 2000) is characterised by rapid land use changes and changing livelihoods. The traditional local agricultural and land distribution system is disrupted by urban newcomers seeking to buy land (for speculation, for mining of loam, sand and stones, for infrastructure development, for construction, for more urbanised types of agriculture) leading to an increase of land prices. In response, some of the traditional farmers are giving up farming, selling their land and switching to other income earning activities; in other households the males (mainly) are engaging in urban jobs while the females take main responsibility for the farming operations; yet another part of the (now) peri-urban farmers are starting to intensify their farming systems and to adapt to the new more urban conditions (change of crops, market orientation, use of new technologies such as production under covers, direct marketing, use of urban organic wastes or wastewater etc.). The interdependence between urban and surrounding rural areas creates the need for integrated development approaches (Purushothaman and Brook, 2004), which calls for rethinking domains of interest, institutional change and innovative planning approaches.

City renewal

Cities are in a constant process of building and decay. Existing open spaces get built up, and the formal or informal temporary users of such areas are removed (as is regularly happening to many urban farmers who are forced to find an alternative location or give up farming). Meanwhile, degenerated residential, office or industrial areas are demolished, creating new open spaces that may stay vacant for a long time until a new purpose and the corresponding investments are found. New roads and power lines continue to be constructed, creating new vacant open spaces as reservations for these structures. Often such newly created open spaces are gradually occupied by urban producers (informally or through temporary leases). Urban agriculture can therefore be characterised as a form of "shifting cultivation" - although it is a permanent element of the urban system, its locations within the city may vary over time.

Other city dynamics

Other city dynamics that directly influence the development of urban agriculture, and how and where it is practised, are urban traffic and industry (negatively influencing the quality of soils and irrigation water), new demands from urban citizens (need for recreational spaces, new products), changes in urban zoning and related norms and regulations, changes in the urban labour market etc.

These city dynamics take place in a world which is opening up and becoming more global, but at the same time is seeking a more local focus, decentralisation and maintenance of local socio-cultural identity (Baud, 2000). Both tendencies influence urban agriculture; globalisation leads to new products entering the market, more information available in general, and changing consumer preferences and thus leading to increased buying in super markets; the local focus trend leads to preferences for locally-grown fresh foods and direct producer-consumer linkages (see for instance box 1.6 and chapter 6 in this volume).

Development of Urban Agriculture in Response to Urban Dynamics

Urban agriculture has always been part of city life. It has never ceased to exist, but it has adapted to changing situations. Urban citizens develop many different strategies to improve their livelihoods and urban agriculture is one of them. Urban agriculture is responding in three main ways to these urban dynamics (van Veenhuizen, 2006 forthcoming).

The first is the response of the urban poor and unemployed to urban poverty and food insecurity/malnutrition. Sometimes this is due to a temporary crisis situation such as a natural disaster (Mitch in Honduras, drought in Bolivia), a temporary economic crisis (Russia after the transition to capitalism), a war (East-Congo) or an epidemic (Malawi). However, many of these urban poverty and hunger problems have become structural and current trends show that urban agriculture will have a longer term role as a social security net for poor and disadvantaged urban households.

Si ji qing Cherry-picking plantation: agro-tourism in Beijing, China

The second is as a response of the urban poor as well as people from other social classes to the opportunities and relative advantages that the urban environment provides for agricultural producers: direct access to urban consumers and markets, availability of cheap inputs such as urban organic wastes and wastewater, closeness to institutions that provide market information, credit and technical advice, new urban demands etc.

The third adaptation of urban agriculture is a direct response of urban farmers to conducive urban policies and programmes, stimulating and enabling urban agriculture to fulfil certain functions required for sustainable city development: local economic development and food supply as well as recycling of wastes, urban greening, maintaining open green buffer zones, provision of recreational services, mitigation of HIV-AIDS, social inclusion of disadvantaged groups etc.

It is no surprise then, that agriculture within cities can have many different functions. Some of the functions of agriculture can be valued in monetary terms while with others this is hardly possible (aesthetical or sentimental values). The sustainability of urban agriculture is related to this multi-functionality. Urban agriculture adapts and develops along with the city according to the wishes of stakeholders who represent these diverse functions. Therefore, new forms of governance, institutions, and policies need to be crafted through processes that seek synergies and involve multiple stakeholders (van de Berg and van Veenhuizen, 2005).

Policy Making and Action Planning on Urban Agriculture

When local authorities come to understand the role urban farmers can play in various urban policy areas rather than just prohibit or (temporarily) tolerate urban agriculture, they will seek to formulate policies that facilitate and regulate urban agriculture so as to maximise the benefits of urban agriculture whilst preventing or reducing the associated risks.

Urban agriculture has a significant share in the food supply of many cities in the world, supplying especially perishable products such as vegetables, fresh milk and poultry products, but important differences are found between urban and rural agriculture. This has important consequences for the design of policies and support programmes.

Policy dimensions of urban agriculture

Dubbeling (2005) and Cabannes (2004, see also chapter 4 in this book) describe three main policy dimensions of urban agriculture that may help to focus and differentiate policies regarding urban agriculture (they are shown in an adapted form in figure 1.1).

A first, the social policy dimension refers mainly (but not exclusively) to subsistence oriented types of urban agriculture that form part of the livelihood strategies of (especially) the urban poor and that are mainly focused on producing food and medicinal plants for home consumption. In addition, the expenses of the family on food and medicines are reduced and minor cash income is generated from sales of surpluses. These households need additional income from other sources than agriculture to survive. Examples include home gardening, community gardening, institutional gardens at schools and hospitals, and open field farming at micro scale with low levels of investment. These systems show little direct profitability but have important social impacts such as social inclusion, poverty alleviation, community development, HIV-AIDS mitigation etc.

The economic policy dimension is more related to market oriented types of urban agriculture. Activities are undertaken (mainly) by small-scale family-based enterprises and (some) larger scale entrepreneurial farms run by private investors or producer associations. The activities not only refer to food production (eg. irrigated vegetable production, stall-fed dairy production) but also to non-food products (medicinal and aromatic herbs, flowers, ornamental plants). These commercial farms are embedded in a chain of small-scale and larger enterprises involved in inputs delivery (eg. compost, fodder), processing and marketing.

Hydroponics at Espacio Verde, in Buenos Aires

These types of urban agriculture have more economic impact and higher profitability, but their externalities for the city and urban populations, especially those of the intensive larger scale enterprises, tend to be higher (eg. risk of contamination of soils and water due to intensive use of agro chemicals, health risks due to use of contaminated water for irrigation and risks of zoonosis).

Figure 1.1 Policy dimensions and main types of urban farming

In: van Veenhuizen (forthcoming), based on Cabannes and Dubbeling (2005)

The ecological policy dimension refers to types of urban agriculture that have a multi-functional character: besides provision of food and generating income they play a role in environmental management and provide other services demanded by urban citizens: decentralised composting and reuse of organic wastes and wastewater (including nutrients), urban greening and improvement of the urban climate (shade, O2, dust reduction), landscape management (parks, buffer zones, flood or earthquake prone or ecologically valuable zones that should be kept free from construction), provision of opportunities for leisure and recreational activities, water storage etc. In order to allow such a combination of functions, multi-functional agriculture will have to adopt agro-ecological production methods, link up with eco-sanitation and decentralised sustainable waste management, as well as with parks, nature and recreation planning and management.

The analysis of the actual urban farming systems and the discussion of alternative policy measures could be directly linked with one or more of the above mentioned policy areas, depending upon the actual situation in the city and the existing policy priorities. A local government concerned about the growing food insecurity or the exclusion of certain categories of the population will probably focus on the "social" dimension of urban agriculture. Another city - mainly interested in local economic development- will focus on the "economic" dimension of urban agriculture or seek to stimulate subsistence farmers to move into the market sector. Local authorities mainly concerned about the poor urban living climate, the growing waste management problems, or the negative environmental and health effects of market-oriented urban agriculture, may concentrate on the 'environmental' dimension of urban agriculture, or promote a shift from high-input commercial agricultural production towards sustainable and multi-functional agriculture.

Multi-actor policy development and action planning

Due to the cross cutting and multi-functional nature of urban agriculture, policy development and action planning on urban agriculture should involve various sectors and disciplines: agriculture, health, waste management, community development, parks and nature management, among others.

Moreover, urban farmers, and the CBOs and NGOs supporting them, have to be involved in the planning process. According to Allen (2001) the most important aspect of strategic urban planning is related to the participation of the urban poor themselves in the analysis of the situation, in the definition of priorities and in action planning and implementation. Such consultative processes will make the outcomes of policy development and action planning not only robust and comprehensive, but also accepted and sustainable. Increasingly this is recognised and incorporated in urban planning approaches such as the multi-actor planning methodologies adopted by Local Agenda 21 and the Sustainable Cities Programme (see for a more extensive list, chapter 3).

Strategies for the development of safe and sustainable urban agriculture

Although urban agriculture takes place under varying socio-political conditions and policy regimes urban policy makers and support institutions can substantially contribute to the development of safe and sustainable urban agriculture by:

• Creating a conducive policy environment and formal acceptance of urban agriculture as an urban land use;

• Enhancing access to vacant open urban spaces and the security of agricultural land use;

• Enhancing the productivity and economic viability of urban agriculture by improving access of urban farmers to training, technical advice, and credit;

• Supporting the establishment and strengthening of urban farmer organisations;

• Taking measures that prevent/reduce health and environmental risks associated with urban agriculture (farmer training on health risks and related management practices, zonification, quality control of irrigation water and products).

Creation of an enabling policy environment

Formal acceptance of urban agriculture as an urban land use and integration into urban development and land use plans is a crucial step towards effective regulation and facilitation of the development of urban agriculture. Existing policies and by-laws regarding urban agriculture will have to be reviewed in order to identify and remove unsubstantiated legal restrictions and to integrate more adequate measures to effectively stimulate and regulate the development of sustainable urban agriculture.

A second important step is the creation of an institutional home for urban agriculture. Conventionally, sector policies have been defined under the assumption that agriculture refers to the rural sphere and will be attended to by institutions other than the urban ones, whilst most agricultural organisations do not operate in the urban sphere (Tacoli, 2001). As a consequence, urban agriculture is receiving little policy and planning attention and development support.

Municipal authorities can play a key role in filling this gap, for instance by selecting a leading institute in the field of urban agriculture with an urban agriculture office or department, and by establishing an interdepartmental committee on urban food production and consumption. Also important is stimulating the dialogue and co-operation among the direct and indirect stakeholders in urban agriculture. This can be done by setting up a multi-actor platform and working group on urban agriculture that organises the joint analysis of the presence, role, problems and development perspectives of urban agriculture in the city and coordinates the process of interactive formulation of policies and the planning and implementation of action programmes by the various actors.

Enhancing access to vacant land

Land is a very important resource for urban agriculture, and its availability, accessibility and suitability are of particular concern to urban farmers.

Contrary to the common belief even in highly urbanised areas surprisingly high amounts of vacant land can be found that could be used for agriculture on a temporary or permanent basis. City governments may facilitate access of urban farmers to available urban open spaces in various ways. Box 1.5 provides examples of measures taken by various cities in the South to enhance access of poor urban farmers to land (see also the proceedings of the RUAF-Habitat E-conference "Optimising Agricultural Land Use in the City, 2003 at www.ruaf.org).

Enhancing the productivity and economic viability of urban agriculture

The productivity and economic viability of the various urban farming systems can be substantially enhanced. Agricultural research and extension organisations and other support organisations (i.e. credit institutions) have - until recently - given relatively little attention to agriculture in the urban environment. And where it has happened, most attention has been focused on the larger scale, more capital intensive and fully commercial farmers, especially peri-urban irrigated vegetable production, poultry and dairy production and aquaculture. Consequently, the potential for improvement of the efficiency in urban farming, which tends to be highly dynamic, but normally restrained due to urban farmers' limited access to training and extension services, is vast.

Governmental organisations and the private sector should be stimulated to provide training, technical advice and extension services to urban farmers, with a strong emphasis on ecological

farming practices, proper management of health risks, farm development (eg. intensification and diversification), enterprise management and marketing. Cost-sharing systems (farmers, municipality, sectoral organisations, private enterprise) will be needed to ensure sustainability of the extension system.

Most urban farmers are poorly organised, and if so not in a formal way, and thus lack channels and power to voice their needs. This limits the representation of their interests in urban policymaking and planning at the various levels and hampers their participation in development programmes. Well functioning farmer organisations can negotiate access to land, adequate tenure arrangements and access to credit. Such organisations may also take up roles in farmer training and extension, infrastructure development, processing and marketing; and control / certification of the quality of the products marketed. More research is needed to identify existing farmer organisations and informal networks of (various types of) urban farmers, and to analyse their problems and needs and effective ways to further develop these organisations. Municipalities may also stimulate Universities, NGO's and CBO's present in the City to actively support farmer organisation and capacity development and their linkages with other urban farmer groups, private enterprises, consumer organisations and support organisations.

Adapted research and technology development activities jointly with urban farmers would have to be undertaken to solve current problems and to realise existing potential (see chapter 10). Urban agriculture is performed under specific conditions that require technologies different to those used in the rural context. Such specific conditions include among others: limited availability of space and the high price of urban land, proximity to large numbers of people (and thus a need for safe production methods), use of urban resources (organic waste and wastewater), and possibilities for direct producer-consumer contacts. Most available agricultural technologies need adaptation for use in these conditions whilst new technologies have to be developed to respond to specific urban needs (eg. non-soil production technologies for use on roofs and in cellars; development of safe and economic practices for reuse of wastewater).

Maize on steep slopes in Quito, Ecuador

Municipalities and other local stakeholders could voice research and technology development needs of their urban farmers to research institutes and national governments. Also more coordination between research institutes, agricultural extension organisations, NGOs and groups of urban farmers could be promoted.

Other important areas of intervention to enhance the productivity and economic viability of urban agriculture include:

• Enhancing access to inputs (eg. urban organic wastes and irrigation water) and facilitating decentralised production of such resources (eg. establishment of low-cost facilities for sorting of organic wastes and production of compost, animal feed or biogas; implementation of pilot projects with decentralised collection and treatment of household wastewater with a view on its re-use in local agricultural production); technical and financial support (eg tax reductions) for enterprises producing ecologically-friendly inputs such as natural fertilisers, bio-pesticides, soil amendments, open pollinated seeds etc..

• Enhancing the access of urban farmers to credit facilities.

• Facilitating (direct-) marketing by urban farmers: access to existing city markets, creation of farmers' markets, linking farmer and consumer organisations, use of urban farmers in supplying food for school feeding, HIV-AIDS and other food distribution programmes, and support to the creation of local infrastructure for small-scale food preservation and storage facilities (i.e., canning, bottling, pickling, drying, smoking).

Measures to reduce the health and environmental risks associated with urban agriculture Rather than restricting urban agriculture out of fear - often unspecified – of health and environmental risks associated with urban agriculture, cities could instead design a series of accompanying measures to reduce these risks. The most important measure is to create mechanisms of close cooperation between agriculture, health and environment/waste management departments to assess actual health and environmental risks associated with urban agriculture and to design effective preventive/mitigating strategies for which the participation of all these sectors is required.

The following measures appear regularly as part of such strategies:

• Zonification and development of adequate norms and regulations are defined: zones where certain types of urban agriculture are allowed (under certain management conditions) and others are excluded, taking into account the population density and the ecological sensitivity of the area concerned.

• Promotion of waste water treatment at source and separation of industrial and municipal wastewater streams to reduce risks of contamination with heavy metals.

• Farmer education on the management of health risks: proper choice of crops and irrigation methods, hygiene, and management of animal wastes.

• Promotion of ecological farming methods to reduce risks related to intensive use of agrochemicals.

• Consumer education regarding washing of crops and heating of milk and meat products.

Cities Farming for the Future

A growing number of cities are designing policies and programmes on urban agriculture, applying multi-stakeholder planning approaches to identify effective ways to integrate urban agriculture into urban sector policies and urban land use planning and to facilitate the development of safe and sustainable urban agriculture. These aim at fostering the multiple functions of urban agriculture. There is a need however to explore the relationship between multi-functionality and sustainability of urban agriculture.

This involves the analysis of both positive and negative environmental functions as well as their compound effect. Areas for further research and development include: land tenure, legislation and urban land use planning; gender; methodologies in working with stakeholders, such as action research with urban farmers or with planners to include agriculture in environmental planning, as a part of green belts, city parks and open spaces; development of new institutions or institutional arrangements such as urban and peri-urban markets and support to (commercial and subsistence) horticulture, aquaculture and livestock systems.

Facilitating such research and development requires the creation of adequate institutional frameworks that give urban agriculture an institutional home and ensure the active participation of direct and indirect stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of urban agriculture policies and action programmes.

When accepted and facilitated, urban agriculture will be sustainable, maintaining its dynamism and flexibility, adapting to changing urban conditions and demands, intensifying its productivity and diversifying its functions for the city, whilst reducing associated health and environmental risks and by doing so gaining more social and political acceptability. In certain parts of a city, the existing forms of urban agriculture may fade away or change its form and functions drastically, while new forms of urban agriculture may develop in other parts of that same city.

On the longer term, urban agriculture will be sustainable especially if its potential for multi-functional land use is recognised and fully developed. The sustainability of urban agriculture is strongly related to its contributions to the development of a sustainable city: an inclusive, food-secure, productive and environmentally-healthy city.

This book is a contribution to this discussion by the RUAF partners and those who have collaborated with RUAF or contributed with their experiences to the Urban Agriculture Magazine and related media. This network will continue its work in the next four years and regularly report on its experiences and new findings.

References

Allen, A. 2001. Environmental Planning and Management of the Periurban Interface. Key note Paper for the Conference Rural-Urban Encounters: Managing the Environment of the Periurban interface, London 9-10 November 2001.

Argenti, Olivio, 2000. Food for the cities: food supply and distribution policies to reduce urban food insecurity. FAO, Rome.

Armar-Klemesu, Margaret. 2000. Urban agriculture and food security, nutrition and health. In: Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw (eds.). 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. DSE, Feldafing Germany, 99-118

ANUMI, 2005 Newsletter. No.1

Baud, I.S.A. 2000. Coping with globalisation. The need for research concerning the local response to globalization in developing countries. Den Haag, RAWOO.

Berg. Leo van de and René van Veenhuizen. 2005. Multiple Functions of Urban Agriculture. Editorial. In: Urban Agriculture Magazine no. 15. December 2005. RUAF, Leusden, The Netherlands.

Brook, R. and J. Dávila (eds.), 2000. The Peri-Urban Interface, a tale of two cities. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales and Development Planning Unit, University College London.

Cabannes, Yves. 2004. Public Financing and Investments for Urban Agriculture, Paper prepared for the WUF 2004, Barcelona-Spain. IPES/UMP-LAC/IDRC.

Dubbeling M. 2005 (unpublished). MDG's and Urban Agriculture. RUAF, Leusden The Netherlands.

Danso, G.K., P. Drechsel, S.S. Akinbolu and L. A. Gyiele. 2003. Unpublished Document for FAO. Review of studies and literature on the profitability and Sustainability of urban and peri-urban agriculture. IWMI-FAO.

Fleury, A. And A. Ba. 2005. Multifunctionality and Sustainability of Urban Agriculture. In Urban Agriculture Magazine no. 15. RUAF The Netherlands.

Gonzalez Novo, Mario and Catherine Murphy. 2000. Urban agriculture in the city of Havana: a popular response to crisis. In: Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw (eds.). 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. DSE, Feldafing Germany. 329–348.

Lyson Tom. 2004. Growing Home, A Guide to Reconnecting Agriculture. CFAP. Tufts University Press/University Press of New England

Mougeot, L.J.A. 2000. Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In: Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, H. de Zeeuw (eds.). 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. DSE, Feldafing Germany, 1-42

Mougeot, Luc J.A. 2005. Editor. AGROPOLIS. The Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. Earthscan. London.

Purushothaman, Sangeetha, Robert Brook and Simone Purohit, 2004. Transcending rural-urban boundaries: In Habitat Debate (Forum): Cities, Engines of Rural Development, September 2004. Vol. 10. No.3.

Tacoli C. 2001. 'Urbanisation and migration in sub-Saharan Africa: changing patterns and trends'. In M. de Bruijn, R. Van Dijk and D. Foeken (eds) Forms of Mobility and Mobility of Forms: Changing Patterns of Movement in Africa and Beyond 2001 Africa Studies Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

UN- Habitat. 2004. State of the World Cities

UN-Habitat. 2001. The Global Report on Human Settlements 2001: Cities in A Globalizing World. (www.unhabitat.org)

Veenhuizen M. van, 2006. (forthcoming). Profitability and Sustainability of Urban Agriculture.

Chapter 2
Sustaining Urban Agriculture Requires the Involvement of Multiple Stakeholders

Urban agriculture relates to a variety of urban issues, like urban poverty, land use planning, waste management, food securiy, economic development, public health, and community development. Many stakeholders can be identified who play a role and who (should) have a say in planning and development of urban agriculture and related activities, like input provision, vegetable production, aquaculture, livestock production, processing and marketing. To increase the contribution of urban agriculture to sustainable urban development requires involvement in planning and policy making of these different stakeholders. Multi-stakeholder processes dealing with urban agriculture are of recent nature. The lessons learned in the International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food security (RUAF) are described.

This page intentionally left blank.

Sustaining Urban Agriculture Requires the Involvement of Multiple Stakeholders

Marielle Dubbeling
Gunther Merzthal

Introduction

Urban Agriculture is a dynamic concept that comprises a variety of production (ranging from subsistence production at household level to fully commercialised agriculture), processing and marketing systems of food and non-food products. It takes place within heterogeneous resource situations, e.g. under scarce as well as abundant land and/or water resource situations, and under a range of policy environments that can be prohibitive or supportive to its existence and development.

Urban agriculture (UA) has been promoted over the last couple of years by a large number of local and national governments, urban actors and international agencies, such as UN-HABITAT's Urban Management Programme, FAO, International Development Research Centre (IDRC- Canada), CGIAR-Urban Harvest and the International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF) as a strategy to promote food security and poverty reduction, sustainable resource use and environmental management, social integration and local participatory governance (see Chapter 1).

Community member in Governador Valadares drawing a plot diagramme, as part of an Participatroy Rapid Appraisal on urban agriculture.

Urban agriculture takes place in a multi-sectoral environment, touches on a large number of urban management areas (eg. land use planning, environmental and waste management, economic development, public health, social and community development), and involves a large diversity of systems and related actors (input provision, vegetable production, aquaculture, livestock production, processing and marketing). UA can thus be seen as a cross-cutting issue involving a wide range of often disconnected actors or stakeholders1 needed for effective implementation, policy making and monitoring.

Increasing the contribution of UA in more sustainable urban development requires its inclusion into policy and planning and the involvement of different stakeholders related to UA (urban producers and their organisations, NGOs and researchers, private organisations and different levels and departments of governments) in these processes.

Integrating Urban Agriculture into policies and planning

Traditionally, urban agriculture met a lot of resistance by urban authorities and planners, who saw UA – due to an urban and often elite bias - as a relict of rural activities that would pass away with the growth of the city, or just as a nuisance and a health hazard. Most urban policies in developing countries give little attention to UA and tend to prohibit or severely restrict it. Agriculture is usually not considered within urban land use and development plans. Also, agricultural research, extension and credit institutions with their focus on rural areas tend not to attend to urban farmers, while their urban counterparts generally do not consider agriculture as an urban enterprise.

The challenge for much of UA practised by the urban poor and others is for it to become a social, economic as well as environmental benefit rather than a liability, and to be seen in this light by the authorities. Because poor urban producers often operate illegally, on marginal and often hazardous sites, with limited means and assistance, their practices are often unsustainable, and in some situations pose risks to their own health, that of their family and consumers.

Recognising and legalising UA as a legitimate urban land use is a crucial first step. Technical assistance and training to urban producers is essential to promote more sustainable production, processing and marketing techniques (see also Chapters 11, 12 and 13). Potential health risks, for example related to the use of agrochemicals, non-treated organic waste and wastewater, and lack of hygiene in food processing and marketing activities, need to be managed and regulated. Providing urban farmers with more secure access to land (see further Chapter 3) and water sources, as well as to services and capital (see further Chapter 4) are also important in this respect (Dubbeling and Santandreu, 2003).

A sustainable approach to UA focuses on maximising its potential social, environmental and economic contributions - contributions that, as also highlighted in Chapter 1, include the promotion of health and nutrition, ecological responsibility, social inclusion and community capacity building. In this way, one of the key policy objectives for urban agriculture is its integration into broader urban development agendas, for example related to children's and youth programmes, environmental programmes, social welfare programmes and housing and urban development programmes, as illustrated by the case of Vancouver (see at end of this Chapter). Benefits include capitalising on existing momentum, infrastructure and expertise; promoting collaboration between municipal departments; and enabling interconnected social, economic and ecological benefits for citizens (Mendes, 2005).

Dynamic planning must provide for UA land uses to evolve as the city expands and transforms itself. Space-limited and capital intensive forms of UA (fruit trees, medicinal and ornamental plants, silk worms, mushrooms, catfish, small stall-fed livestock) can thrive in a city's core, while more land-intensive and waste-generating forms of UA could relocate to outer-lying and less populated locations (Mougeot, 2005). In order to match the demands of urban growth with activities of high economic and social value, urban agriculture should be included as a multi-functional component in municipal land use planning, zoning, master plans and neighbourhood development plans (Cabannes, 2003), as will be further discussed in Chapter 3.

Mayor of Quito signing inter-actor agreement on UA

Involving multiple stakeholders in project development, policy and planning

The number and composition of stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in UA differ from city to city, but include:

• different levels of government (national, provincial and local governments),

• relevant municipal departments and professionals (e.g. Parks and Gardens, Health Department and inspectors, Public Works, Urban Planning Department, Water boards, Departments for community development etc.),

• local leaders and village councils,

• the private sector,

• academic organisations or research institutes,

• non-governmental organisations, social movements, grassroots and religious organisations, and

• male and female producers and their organisations, who are directly involved in agricultural production and related processing and marketing activities (farmers; local producers of inputs such as grass, compost, equipment; transporters; processors; vendors on streets and local markets).

• male and female producers and their organisations, who are directly involved in agricultural production and related processing and marketing activities (farmers; local producers of inputs such as grass, compost, equipment; transporters; processors; vendors on streets and local markets).

To be effective, project, policy and planning processes on UA should address the needs and priorities of the different stakeholders involved, as well as the specific socio-economic and political-institutional context in each locality. In the Netherlands, for example, independent water boards have a key role to play in water management. Any decision to combine a productive function of urban agriculture or aquaculture with water storage, recreation or a natural park would require agreement between, amongst others, the water board, the province and the municipality (Deelstra, et al, 2001: see the Delft case study).

Effort has to taken in identifying the different stakeholders involved (see further stakeholder inventory described below) and motivating them to participate in project development, policy and planning. Such a multi-stakeholder approach has in principle - and compared to other approaches - the following benefits:

• it allows for better quality decision finding and making (through better understanding of priority issues and needs of different stakeholders involved),

• it improves the likelihood of implementation (through enhanced ownership, improved mechanisms and processes for coordination, and more effective use of available human, technical and financial resources), and

• it gives to the process (and its results) a higher credibility, as well as wider outreach (Hemmati, 2002).

On the other hand, multi-stakeholder processes may lead to undue increase of some stakeholders' influence, (especially when there is a lack of transparency throughout the process), require specific financial and skilled human resources, as well time to allow for changes in cultures towards public participation in decision-making.

Group meting in Dar Es Salaam

Few city authorities and other local stakeholders have experience with these so-called participatory and multi-stakeholder processes, and therefore require well-designed methods and tools, technical assistance and staff training. Spaces for participation should be created and formalised. Special consideration needs to be given to the nonorganised and often excluded segments of the population (women, immigrants and youth, for example). Stakeholders involved need training in how to work together with people they have never worked with before. Innovative means to involve urban producers in identifying, developing and monitoring urban agriculture projects and policies is needed. This also means that urban producers should learn to negotiate with different levels of government and other external agencies to achieve their goals. Funds would be needed to jointly implement defined action and policies. Yet, questions remain on how to effectively use multi-stakeholder processes to influence policymaking and planning.

This chapter intends to respond to the issues stated above, describe and illustrate different experiences and suggest a general approach for multi-stakeholder action planning and policy design for urban agriculture. Further chapters will then illustrate specific policy fields related to UA (land use planning, financing of UA, marketing of UA, gender and UA) as well as describe in more detail different production systems such as urban horticulture, forestry, livestock and aquaculture.

Multi-stakeholder Processes on UA: What and How?

Multi-Stakeholder Processes (MSPs) are:

• processes that aim to involve stakeholders in improving situations that effect them

• forms of social interaction that enable different individuals and groups, who are effected by an issue, to enter into dialogue, negotiation, learning, decision making and collective action

• about getting government staff, policy makers, community representatives, scientists, business people and NGO representatives to think and work together (see also http://portals.wdi.wur.nl/msp/).

Figure 2.1 Characteristics of a MSP

At the heart of MSPs lies the capacity to design a process, in which different stakeholder groups engage in diverse forums and activities so that,

• knowledge is generated;

• ideas, values and perspectives are shared and contested;

• conflicts are negotiated;

• principles for action and policy design are defined, and

• collectively binding decisions are made.

The skill and art of facilitating any MSP is to create situations where people can learn collectively on how to improve their situations. This does not necessarily mean trying to gather all interested stakeholders in one place at one time. Rather, an MSP is likely to run over months, if not years, and will involve different combinations of stakeholders working together in diverse ways. The wide use of participatory planning processes has led to the development of diverse methodologies with varying purposes (http://portals.wdi.wur.nl/msp/).

Broadly speaking, MSPs are built around the different and iterative phases of (UN-HABITAT and UNEP, 1999):

1. Diagnosis, assessment and stakeholder inventory;

2. Consultation to confirm political support and consolidate stakeholder participation;

3. Strategy and action planning;

4. Implementation,

5. Follow up and consolidation, and

6. Integrated monitoring and evaluation (see also figure 2.2).

These phases or steps are described below.

Figure 2.2 Phases of a MSP

Any MSP approach should accept the reality that there are many different and often conflicting interests with respect to any particular development question. Motivating the different stakeholders to participate in the process requires understanding and responding to their different needs. Bringing together different stakeholders in processes where individual or group power and interests are at stake requires skills in conflict mediation, resolution and facilitation, and transparent information sharing in order to arrive at informed decision-making.

Multi-stakeholder processes dealing with UA were amongst others developed in the context of implementation of Local Agenda 21 (as is the case of Vienna-Austria), the UN-HABITAT's city consultations or city development strategies, promoted by its Sustainable Cities and Urban Management Programmes (Quito-Ecuador, Rosario-Argentina –see attached case study-, Dar Es Salaam-Tanzania), or more recently in North American and Canadian cities promoting sustainable food systems through Food Policy Councils (i.e. Toronto and Vancouver-Canada - see also the attached case study- Arizona, Michigan and San Francisco – USA). Systematic review of these experiences (see also box 2.1) have led partners of the International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food security (RUAF) to use MSPs in UA in various partner cities around the world (see further www.ruaf.org).

Step-by-step

Preparatory actions

The initiative for developing an MSP will most often be by one organisation taking the lead in raising awareness and motivating other stakeholders to become involved. Often a project team or core group that will further promote and implement the MSP is formed. This MSP team will be responsible for facilitating and strengthening dialogue with the larger group of stakeholders involved in UA who will become involved in further communication, analysis, and action planning or policy design.

It is helpful if local MSP teams integrate community members/urban producers, NGO or University staff and (local) government representatives from the start. Representatives of urban producers could provide insights into their experiences, views and needs, and facilitate contact with other urban producers. NGO and University staff could support action-oriented research and facilitate the dialogue between producers and government representatives. Local government representatives can facilitate access to certain information (for example statistics on UA, land use maps, laws and regulations related to UA) and support in describing and analysing the legal and institutional context in which UA is currently taking place or will take place in the near future (depending on strategic city development plans for example).

Whenever possible, it is important in this first phase to negotiate and formalise initial agreements and commitments (see box 2.2 for a sample inter-actor agreement elaborated in Quito-Ecuador) on how the process will take place, what objectives it is aiming at and which stakeholders will participate in what role, to promote transparency, building of trust and institutionalisation of the process.

Diagnosis, assessment and stakeholder inventory

Diagnosis and assessment

Diagnosis and assessment often take the form of situational analysis, diagnosis or baseline studies and are concerned with describing, understanding and analysing

a. the local socio-economic, institutional and legal context in which UA takes place (characteristics of the city, legal and planning framework related to UA, stakeholders involved)

b. the presence and location of urban agriculture in and around the city

c. the variation in UA farming types (horticulture, forestry, livestock or mixed systems) and activities (recycling, production, processing, marketing), and their functions or impacts

d. an inventory of (probable) key issues to be addressed including the specific problems encountered, development potentials of UA in relation to poverty alleviation, environmental management or social integration, and changes that might affect urban agriculture in the future – for example in relation to land use pressure, transport network development, and guiding the formulation of potential interventions for action.

To be able to formulate more inclusive proposals for action later on, diagnosis and assessment should explore issues of gender (See also chapter 5) and generation gaps, and should include the communities' (farmers) perceptions and values.

A combination of different tools and techniques can be applied to collect the necessary data and information:

• Analysis of existing literature and research reports; review of available statistics

• Analysis of city maps and available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) materials; visits to various parts of the city and its surroundings (field studies)

• Identification and mapping (e.g. with GIS and local observations) of agricultural activities in the city, available open spaces that could be used for UA and classification of the suitability of those areas according to various criteria (see Box 2.3 and Rosario case study attached)

• Interviews with key informants or focus group meetings with representatives of the various stakeholders and farmers

• Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA) exercises in selected areas.

Often the exploratory study will be followed by more focused in-depth studies of specific problems and potential solutions. Diagnosis and assessment thus form the basis for policy development and planning of UA projects, as illustrated in Accra-Ghana (see Box 2.4). Involving the stakeholders identified in the assessment can also help to strengthen collaboration between the actors involved in UA.

Stakeholder inventory

Stakeholder analysis can help define who to involve in designing a MSP and how, and find out whose information needs must be considered. This exercise is useful:

• to identify which stakeholders to involve in (re-) designing a project or programme, and to assess their interests and how these relate to the project/programme.

• to use during a specific phase or for a specific project component to analyse stakeholder relations, including cooperation and conflicts and considering external factors affecting stakeholders and their activities. It can assist you in making an appropriate selection of the stakeholders most central to the task/issue at hand.

• to provide a foundation and strategy for participation throughout the project/programme, thereby making it easier for stakeholders to learn from each other (http://portals.wdi.wur.nl/msp).

Defining which stakeholders should be involved and when they should be involved in a MSP process is thus largely dependant on the defined purpose, but can also be influenced by the pragmatic identification and involvement of certain stakeholders to effectively reach results (Box 2.5).

The type of stakeholders involved in UA and their level of participation in the process will vary depending on local circumstances. It is important to identify the current mandate and roles of the different stakeholders in relation to UA development and the relevant information they have on UA and related projects and policies, and get their views on the potentials and risks of UA, and their contributions (human and/or financial) to the MSP. The inventory and analysis will enable the development of a strategy that motivates and facilitates the participation of various stakeholders and identifies their potential roles in the different phases of the process (diagnosis, planning, implementation and monitoring). Some of these roles are identified below (de Zeeuw, et al., 2001):

Local, provincial and national governments play a key role, ensuring the availability and secure tenure of land and water, access to public services, approval of regulations and standards. These different levels of government are already engaged in many areas of service provision and regulation, such as urban planning, water treatment, waste collection, management of green spaces, which have direct interactions with urban agriculture. Activities started up without the involvement of those who influence decision-making (mayor, council members, heads of departments, policy advisers) may achieve little in the long term. Therefore, it is essential to involve government representatives in the discussions throughout the planning process, in order to acknowledge their opinion and suggestions, overcome possible resistance and gain support for policy review and formulation.

Interaction between different levels of government, as well as between governments and other decision-making bodies should be specifically looked into as the Delft, Vancouver and Rosario case studies illustrate. From the outset, Vancouver's Food Action Plan for example acknowledged that some of the resources and policy tools necessary to address food system issues fell outside of the jurisdiction of Vancouver City Council. As such, the development of partnerships with other agencies has been and will continue to be instrumental to the process. Key partners include Vancouver Agreement, Vancouver School Board, Vancouver Park Board and Vancouver Coastal Health and community organisations (Mendes, 2005).

Also, UA does not always share the same boundaries as local authority areas. Therefore, it is worth considering at the very onset of the process whether cooperation with neighbouring local authorities is sensible and beneficial. Although resources can be shared and actions made more effective, varying political interests between municipalities could well complicate the process.

Commercial and subsistence farmers and gardeners and their organisations

One should bear in mind that urban producers do not form a homogeneous group. Livestock farmers have different interests from horticulture or aquaculture farmers. Commercial farmers differ in their interests to subsistence or hobby farmers. Promotion of different UA production systems therefore requires different policies and interventions (see also other Chapters in this book). Taking into account the expertise, local knowledge and views of different producers and producer groups is important in this regard. As direct stakeholders, urban farmers should also play a key role in project management and coordination, and in the evaluation and control of the activities carried out.

Micro-enterprises involved in urban agriculture

Alongside urban and peri-urban farmers and gardeners, specialised micro-enterprises are also involved in the production of agricultural inputs (eg. compost), the processing of agricultural produce (eg. Making cheese, jams and marmalades, dried fruits and flowers) and marketing (eg. street vending of fresh products or processed food, small shops and local markets, food box schemes, etc.). An important aspect in the development of UA programmes is strengthening of linkages between the different parts of the production chain (input supply, production, processing and marketing).

Residential neighbours and other interest groups

As already mentioned, urban agriculture may play an important social role in providing opportunities for education, training, recreation and leisure. Actions to promote the social aspects of urban agriculture should be discussed with the targeted groups (i.e. children and schools, urban citizens, community and health care organisations) and their associations. Among citizens, it would be important to involve individuals or groups, whose dwellings or activities are located near sites of urban agriculture, and who are or might be affected positively (improved greening and contact with nature) or negatively (pollution, noise) by current and future UA activities.

NGOs, community-based organisations and universities

Urban producers may lack expertise regarding specific aspects of urban agriculture (i.e. specific production or processing techniques). Universities, research centres or NGOs could provide support for the development of appropriate technologies for food production and processing and provide methodological support in diagnosis, monitoring, and training. NGOs or community-based organisations could also play a crucial role in linking urban producers with governmental authorities or research institutes. Finally, these organisations could often help finance and implement projects that are defined as a result of multi-stakeholder processes.

Private sector and support organisations

The private sector and support organisations can play a role in facilitating access to inputs and services (e.g. marketing.). In El Rímac (Lima-Perú) for example, the municipality signed a cooperation agreement with a private corporation, Purina Center Rimac Corn (producer of poultry food), whereby the company took responsibility to provide training and technical assistance in poultry-raising to interested farmers free of charge (Cabannes, et al., 2003). The role of micro-finance institutions or credit-cooperatives should be considered regarding different forms of financing for UA (see also Chapter 4)

Policy narrative

Based on the diagnosis, assessment and stakeholder inventory, a study report or 'policy narrative' could be elaborated (see also Box 2.3). This document can serve as a good instrument to brief the larger group of stakeholders and to advance the planning process with them.

The policy narrative can include:

1. Presentation of the key data regarding urban agriculture in the city (presence, types and locations),

2. Important constraints encountered by urban farmers and other actors,

3. Expected potentials of urban agriculture for various policy goals,

4. The expected negative consequences of non-intervention / continuation of the present policies, and

5. Draft proposals/outline for set up of an urban agriculture programme in the city.

Consultation and creation of a broader institutional framework and commitment

This phase aims at wider sharing of the findings of the diagnosis and assessment, strengthening and broadening involvement of the different stakeholders, formalising and approving new commitments to the process (eg. by signing a new inter-actor agreement defining more specific tasks, responsibilities of different stakeholders and funding mechanisms) and setting up a structure(s) or platform(s) that will guide and coordinate future action planning, implementation, resource mobilisation and institutionalisation.

This step could be developed through:

1) Meetings/workshops or focused consultations with the direct and indirect stakeholders to:

a. Discuss in-depth the most important problems/issues identified and to explore alternative solutions and intervention strategies

b. Discuss their possible roles and identify available human and financial resources to support development of an UA programme and check/strengthen their initial commitments.

c. Discuss the organisational set up of the intended UA programme.

The workshop/meetings will eventually result in initial commitments of the institutions and organisations to cooperate in the preparation and implementation such a programme.

2) The constitution of a multi-stakeholder structure/platform or forum to give continuity to and promote the empowerment of all the stakeholders in the MSP. The objectives and tasks of such multi-stakeholder forums could include:

• Bridging the communication gap between direct stakeholders and the institutional actors in urban agriculture and functioning as a more permanent platform for information exchange and dialogue,

• Coordinating the planning, implementation and monitoring of a concerted city agenda on UA, including activities related to policy analysis, lobbying and formulation

• Stimulating the institutionalisation of such activities.

The forum should preferably operate with a formal status and institutional commitment. The importance of local ownership and member contributions to the functioning of the multi- stakeholder forum and implementation of activities should be stressed. In addition external resources may be mobilised by involving donor agencies in the forum.

One of the first activities of the forum can be to agree on a City Strategic Agenda on UA (identifying policy objectives and including agreements on the key issues in UA that the city wants to work on). The strategic agenda includes preliminary strategies and an assessment of their likely impacts on living conditions and urban development, together with an examination of institutional and managerial implications. In most cases the strategies proposed are not alternatives, but a variety of overlapping and complementary strategy components. These strategy components, with the associated implementation instruments, will form the basis for elaboration of detailed action plans at a later stage, as illustrated by the example of Governador Valadares in Brasil (see Box 2.6).

Strategy and action planning and implementation

On the basis of the diagnosis and assessment and further consultations, strategies and actions will be defined as part of an action plan that identifies and operationalises solutions (action/activities) to meet local needs and identified key issues.

Strategies and actions forming part of an action plan can include:

• pilot or demonstration projects,

• capacity building activities,

• further research or studies,

• review and adaptation of municipal policies, legal and normative tools,

• development of new structures of financial management and allocation of resources (setting up of rotating credit funds, channelling public subsidies), and

• setting up of new institutional structures that promote and guarantee community participation.

For example, action plans developed by various cities have included the following:

• Promoting safe re-use of urban organic wastes and wastewater in agriculture by establishing quality criteria for compost and wastewater used for irrigation, establishment of low cost facilities for sorting of organic wastes and production of compost, animal feed or biogas, implementation of pilot projects with decentralised collection and treatment of household wastewater for re-use in local agricultural production, farmer education regarding the health risks associated with re-use of urban wastes and ways to mitigate those risks (proper crop choice, selection of irrigation methods - Accra-Ghana, Hyderabad-India, Dakar-Senegal);

• Enhancing support to processes of technological innovation in urban agriculture by improving the coordination between research institutes, agricultural extension agencies, NGOs and groups of urban farmers, improving the access of urban farmers and micro-entrepreneurs to credit programmes, and strengthening organisations of urban producers (Rosario-Argentina; Beijing-China; Gabarone-Botswana);

• Promoting ecological farming practices through farmer training and local experimentation with ecological farming methods, providing licences and incentives (eg. tax reduction) to micro-enterprises that produce and supply ecologically friendly inputs (compost, bio-pesticides, quality seeds - Havana-Cuba),

• Facilitating local marketing of fresh urban-produced food by authorising local farmer markets, food box schemes and other forms of direct selling of fresh agricultural produce to local consumers and creation of the minimum infrastructure required for local farmers markets, and enhancing urban producers' access to market information (Governador Valadadares-Brasil; Rosario-Argentina, Hanoi-Vietnam).

Actions can be prioritised for short-, medium- or long-term implementation, based on the expected impacts and the potential for scaling up, the problems that could arise if no action is taken, the number of expected beneficiaries, and the viability of implementation (social and political viability, availability of resources).

The implementation of the short-term actions is important to motivate and ensure continued interest of the involved stakeholders (by looking for short-term and concrete results). It also provides the space for learning by doing, and thereby provides valuable information for policy formulation and design of longer term projects. Therefore, it is useful to develop, right from the start of the process, pilot projects or actions that produce outputs or have an impact in the short term, which then create a positive environment for more complex and long-term processes.

Specific attention should be paid to formulation of "affirmative actions" related to gender equity and social inclusion of vulnerable groups (see chapters 1 and 5). It is also important that the action plan is officially be endorsed by the local government. Funding for implementing these actions can be sought through local or (inter)national resources.

Follow up and consolidation

Alongside implementation, policy analysis, lobbying and formulation should ensure the sustainability and consolidation of the UA programme beyond the period of a given political administration and facilitate a change in the programme's scale: from working with a small group of stakeholders and beneficiaries to working with larger groups; from working in one or a few neighbourhoods to working in many; from working in one city or municipality to working in several cities. As stated earlier, efforts to establish policies before initiating action planning/implementation often end up with policies that do not work due to lack of political will or lack of resources. On the other hand, actions that are not translated into adequate guiding/facilitating policies tend to stay rather localised with few or less sustained impacts on the livelihoods of larger segments of the population.

Participatory identification of land use in Rosario, Argentina

Review and adaptation of existing municipal by-laws, norms and regulations help to remove unnecessary restrictions on UA and to develop specific regulations and norms for legal use of various types of urban land for UA. Institutionalisation of UA into national and municipal policies and programmes is central, and can take shape through:

• Inclusion of UA in national, city or neighbourhood strategic and development plans (the normative or planning framework). The inclusion of UA into strategic development plans would give UA a much more permanent and firmer basis (see also box 2.6 on Governador Valadares). It would also create support for integration of UA into other sectoral policies on poverty alleviation and social inclusion, health and nutrition, environmental and waste management and economic development. (see case of Vancouver).

• Integrating UA in (sub) municipal land use plans. Land use plans should exist not only at the overall municipal level, but also at lower levels as in neighbourhood improvement plans, subdivision plans, district development and urban renewal plans. They should include elements of micro-planning to delineate spaces that could potentially be used for UA with clear rules concerning use, density, etc, taking into account mixed use of plots (eg., residential and agricultural). Also multi-functional land use (combinations with recreation, water management, landscape management, maintenance of buffer zones) could be promoted (see further also Chapter 3 of this book).

• Review of current municipal policies and elaboration of a facilitating (and regulating) legal framework related to UA, as done in Kampala, Uganda (box 2.7). (By-)laws, ordinances and regulations for UA could enable access to land through granting of temporary user rights, defining land taxation and tax exemptions, promoting safe use of wastewater for agricultural purposes and ecological farming and facilitating access to credit and marketing.

• Creation of an appropriate institutional framework. The roles and functions of urban agriculture within local policies are manifold. In order to develop UA's full potential to contribute to sustainable urban development, it is important that this potential is also recognised by the urban administration. This recognition should not only be reflected in the relevant political programmes and plans, but should also result in the creation of a municipal UA department or programme that incorporates institutional and municipal budgets, as has been done by Villa Maria del Triunfo-Lima, Peru (Box 2.8).

Participatory monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation activities are an integral part of any MSP and should not be considered as isolated activities to be done at a certain stage or at the end of the process. Both time and funds have to be set aside for this purpose from the beginning. Monitoring and evaluation allow for the review and improvement (re-orientation) of the strategies/methodologies used to achieve the expected outcomes of interventions by documenting and sharing lessons learned concerning both successes and failures. Monitoring and evaluation also allow for keeping track of the impacts of the MSP on policy change and on the livelihoods of different stakeholders involved, and thereby to communicate successful efforts to a wider public and to create opportunities for further change.

Monitoring and evaluation can benefit from including both internal and external viewpoints and should be developed with a gender perspective. Monitoring and evaluation can comprise both quantitative (eg. number of home-gardens established, complementary income generated from UA activities) and qualitative (e.g. improved access to and control of resources by men, women and other social groups, local institutional capacity built, uptake of projects results for specific policy or technology interventions) data.

The state government of Mato Grosso do Sul in Brazil, for instance, included changes in social and economic conditions, gender and generational gap issues, technology transfer, and environmental impacts in the evaluation of its UA programme. Surveys among urban producers and micro-enterprises were carried out for this purpose (Cabannes, et al., 2003).

Multi-stakeholder Processes: Challenges and Future Perspectives

The hope in promoting MSPs is that these processes contribute to building participatory and democratic governance (in the cities and institutions involved) and facilitating change. MSPs are based on principles of participation, ownership and commitment, mutual trust and collaboration (in planning, decision-making and control). MSPs are in fact political processes through which power relations are redefined. One should not underestimate the challenges involved in getting around the same table partners/stakeholders who often do not trust each other (for example urban producers or community representatives and local government officials), who are afraid of being controlled or who are not at all used to these news forms of collaboration and management (political administrations in many cities have never promoted public participation). Time, perseverance, financial and human resources are needed, and feelings of ownership of the MSP should continuously be promoted among all stakeholders involved. Transparency in information sharing and decision-making, formalisation of agreements, and implementation of actions that lead to short-term results and impacts, as well as visualisation and dissemination of these results are all important strategies to sustain MSPs.

Three specific challenges related to some of the above mentioned issues in terms of (1) strengthening the organisation of urban producers to support their participation in processes of planning and decision-making (2) improving impact monitoring on UA and (3) institutionalising not only UA but also the MSPs themselves are highlighted below:

Strengthening (involvement of) urban producers' organisations

The integration of UA production systems into urban policies and planning, the allocation and combination of appropriate UA with other urban activities and technical assistance to producers to improve their practices are only possible if government and other agencies can relate to UA producers as legitimate actors or stakeholders in processes related to urban management and decision-making. In the urban arena, it is crucial for different interest groups to be organised not only to secure recognition, legitimisation, representation and direct participation, but also to get support in becoming more professional and accountable for their trade, and in increasing their contribution to the local economy through partnerships and alliances with other stakeholders. Unless urban producers form legitimate organisations, or at least find recognition and strengthening for their informal organisations, they cannot make claims on public resources nor participate in policy decisions which impact on them (Mougeot, 2005).

A plot diagram elaborated by the community (irregular settlement El Monarca)

MSP on UA should thus be designed and implemented in such a way that they contribute to strengthening urban producers organisations (improving the functioning of existing organisations or creating new organisations), by:

- Strengthening internal management and (financial) sustainability of the organisations,

- Strengthening linkages between different farmers' organisations in the city and between producers' organisations and micro-enterprises or vendors (enhancing production chains),

- Enhancing enterprise development and marketing of produce (specifically for niche-markets),

- Supporting development and uptake of appropriate and sustainable production, processing and marketing technologies through participatory technology development, farmer-to-farmer exchange and farmer-field schools,

- Enhancing their lobbying and policy influencing capacities.

Need for impact monitoring

As illustrated in this chapter, diagnosis and assessment of UA, action plans, pilot projects, and new institutional, normative and legal frameworks on UA have been introduced in a number of cities around the world. Some cities have created municipal programmes in partnership with other local actors, including UA in municipal budgets, in development and land management plans. Other cities have issued new regulatory provisions and fiscal measures to support UA. This increased interest and commitment demonstrates the potential and calls for the need to gather more hard facts and figures on how the different forms of UA contributes to poverty alleviation, local economic development and environmental sustainability. Easy-to-measure and realistic indicators to monitor the impact of UA on urban food supply, urban employment, income and food expense savings and urban land use should be developed and more consistently applied.

Impact monitoring methods and tools widely used in rural agriculture (such as producer and market surveys, household budget and consumption registers) are sufficiently generic for application in the context of urban agriculture. However, potential limitations to the use of participatory tools have to be considered, given that in many cases, urban farming is not a legal activity per se, and farmers have felt uncomfortable mapping their fields or sharing production data. This calls for more formal/structured methods to generate quantitative, technical information that is more familiar and acceptable to urban government leaders and policymakers. GIS to map green urban spaces and large-scale surveys to determine the contribution of agriculture in the city to meet urban food demand are some examples.

As is the case with any form of monitoring, the use of these tools and impact indicators for UA and the analysis of findings have to be judged also on their limitations. A food consumption survey for example may not reflect urban reality if it ignores food supply from street kitchens and vendors, particularly for the highly mobile working sector of the urban population who rely on street food. Furthermore, formulation of impact indicators suffers from definitional and boundary-setting problems that plague urban agriculture in general. As long as approaches are not homogenised, it becomes difficult to really compare data between different cities. There is a definite need for more case study material on measuring UA impact, on conventional and participatory approaches applied and on the specific tools used (Campilan, et al., 2003). In short, a more systematic effort is needed to improve the breadth, frequency and consistency of monitoring UA. This may be partially achieved by incorporating UA related indicators into common urban databases and monitoring programmes, such as the Global Urban Observatory, the Millennium Development Goals and the World Food Reports.

Ward Profile Map Drawing for monitoring activities related to urban agriculture

It should be made clear however that most of these indicators and programmes are related to monitoring outcomes of development projects and not so much to the processes that lead to the outcomes. Therefore, it is suggested that additional work should be done in order to clarify and demonstrate how and to what extent UA connects with and impacts upon urban governance or participatory democracy as examples of process monitoring.

Institutionalising MSPs

Traditionally, participatory approaches have focused primarily on communication and planning aspects among stakeholders and less on the institutional dimension. Here, the term 'institution' is not being used as a synonym for organisation, but in the broad sociological sense to mean any established law, custom, social practice or organisation that forms part of the social structure and influences the regular patterns of human behaviour. In other words, institutionalisation of MSPs is about making multi-stakeholder processes the "regular way of doing things". The changes needed to effect this change take time to be understood, accepted, and routinely applied. It demands steady, gradual and progressive changes in people's understanding and acceptance of the principles of participatory planning and decision-making on the one hand, and corresponding adaptations in institutional structures and cultures on the other. The purpose of institutionalisation is to build incrementally upon the impacts achieved by MSPs in UA and to turn the steps of the MSP into familiar and repeatable day-to-day practices.

What to institutionalise?

a. Principles of participatory planning and decision-making. These principles have to be understood, accepted and integrated into attitudes, behaviour, and routine institutional procedures. They include: stakeholder involvement as integral to decision-making; focusing on connectivity between issues, sectors and institutions; shifting from a sectoral approach to planning to a more integrated approach considering cross-cutting issues and establishing strategic planning and management founded upon co-operation and collaboration around issues.

b. Capacities and functions. These are the technical capacities and expertise that are built up through the participatory planning and decision-making process, and which support activities within the different phases of a MSP (for example, diagnosis and assessment, or action planning). These specialised capacities and functions allow different actors to collaborate more effectively, complementing each other's capabilities and roles, and are also the system- wide functions and general capacities that are needed by all or most of the participating stakeholders.

c. Products of the planning and decision-making process. These are the concrete outputs generated during the process, including specific strategies, action plans, investment project profiles and proposals, funds mobilised for implementation, demonstration projects implemented etc.

How to institutionalise?

The scope, pace and nature of institutionalisation in a given city will be shaped by local factors, but in general the following steps are likely to be useful:

• Strengthening existing institutional structures in order to improve their effectiveness in planning, management, and co-ordination between different sectors and actors; when necessary, creating new institutions to accommodate special requirements – both technical and managerial – not covered by existing institutions;

• Changing or adjusting mandates of existing institutions in order to integrate new functions and roles;

• Identifying and tasking anchor institutions to take the lead and provide a home base for particular activities or phases;

• Linking to established strategic policy instruments such as annual budgeting, human resource allocation, sectoral work programming, etc.;

• Developing skills necessary to support and routinely apply the process (for example, information collection, negotiation, facilitation, strategy formulation, action planning, project management, etc.);

• Modifying legal and administrative frameworks to enable a procedural framework for smooth and effective functioning of institutions;

• Providing funds to support expenditure and equipment for capacity building and sustaining the framework, primarily through public budgetary provisions or allocations;

• Maintaining knowledge support and a learning process (for example, by documenting and evaluating experiential lessons and building collaboration with local research or consulting establishments) (UN-HABITAT, 2001).

The development an institutionalisation of MSPs should go hand in hand with the development and institutionalisation of UA. This chapter has described the principles, phases and challenges of a Multi-Stakeholder Process developed for urban agriculture. The following chapters will describe in more detail the technical and policy aspects of urban agriculture and provide insights in how to further develop and promote it.

Note

1 Stakeholders are all those who have an interest in a particular decision, either as individuals or representatives of a group. This includes people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those affected by it (Hemmati M., 2002).

References

Cabannes, Y. 2003. Guidelines for municipal policy making on urban agriculture. Policy Brief 3: Urban agriculture: land management and physical planning. IPES/UMP-LAC. Quito-Ecuador.

Cabannes Y., M. Dubbeling and A. Santandreu (editors), 2003. Guidelines for municipal policy making on urban agriculture. Policy Brief 2: Urban agriculture and citizen's involvement. IPES/UMP-LAC. Quito-Ecuador.

Deelstra, T, D. Boyd and M. van den Biggelaar, 2001 Multifunctional Land Use, Promoting Urban Agriculture in Europe. In: "Urban Agriculture Magazine No 4". RUAF. Leusden-the Netherlands.

Campilan D., P. Drechsel and D. Jöcker, 2003. Topic Paper 5: Monitoring and evaluation. In: "Urban Agriculture Magazine No 5", RUAF, Leusden-the Netherlands

Dubbeling, M. and A. Santandreu, 2003. Guidelines for municipal policy making on urban agriculture. Policy Brief 1: Urban agriculture: a tool for sustainable municipal development. IPES/UMPLAC. Quito-Ecuador.

Hemmati M. (with contributions from F. Dodds, J. Enayati and J. McHarry), 2002.

J. Mwanga and W. Makumbi, 2003. Policy analysis and formalisation on urban and peri-urban agriculture and livestock in Uganda: A case study of Kampala City. Kampala-Uganda.

Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability; Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. Earthscan. London-UK.

Makonese M. and S. Mushamba, 2005. A review and analysis of the policy and legislative framework for urban agriculture in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association and the Municipal Development Partnership. Harare-Zimbabwe.

M. Dubbeling (ETC/RUAF) from Lovo, I et al., 2003. Cidade Verde: a agricultura urbana promovendo seguranca alimentar e nutricional. Governador Valadares- Brasil.

Mendes W., 2005. Urban Agriculture and Sustainability in Vancouver, Canada. Case study elaborated for this publication. Vancouver-Canada.

Mougeot L.(editor), 2005. Agropolis: The social, political and environmental dimensions of urban agriculture. Earthsan. London-UK.

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT), 2001. Tools to support participatory urban decision making. Nairobi-Kenya.

UN-HABITAT and UNEP, 1999. The Sustainable Cities Source Book Series; Preparing the SCP Merzthal G. and R. Barrera, 2005. Paper developed for the World Urban Forum 2006. Environmental Profile. Nairobi-Kenya.

de Zeeuw, H and W. Teubner, 2002. Green and productive cities: a policy brief on urban agriculture. ICLEI and ETC. Freiburg-Germany and Leusden-The Netherlands.

Merzthal G. and R. Barrera, 2005. Paper developed for the World Urban Forum 2006.

Multifunctional Land Use, Promoting Urban Agriculture in Europe

Tjeerd Deelstra
Donald Boyd Maaike van den Biggelaar

Politicians and planners are faced with many competing claims for the use of scarce land in and around cities in the Netherlands. Multifunctional land use – combining different functions within one area – offers them a solution. The sole function of agriculture in industrialised countries has until recently been seen as food production. This case study in the highly populated west of the Netherlands shows that urban agriculture can be promoted in industrialised countries by regarding it as one element of a land-use combination that offers other valuable functions to society.

Many possible win-win situations exist to meet urban and periurban challenges as urban planners in the Netherlands seek to create attractive land-use combinations and satisfy the many demands placed on scarce land. Many of these combinations can be based on urban agriculture, for example:

• agriculture combined with childcare and educational facilities;

• reed production combined with recreation and wastewater treatment;

• aquaculture combined with water storage and recreation;

• production of added-value agricultural products such as cheese, jams and cosmetics, combined with recreation and tourism; and

• urban forestry, which offers health and microclimate benefits, combined with energy crops 1 and recreation.

A good example of combining land-use functions in a heavily populated area is the case of the 'Bieslandse Bovenpolder' in the city of Delft, the Netherlands.

Planning in Delft

Delft is a city of around 95,000 people in the densely populated province of South Holland. The region is home to approximately 3.4 million inhabitants with a population density of 1,179 inhabitants per square kilometre (CBS). As a result, every square metre of land is designated under the country's planning system that operates at three levels: national, regional and local, all of which have roles to play in spatial planning.

Farming in the Upper Bieslandse Polder inside Delft, the Netherlands

In theory, the government at lower levels should operate within the framework of the objectives set out by policy at the higher levels. In turn, policies made at higher levels of government should provide general guidelines within which plans proposed at lower levels can be realised. Of course it is not always possible to accommodate the wishes of all. The plan for the mixed use of the Bieslandse Bovenpolder provides an interesting example of integration of land-use functions and policy objectives.

The Bieslandse Bovenpolder

The 'Bieslandse Bovenpolder' lies on the eastern urban fringe of Delft and comprises a total of some 35 hectares. Before the realisation of the plan described here, six tenant farmers operated in the area on annual leases obtained from the municipality of Delft. Longer leases were not granted because the municipality wanted to have access to the land on short notice in case it should decide to develop the area. This gave rise to uncertainty among the farmers and, with six farmers on 35 hectares, use of the land was inefficient in agricultural terms, even though each farmer also worked land elsewhere in the area.

The Plan

In 1996, Jan Duijndam, one of the six farmers who had for some time been considering converting his business into an organic farm, decided to act. Together with a planner from the Delft Initiatives for Nature group (IND), Jacques Schievink, discussions were initiated with the other farmers in the area. Agreement on a plan was eventually reached between the six farmers, including Duijndam's take-over of their tenancy rights.

Combining land-use functions gives extra income to farmers

The 'Bieslandse Bovenpolder' plan was finalised in March 1997 and, importantly, was adopted in the manifestos of a number of local political parties for the municipal elections of May 1998. Election of a new 'green' administration meant that the plan could go ahead. Work on the ground to implement the plan began in the winter of 1999-2000. The total costs of implementation, excluding maintenance, were around Euro 100,000.

The case of the 'Bieslandse Bovenpolder' shows that urban agriculture can offer cities in industrialised countries more than "only" food production. Through a combination of land uses and integration of policies between different organisations at different levels, Delft has obtained a viable organic farm, an attractive recreational area and has restored the opportunities for wildlife in the urban fringe. This in turn provides a valuable resource for environmental education in a densely populated urban region. Essential benefits in terms of the environment, health, education, recreation and nature are provided to the city and its residents. Combining land-use functions has also delivered extra income to farmers from unexpected sources.

Realisation of multifunctional land use demands integration of planning between different levels of government. In the highly institutionalised planning systems common to most industrialised countries where national, regional and local plans are drawn up, such an approach should be feasible, even though it poses some difficulties. Such integration should be accompanied by innovative economic instruments, which favour multifunctional land use, such as subsidies or tax relief, where possible. Farmers should be made aware of the possibilities of such support.

Urban planners seek to create attractive land-use combinations

Integration of policy between different types of organisations is also vital. In the Netherlands, for example, independent water boards have a key role to play in water management. Any decision to combine a productive function of urban agriculture or aquaculture with water storage, recreation or a natural park would require agreement between, amongst others, the water board, the province and the municipality.

The success of the Bieslandse Bovenpolder can be at least partly attributed to the fact that representatives of three different groups of society – a farmer, an environmentalist and a municipality – realised the benefits of combining multiple land use in the area.

Note

1 Energy Crops are grown specifically for the purpose to produce large volumes of biomass and have high energy potential. The most common crops gown in the UK for bioenergy are willow (short rotation coppice) and miscanthus. Brazil has an extensive program for the production of bioethanol from sugar, whilst the U.S. relies heavily on corn for its ethanol production.

References

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Central Statistics Office). 1999. Jaarboek 2000. Utrecht: CBS. (in Dutch)

Duijndam J.2001. Personal interview.

European Commission. 1996. European Sustainable Cities Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Pederson RM and Robertson A. 2001. Food policies are Essential for Healthy Cities. Urban Agriculture magazine 1 (3) (March): 9-11.

Schievink J. 2001. Personal interview.

Optimisation of the Use of Vacant Land in Rosario

Marielle Dubbeling 1

The project "Optimising the use of vacant land in the Municipality of Rosario" was undertaken in the context of the Rosario Municipal Urban Agriculture Programme. The project was implemented in the period 2002 to 2003 by the Secretariat for Social Promotion of the Municipality of Rosario, the National University of Rosario2 and community-based institutions and NGOs3, and supported by IDRC-Canada and IPES/Urban Management Programme UMP-LAC in Ecuador. The project has led to the formulation and institutionalisation of an enabling regulatory and legal framework, facilitating poor urban households' access to land for urban agriculture.

Context

The city of Rosario has an area of 17,869 ha and a population of 1,164,800 inhabitants (National Population Census of 2001). Over time, the area around Rosario has grown to accommodate irregular settlements, mostly inhabited by groups of poor families, as a result of high unemployment in the region and a large rural and urban migration from provinces in the north of the country.

Participatory design of a public square La Lagunita

Unemployment and the lack of social welfare coverage for growing groups of the population have driven NGOs to progressively assume a greater role in social development programmes, with urban agriculture as a significant part of their work. Meanwhile, the government administration has gradually transformed its development activities into social programmes and policies aimed at supporting the situation of those groups excluded from the formal labour market.

A major strength the city has in terms of developing urban productive activities is the availability of numerous public and private vacant lots that can be converted into cultivable areas for groups of poor families. Therefore, facilitating access to and tenure of these productive land spaces to low-income groups is a key to achieving their inclusion in society.

The city has a large amount of vacant or partially vacant land (in total 35 percent of the municipal area), much of which could be converted to urban agriculture given its proximity to marginal settlements and existing housing projects. In fact, a high percentage of urban gardens –voluntary initiatives or fostered by the municipal Urban Agriculture Programme – are already located in these areas.

Many of these vacant lots may however not directly be suitable for agricultural production. It is therefore important to determine the potential of these lots for agricultural use. Reliable and up-to-date information is necessary to facilitate decision-making on the type of land to be used, and how and for how long it can be designated to urban agriculture. Participatory diagnosis and assessment makes it possible to determine the current situation of urban agriculture in the city, and to study the potential of using vacant land to sustain agricultural activities.

Diagnosis and Planning of Land Use

During the first phase of the project, information was gathered through participatory baseline studies, based on which an action plan was developed, outlining strategies for the optimisation of agricultural land use. During this process, the theoretical and methodological concepts "suitability" and "accessibility" were discussed and agreed upon in workshops with urban gardeners and municipal officials. The following variables were selected to define "suitability" of the land: environmental quality; potential agronomic use; actual use (and previous use, if the area has been used for example as a dump or for other hazardous activities); current regulations for land use; urban and city projects planned; water supply; and ownership. The variables considered for defining "accessibility" of the land for urban agriculture were: legal status; current regulations of access and tenure; fiscal debt; public policies; and the value of the land.

Participatory design workshop La Lagunita

On this basis, a typology of vacant spaces was developed (for example private vacant spaces, green areas, roadside or railway reserves a.o.), each type requiring different policies and interventions in order to be put to use. All vacant lots were identified on a geo-referenced base map (using Geographic Information Systems), which is now used as input for planning and monitoring of urban agriculture in the Municipality of Rosario.

Participatory Consultations

The diagnostic process combined different participatory approaches related to the collection and organisation of baseline information. Maps identifying the location and size of vacant lots were prepared and the most suitable and accessible land areas were identified. The main sources of information used included:

• Basic information on urban and city planning;

• Urban Agriculture Programme of Rosario;

• Participatory workshops held with representatives of 70 community gardens;

• Interviews with technicians, municipal officials and urban producers;

• Meetings with other municipal, institutional and community agencies;

• Consultations with programmes involved in activities related to UA, such as Prohuerta (providing seeds and technical support to home-gardeners) and Crecer (promoting food production for schools).

As mentioned, several workshops were held with representatives from producer groups. In a first workshop, the project was presented, its objectives and expected results discussed and issues for further study identified. The land use maps were used to share and visualise information on land use regulations, ownership and use of the identified vacant land areas. The maps were also used by the participants to locate their urban gardens and additional potential vacant land areas for agriculture. The second workshop, aimed at making an in-depth characterisation of UA gardens already in operation, characterising the social groups that work in the gardens, and collecting supplementary information to determine the suitability and level of accessibility of existing gardens and identified empty lots. The third workshop focussed on deepening understanding of the problems experienced in gaining secure access to land; defining related conditions and requirements for farmers, and identifying policy support needed from the municipality. The community workshops also identified the need to improve the suitability of the land for agriculture. Therefore a specific study was undertaken to identify low-cost techniques for soil improvement, resulting in a training manual for urban farmers.

The proposals made by the community were shared with several municipal departments involved in land use planning and management (City Strategic Planning office, Secretariat for Housing, Land registry, Parks and Gardens Department) and were analysed by their staff at two workshops. The conclusions and recommendations of these workshops were incorporated into an action plan for optimising the use of vacant land for UA in Rosario.

Action Plan

The action plan incorporates activities aimed at converting the vacant spaces for productive use, improving the quality of soils to facilitate agricultural use, and the formulation and institutionalisation of public policies facilitating access to land.

In June 2003, "Comprehensive Design Workshops" were organised to involve the community and landscape architects in the design of productive uses of garden parks in public spaces or along banks of urban streams (see illustration).

At the same time, proposals were developed for the gradual inclusion of urban agriculture into municipal policies and plans, resulting in the inclusion of urban agriculture into the City Master Plan, facilitating the inclusion of UA into land use strategies, spatial and functional policies and programmes, and a variety of urban development projects.

Furthermore, regulations on ceding of land and granting temporary user rights to producers were formalised and a Municipal Land Bank was set up to permanently map and monitor the use of vacant and UA land areas.

Lastly, procedures for the management and administration of vacant lots for UA have been simplified by centralising them at the Secretariat for Social Promotion (which hosts the Municipal Urban Agriculture Programme), which in turn co-ordinates its activities with the Land Registry, the Planning Office and the Parks and Gardens Department. Community and individual requests for the (temporary) use of vacant lots are granted on the basis of criteria defined by the producers themselves in the community workshops, such as commitment to longer periods of farming, and the groups' management capacities.

Presently, more than 10,000 families have secured access to more than 60 ha of private, institutional and municipal land through this project for UA and benefit from improved food security, social recognition and income generation.

Notes

1 Summary prepared by Marielle Dubbeling (IPES/UMP-LAC) based on project documents elaborated by Elio Di ernardo, Laura Bracalenti, Laura Lagorio, Virginia Lamas and Marina Rodriguez (CEAH, Universidad Nacional de Rosario- Argentina) and Raul Terrile and Antonio Lattura (CEPAR)

2 Notably the the Centre for Human Environment Studies (CEAH) of the School of Architecture, Planning and Design.

3 The Centre for Agro-ecological Production Studies (CEPAR) and NGO Nacimiento have actively participated in the development of project, specifically the participatory baseline study, community consultations, and development of the action plan.

Urban Agriculture and Sustainability in Vancouver, Canada

Wendy Mendes

On July 8, 2003, the Vancouver City Council approved a motion supporting the development of a "just and sustainable food system" for the City of Vancouver. A just and sustainable food system is defined as one in which food production, processing, distribution, consumption and recycling are integrated to enhance the environmental, economic, social and nutritional health of a particular place. This commitment to food policy was made in response to more than a decade of community organising efforts. Community groups sought local government response to pressing issues including urban sprawl, threats to agricultural land, health and nutrition problems, and food access issues, particularly for marginalised populations. The Council motion also reflects a growing trend in Canadian and US cities in which food system issues are being recognised as an area in which local governments have an important role to play.

Meeting of the Vancouver Food Policy Council

Since the July 2003 Council motion, the City's commitment to food policy has included an eight month public consultation process; approval of a Food Action Plan (see http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20031209/rr1.htm); hiring two food policy staff; facilitation of a number of food-related initiatives including community gardens, urban beekeeping, fruit trees, and edible landscaping; project collaborations with a range of partners; and the election of a 20-member multi-sectoral Vancouver Food Policy Council.

Urban agriculture is one component of Vancouver's broader food-related policies. These policies are being designed and implemented by the City of Vancouver in partnership with community organisations and a citizen advisory group. As one way to achieve a 'green and productive city,' Vancouver's food policy initiatives constitute an innovative municipal governance strategy that can contribute towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Urban Agriculture in Vancouver

Although Vancouver is a city of soaring glass towers and modern urban amenities, it is also located within one of the most productive agricultural regions in Canada. Urban agriculture in Vancouver is used in strategies to address a range of urban challenges involving various stakeholders.

Vancouver's Food Action Plan follows a 2-tiered strategy: (1) integration into a broader sustainable urban development agenda, and (2) promoting multi-actor involvement and collaboration.

Integration of Urban Agriculture into existing sustainability policies

A sustainable food systems approach to food policy supports the social, environmental and economic goals embodied in the City's existing commitment to sustainability. Goals include the promotion of health, nutrition, ecological responsibility, social inclusion and community capacity building. In this way, one of the key policy objectives for urban agriculture and other food policy initiatives in Vancouver is integration into broader sustainable development agendas. Theses agendas include child and youth programmes, environmental programmes, social sustainability programmes and urban development programmes.

A specific illustration of the goal of integrating urban agriculture into existing sustainability policies can be found in Southeast False Creek (SEFC), a major City development. In 1991, the City Council directed that Southeast False Creek be developed as a residential community that incorporates principles of energy efficient design in its area plan and explores the possibility of using SEFC as a model "sustainable community." As a sustainable neighbourhood, SEFC provided an opportunity to integrate urban agriculture into the Official Development Plan (ODP) as it evolved.

As part of the planning and consultation process in Southeast False Creek, a citizen advisory group was set up to provide input on the Official Development Plan as it evolved. This group, known as the Southeast False Creek Stewardship Group, took a keen interest in promoting urban agriculture on the site. In at least two reports to the City Council, the Stewardship Group identified urban agriculture as a key development priority. The rationale was that urban agriculture would provide multiple benefits to future residents including environmental sustainability by reducing the distance food travels, providing ecological benefits of reducing the heat island effect, reducing cooling and heating needs, reducing storm water management costs, and possible reductions in emissions and transportation costs. Urban agriculture was also argued to enhance social sustainability by providing less expensive and more nutritious food for the residents of Southeast False Creek, as well as providing social spaces for people to meet and interact with their neighbours. Together these benefits can increase social cohesiveness and networks, which are essential for a community that relies on the participation of its members in planning and ongoing governance.

Farmer Market in Vancouver

A second mechanism that enabled the integration of urban agriculture into SEFC was the participation of the food policy staff team in the finalisation of the Official Development Plan. By spring 2004, the SEFC Official Development Plan was being made ready for presentation to the City Council for approval. Because of pre-existing commitments to urban agriculture already embedded in the SEFC policy statement and the active lobbying by the SEFC Stewardship Group, the food policy staff team was able to work with the SEFC Planners and other City staff to more clearly articulate opportunities for urban agriculture, and express them more comprehensively and explicitly in the ODP itself.

Facilitation of collaboration and multi-actor partnerships

A second key policy objective for urban agriculture and food policy in Vancouver is the promotion of partnerships and collaboration. There are two inter-connected dimensions of the City of Vancouver's recognition of the importance of partnerships and collaboration where urban agriculture is concerned. The first focuses on 'internal' partnerships, while the second emphasises partnerships and collaboration between local government and community agencies and organisations.

From the outset, the Food Action Plan acknowledged that some of the resources and policy tools necessary to address food system issues fall outside of the jurisdiction of Vancouver. As such, the development of partnerships with other agencies has been, and will continue to be instrumental to the process. Key partners include Vancouver Agreement, Vancouver School Board, Vancouver Park Board, Vancouver Coastal Health and community organisations among others. Also key to the success of urban agriculture and food policy are partnerships and collaborations among municipal departments within local government itself.

Vancouver's Food Action Plan was argued to reinforce the City's commitment to sustainability. This had the benefit of associating food policy with a set of already familiar policies and mandates. Urban agriculture and food policy benefited from internal education campaigns on sustainability that had already taken place in the organisation. Like sustainability more broadly, urban agriculture is a cross-cutting issue often involving a wide range of departments for effective implementation and monitoring.

The second dimension of the City of Vancouver's recognition of the importance of partnerships and collaboration has more far-reaching implications. This dimension involves the mechanisms designed to facilitate governmental/non-governmental partnership approaches to food policy design and implementation. This objective is best embodied in the Vancouver Food Policy Council, seen as a new model for collaborative municipal governance.

The Vancouver Food Policy Council is comprised of individuals from all aspects of the local food system. Membership includes people with a variety of different backgrounds such as, nutritionists, food wholesalers and distributors, food retailers and grocers, managers of non-profit organisations and academics engaged in the food system. This multi-disciplinary group creates an innovative forum for discussion and action towards building a food system that is ecologically sustainable, economically viable and socially just. It is also builds upon collaboration between citizens and government officials to work together on initiatives. The primary goal of a Food Policy Council is to examine the operation of a local food system and provide ideas and policy recommendations for how it can be improved.

Showing the power of worms

Vancouver's Food Policy Council has been meeting since September 2004. In addition to education and awareness-raising strategies, the Vancouver Food Policy Council works on specific projects and goals in support of issues and action items identified in the Food Action Plan. Currently, the VPFC has identified four priority work areas including: (a) Increasing access to groceries for residents of Vancouver; (b) Institutional food purchasing policy for public facilities; (c) Recovery, reuse, and recycling of Food; and (d) Food Charter for the City of Vancouver.

Results and Way Forward

The two policy strategies have resulted in a number of behaviour changes of and benefits to Vancouver citizens. Benefits derived from these changes address Millennium Development Goals #1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) and #7 (ensure environmental sustainability). At the same time, benefits also encompass a number of important dimensions of social sustainability including community development, social inclusion and civic engagement. Three changes in particular are:

• Education and awareness

• Enhanced collaboration between city departments and other agencies

• Food systems approach to food issues

A number of key lessons from the project experience should be taken into account by other local governments. These include:

• Build on community knowledge and expertise

• Build and enhance partnerships

• Adopt a systems approach to food issues

• Food policy staff is critical

A key next step in Vancouver's case is to determine the role that urban agriculture may play in existing strategies leading to pilot programmes to address hunger, health, addiction and homelessness. At the same time, it should be recognised that hunger exists to varying degrees in all Vancouver neighbourhoods. Accordingly, research should be based on a sustainable food system approach to alleviating hunger.

Resources

Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability - Beyond Deadlock and Conflict
M. Hemmati (with contributions from F. Dodds, J. Enayati and J. McHarry). 2002. Earthscan. London. UK.
This practical guide explains how MSPs can be organised and implemented in order to resolve the complex issues in and around sustainable forms of development, whilst recognising the rights of, and risks faced by, all parties. It includes detailed examples of MSPs in practice and provides functional checklists, explaining how to bypass adversarial politics and achieve positive results. This important contribution to the understanding of participatory approaches to decision-making will be invaluable to policy makers, NGOs, business unions, local authorities and activists.

Tools to Support Participatory Urban Decision Making. Urban Governance Toolkit Series.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT). Nairobi-Kenya.
This toolkit aims at supporting participatory urban decision-making. It has been prepared as one of the products of the "Global Campaign on Urban Governance", led by UN-HABITAT in collaboration with a whole range of partners. It provides tools and short case studies on aspects such as mobilising stakeholders, building collaboration and forging consensus, identifying key issues and formulating priority strategies, negotiating and implementing action plans, monitoring and evaluation and institutionalisation.

The Sustainable Cities Programme Source Book Series, UN-HABITAT/UNEP, 1999
The Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) is a joint UN-HABITAT/UNEP facility established in the early 1990s to build capacities in urban environmental planning and management. The programme targets urban local authorities and their partners. It is founded on broad-based stakeholder participatory approaches. The environmental planning and management (EPM) approach of the Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) addresses the urban challenge by promoting the sustainability of cities. Experiences with EPM have been captured and translated into effective tools - in the form of manuals - that can be used to inform, support and guide the environmental planning process in cities. Five volumes of the SCP Source Book Series provide guidance on the step-by-step SCP process following similar steps as described in Chapter 2. They can all be downloaded from the following website: http://www.unchs.org/programmes/sustainablecities/SCPProcess.asp

- Preparing the SCP Environmental Profile, The SCP Source Book Series (Vol.1)

- Measuring Progress in Environmental Planning and Management, The SCP Source Book Series (Vol. 9)

- Urban Air Quality Management, Handbook (Parts A and B) and Toolkit (Part C), The SCP Source Book Series (Vol. 6)

- Organising, Conducting and Reporting an SCP City Consultation, The SCP Source Book Series (Vol. 2)

- Building an Environmental Management Information System (EMIS), The SCP Source Book Series (Vol. 7)

- Establishing and Supporting a Working Group Process, The SCP Source Book Series (Vol. 3)

- Integrating Gender Responsiveness in Environmental Planning and Management, EPM Series (Vol. 4)

- Formulating Issue Specific Strategies and Action Plans, The SCP Source Book Series (Vol. 4)

- Institutionalising the Environmental Planning and Management Process, The SCP Source Book Series (Vol. 5)

www.portals.wdi.wur.nl/msp/

This website gives you practical information on how to facilitate participatory learning processes with various stakeholders. It provides theoretical foundations, concrete case studies, methods and tools to create learning processes, facilitation tips, examples, literature and links. The aim of providing this information is to build capacity for multi-stakeholder processes and social learning. Tools include those that can be applied for collecting information, stakeholder analysis, planning and decision-making.

www.iclei.org

The Local Agenda 21 (LA21) Campaign promotes a participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that helps municipalities identify local sustainability priorities and implement long-term action plans. It supports good local governance and mobilises local governments and their citizens to undertake such multi-stakeholder process. The ICLEI website offers a variety of resources on Local Agenda 21 and urban governance, which include case studies, publications and toolkits.

http://www.unchs.org/programmes/sustainablecities/SCPProcess.asp

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 3
Integration of Agriculture in Urban Land Use Planning

Urban agriculture is a relatively new urban issue, in which different sectors and institutions are involved. It requires the development of new planning practices, or the adaptation of existing ones, and supportive policies. The preceding chapter argues that participatory and multi-stakeholder processes and tools are required in this process. This chapter elaborates on this argument by focusing on urban land use planning. It takes a South East African perspective and analyses the different paradigms, approaches and tools towards urban policy making and planning related to urban agriculture. Major issues and challenges include the distribution, control of and access to the use of land and other resources, conflicts between uses and users and the regulatory framework for urban agriculture. The chapter ends with a discussion on planning tools and techniques which can be used to integrate urban agriculture into urban planning and development.

Integration of Agriculture in Urban Land Use Planning

Takawira Mubvami
Shingirayi Mushamba

Introduction

Urban agriculture is increasingly becoming an important activity in urban economies, both in the South and the North. It can contribute significantly to the well being of farmers and other citizens, if properly managed. The growth of human settlements creates a competition between the traditional urban land uses and urban agriculture. Whilst regional and urban planners have generally accepted the peri-urban zone as a mixed zone in terms of land use categories (including urban agriculture), the intra-urban zone in most cases remains a preserve for "traditional" urban uses.

As is argued in this book, urban agriculture, however, has the potential to prosper in modern cities because of its multiple functions and relations with city issues. Cities provide easy access to markets and a prevailing high demand for food. Other reasons for agriculture in the city are reduced transport costs for produce and an abundance of resources and opportunities (such as recycled waste, under-employment and the availability of urban labour). In fact urban agricultural practices have always been part of the city, but the integration into the urban economy is what is lacking in today's urban planning and policies.

Cultivation on the fringes of Beirut, Lebanon

Urban planning in most developing countries has tended to be characterised by long-range comprehensive planning, which adopt a blue-print approach. This type of planning is associated with rigidity and a lack of responsiveness to social issues, and has negatively affected the integration of urban agriculture. Planning departments are often ill-equipped, understaffed and the position of planners is not often at the level of real decision making. This means that their decisions are not always recognised and their plans are often shelved for lack of resources to implement them.

Most planners in developing countries have a view of the city which is based on old- fashioned European or American models and pertaining to countries in which most of them have been trained. In addition, land laws in their own countries are archaic, while laws on health and environment which are promulgated at the national level leave little room for urban councils to manoeuvre at the local level (Foeken, 2006).

The scenario described in Box 3.2 is not yet a reality, although promising examples are given in this book. Urban planners and other professionals often lack information and technical know-how to cope with urban agriculture and facilitate its integration into urban development. Despite the growing recognition of urban agriculture, there are still many city planners, local authorities, sectoral organisations and NGOs who associate agriculture with rural areas only and are unaware of its presence in the urban areas.

However, this situation is slowly changing with increasing recognition of the importance of urban agriculture in the overall functioning of the wider urban economy. Most governments and local authorities have now begun to support (peri-)urban agriculture and are seeking ways in which to facilitate sustainable, safe and profitable production. Latin American cities such as Rosario (see the case in chapter 2) have adopted a facilitating environment for urban agriculture. New capital cities such as Dodoma in Tanzania have been designed to accommodate (peri-)urban agriculture, while agriculture has been incorporated into urban expansion plans for Dar-es-Salaam and Maputo (Mougeot, 2000).

Debates surrounding urban planning standards and the feasibility of implementing these in cities of the developing world have resulted in a change in approach by planners who have realised that long-range planning is often unable to respond to the fast-changing circumstances of rapidly urbanising areas. New planning tools and approaches that are more flexible, seek greater community participation, more responsive and move away from the blue-print approach are being experimented with. The role of an urban planner has changed from that of an expert, technical designer of the future urban form to a facilitator of community needs and aspirations, often pushed or pulled by policy makers through various declarations, for example the Quito Declaration, chapter 1 and the Harare Declaration (see box 3.8).

Planners are often accused of posing the greatest challenge to urban agriculture as they have not integrated it into urban areas as a land use nor designed residential estates to allow the activity to be carried out on-plot. The central question here is how planners, urban managers and policy makers can facilitate or support urban agriculture. There is a need to understand what planning is all about and the constraints that planners face in trying to integrate urban agriculture into development plans.

Urban Land Use Planning

Urban, city or town planning is the discipline of land use planning which deals with the physical, social, and economic development of metropolitan regions, municipalities and neighbourhoods. Land use planning is the term used for a branch of public policy which encompasses various disciplines which seek to order and regulate the use of land in an efficient way (Chapin and Kaiser, 1979). Urban planners shape patterns of land use and the built environment in and around cities to solve and prevent challenges of urbanisation, including providing shelter, food and other basic needs of life, protecting and conserving the natural environment and assuring equitable and efficient distribution of community resources, including land. (Quon, 1999)

As a profession, urban planning lays claim to being comprehensive in scope, future oriented, public interest driven, and of wanting to enhance the liveability of human settlements. It is also distinguished by its focus on numerous functional systems that make up the community, including the study of their characteristics and interconnectedness (Faludi, 1973).

Land use planning

An urban area is made up of complementing and conflicting uses and demands that have to be properly managed. This scenario is made worse by the fact that land is a finite resource and the demands on a particular piece of land are many and varied.

Maize cultivated at open spaces in Harare, Zimbabwe

Land use planning is viewed as the process of organising the use of land and its resources to best meet the people's needs over time according to the land's capabilities. (Chapin and Kaiser, 1997) According to this definition every piece of land within an urban environment should have an appropriate use. The definition further relates to the concepts of sustainable development and use of resources.

Land use planning can also be viewed as the development of a plan for the future use of land, for instance, through zoning. Land use planning is not a haphazard event but should be a well thought out process. Thus, if a certain use of land, for instance urban agriculture, is not considered during the planning process, it would then be very difficult to properly include it in the implementation of the plan, and to achieve the maximum benefit.

Urban planning and the urban food system

Land use, housing, transportation, the environment, the urban economy and recreation, amongst others, are issues that planners are heavily involved in. The food system, however, is notable by its absence from the writing of planning scholars, from the plans prepared by planners and from the lecture rooms in which planning students are taught. As opposed to other commercial or private activities in cities, urban food production has never been addressed properly by legal regulation and planning (Dresher, 2000, Roberts, 2004).

The food system is defined as the chain of activities connecting food production, processing, distribution, consumption and waste management, as well as the associated regulatory institutions and activities. There are conceptual and practical reasons why planners should devote more attention to the food system, since it is paramount in the improvement of human settlements to better serve the needs of the people, and in incorporating linkages between various aspects such as physical, natural, housing, transportation, land use, and economic empowerment.

Approaches to urban planning

As mentioned, urban planning is continuing to develop and in many cities planners are experimenting with new approaches and tools, based on different views or paradigms. There is little information available on what these different visions imply for urban agriculture, although issues of importance are mentioned in various texts (Kaufmann, 2000, Quon, 1999, van den Berg, 2000). Participatory approaches are becoming more popular. Other approaches brought in by the donor community are also taking root. It is against this background that urban agriculture can be made much more visible than it currently is.

Urban agriculture could play an important role in urban planning by linking to environmental, social and economic issues (see chapter 1). All of the different approaches to urban planning provide specific opportunities and linkages to facilitate and catalyse the integration of urban agriculture into urban planning. The five models discussed below are based on descriptions from Chapin and Kaiser (1979), but are still valid.

The Ecological Model is most current among environmental health and transport planners. It applies a systems view, in which the city is seen as a system of inter-related parts akin to a biological system. Planning is used as an approach to make cities healthy and disease free. Open and green spaces are seen as lungs to purify pollutants from the environment. It is dominant in environmental planning and management approaches, as promoted by Local Agenda 21 (as developed after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro,1992). Dar es Salaam-Tanzania and Lusaka-Zambia are cities where this approach has been applied.

The implications of the Ecological Model for urban agriculture are that:

• urban agriculture is considered as a tool for environmental management through nutrient and waste recycling;

• nutritional and health conditions of residents can be improved through urban agriculture;

• urban agriculture may constitute a good use of derelict and open spaces;

• city gardens help to beautify the city;

• potential health risks for consumers – use of waste water, soil erosion – need to be considered.

New Urbanism (design, engineering, architecture) propagates the idea of a compact city. The key feature of this model of city development is to reverse the trend of the urban sprawl by learning from traditional urban development patterns. It promotes small plot sizes and building up open spaces within the city, but also uses of recreation. The model is applied in many new cities like Lilongwe, Dodoma, and Abuja.

The implications of the New Urbanism approach for urban agriculture are that:

• economic imperatives in the new urbanism militate against urban agriculture;

• it has been criticised by those that see home space as multi-functional production areas, and not just as a place to sleep;

• the model follows the recommendations of some aid agencies like the World Bank that have been advocating for the reduction of urban residential plots, leaving very little space for urban agriculture (see box 3.3);

The Collaborative or Communicative Model is a procedural theory of how planning should be done. It acknowledges the divergent social-political and at times ethnic groups in the city, and encourages a process of consensus building in addressing problems and developing a vision for the city. The assumption is that with negotiation, problems in the city can be resolved. The model emphasises the role of the planner and the leadership s/he provides. It promotes multi-stakeholder processes (see chapter 2), in which the planner should bring consensus among stakeholders and should not impose his own blue-print as in the new urbanism model. It assumes an even distribution of power among stakeholders. The implications of the Collaborative Model for urban agriculture are that:

• the mainstreaming of multi-stakeholder processes may give a voice to urban producers and place emphasis on urban agriculture being demand driven;

• there is a need to pay attention to issues of who has power and influence among stakeholders and on how a common position on urban agriculture can be negotiated;

• urban agriculture should emerge as a community need and be expressed as such; if it is a community need, it can find its place in urban development.

The contemporary Just City Perspective is characterised by democratic radicalism. It calls for a radical form of participation that goes beyond stakeholder involvement. It places emphasis on governance by the civil society, and making explicit the differences in power and the need for the "excluded" to fight for power and influence change. The implications of the Just City concept for urban agriculture are that:

• urban farmers need to organise themselves so that they can effectively lobby local authorities;

• the authorities need to be engaged in debates for the rights of urban farmers to earn a living out of a legitimate and honest means;

• negotiation is necessary for the use of any open land available for urban agriculture activities; this will also involve negotiating for the legalisation of informal settlements and informal sector activities.

The New Life Model argues that development institutions have realised that urban agriculture can facilitate the creation of new institutions. It links urban agriculture to different aspects of urban development such as poverty alleviation, urban nutrition and environmentalism, informal sector employment and gender, and argues for further enhancement of UA in these sectors (see also chapter 1). The implications of the New Life theory for urban agriculture are that:

• urban agriculture is a new field of development or perspective in sustainable city development and needs to be taken on board in the urban development discourse;

• emphasis is on the inter-linkages between urban agriculture and other urban development issues;

• urban agriculture may attract a lot of international development assistance if properly organised and well promoted;

• in city dynamics urban agriculture will adapt and develop itself to urban needs, until another main issue (new kid on the block) emerges and becomes in vogue.

The models discussed above have shaped the way different land uses and urban forms have emerged. These models are adhered to by urban authorities and NGOs and the visions espoused in the paradigms influence the way policies are developed. By clarifying the linkages and the potential role UA can and should have in urban development, it should be possible to integrate UA and articulate it clearly in urban development policies.

Policy Formulation and Urban Agriculture

Thus it is important to clarify potential roles and positive impacts of UA in the city and link these to current planning practices and perspectives. Urban planning is undertaken under existing national and municipal policies. Therefore analysing and influencing this process of policy formulation is paramount in seeking the integration of urban agriculture into sustainable urban development. The next sections highlight the status quo with regard to the integration of urban agriculture into urban development.

Private vacant land identified in Valadares

Municipalities in most countries are local planning authorities as promulgated by the various town and country planning acts. As local planning authorities, the municipalities have powers and functions to plan and implement local development plans, including enforcement of development control. Furthermore, municipalities have the power to specify or formulate development policies through by-laws. As policy-making bodies, municipalities therefore determine and shape the process of development at the local level. It is therefore within the ambit of municipalities to promote or prohibit urban agriculture.

A policy framework for urban agriculture would encompass planning policies, legislation and regulations that guide or regulate land use planning and management. However, in most cities, urban agriculture is ignored, not addressed in national and municipal policies or is not acknowledged as a valid urban land use. And when regulations or by-laws on, or related to, urban agriculture exist, this is often not under an overall and clear policy, and the law may be interpreted differently by different actors (Foeken, 2006).

One could however question the need for a specific policy on urban agriculture, and argue that urban agriculture rather should relate to existing agricultural, land use or environmental policies (Wolfgang, 2002). These policies however should then still set out objectives of equity entitlements to food and other urban area resources, principally land and water, so as to accommodate these for urban agriculture.

Whether urban agriculture is specific or not, in considering appropriate planning and policy measures, one needs to distinguish between profit-driven (and often capital-intensive) urban agriculture on the one hand and more subsistence, for-food, and largely informal urban agriculture on the other. The for-food urban agriculture tends to address the household food security aspects largely with very little emphasis on the economic aspects Policies on or related to urban agriculture should be aimed or related to the following issues:

- pro-poor poverty reduction;

- local economic development;

- environmental management;

- integration of disadvantaged groups;

- promotion of participatory governance and democratic cities.

The most relevant urban policy areas to urban agriculture are (see also chapter 1) those on land use, public health, environment, social (& economic) development and food security.

Land use

The key issues here, especially for informal urban agriculture, are the recognition of urban agriculture as an official urban land use, access to land and other resources, and security of tenure. Most municipalities either have city development structure plans, strategic plans or city development strategies, but most of these plans fail to take urban agriculture into account.

The policy instrument that can be used to achieve the objective of integrating urban agriculture into urban land use planning is urban land use zoning (see also the last section of this chapter). Layout plans could indicate the areas within the city in which urban agriculture is allowed, including guidelines from planners on types of urban agriculture. In Botswana, the City of Gaborone has set up poultry zones on land considered of low potential for development of other land uses (Ministry of Agriculture, Botswana, 2006)

Other policy options include the temporary use of vacant public and private land for urban agriculture. Municipalities could, for example, allow undeveloped land to be used for urban agriculture, subject to negotiation between the owner and the user. Further, municipalities have the option of promoting multifunctional land use. This could be done through encouraging community participation in the management of open spaces, where food can be grown in combination with other urban functions such as recreation and city greening. The case of Rosario (Lattuca et al., 2005) highlights this approach.

Health

Most cities have used the potential health risks of urban agriculture as a justification for prohibiting it. And indeed, urban agriculture, like any other industry, has potential risks for human health (see also chapters 8, 9, 11 and 12). But most of these potential negative effects can be minimised when urban agriculture is acknowledged and subsequently properly managed. Municipalities should develop and implement policies that minimise health risks without compromising the food production needs of the urban poor. For instance, in Cuenca in Ecuador, the policy thrust has been to regulate use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides in urban areas, to promote training and exchange on ecological farming practices, to provide licenses and incentives (eg. tax reduction) to micro-enterprises that produce and supply ecologically-friendly inputs (compost, bio-pesticides, quality seeds etc.) and to promote secure hygienic conditions for crop handling, food processing and vending of food.

Environment

There are several positive effects of urban agriculture on the city environment, but as with health, proper management is necessary to mitigate potential risks (see chapters 8 and 9). In this chapter the example of linking to Environmental Management Plans (as in Dar Es Salaam) is given. Urban agriculture can also assist to reduce environmental pollution through the recycling of solid and liquid waste in the process of agricultural production. For example, the City of Harare irrigates pastures on three large-scale commercial farms, which support over 10,000 cows, using wastewater from its Crowborough and Firle sewer works. The water filters down and eventually finds its way back to the city reservoir after a natural purification process (Toriro, 2003).

Social development

Urban agriculture is a sector that integrates the urban poor and unemployed into the urban economy. In so doing, it contributes immensely to feelings of higher self-esteem and safety among the urban poor. Urban agriculture has started receiving finances through regular municipal or state/national subsidies or financing mechanism. The mayor of Kampala has set aside a budget for urban agriculture, having realised its important social dimension (Makumbi, 2005)

Urban food security

As was stated in the introduction, most municipalities have no food policies, in spite of the increasing problem of urban food insecurity and growing urban poverty. Current trends regarding urban food insecurity in municipalities reveal that reliance on food produced in the rural areas is not sufficient, especially for the urban poor (FAO, 2001). Despite food being a basic human need (and right), urban food security issues are low or not on the agenda of municipal policy makers and planners. Putting urban agriculture on the agenda and integrating it into urban planning, should be done by giving attention to urban food systems (availability and origin of food and linking to the rural areas around cities). It is therefore recommended that municipalities should make urban food security a policy issue and develop plans to enhance food production in the urban and pen-urban zones. The Vancouver Food Policy Council (see chapter 2) is a good example.

International development programmes

Apart from issues at local or municipal level, further linkages should also be sought with international perspectives and programmes, which can stimulate or facilitate attention for and integration of urban agriculture in urban development. By flagging important international support and institutions that are supportive of urban agriculture, local policy makers are more likely to be responsive to set up local programmes. This responsiveness can be consolidated through exchange programmes, collaborative research as well as cofunding of research and pilot projects. Some contemporary programmes are mentioned below.

The Habitat Agenda was first drafted in 1996 in Istanbul, Turkey. It constitutes a new social contract towards improving human settlements in the world. It is a reaffirmation of the commitment to better standards of living and improvement of quality of life in human settlements. It highlights the role and importance of local authorities and of a wide range of other interested parties in the struggle to improve human settlements. The Agenda makes specific references to urban agriculture and has several issues it can relate to.

The Millennium Development Goals inspire and motivate agencies and countries to work towards a common goal. They raise and maintain public awareness in rich countries, thus maintaining political pressure for aid spending and effectiveness. They can also enable citizens of partner countries to compare their progress with others. The MDGs provide an opportunity to link urban agriculture with world development goals (especially goal 1, 3 and 7 and 8.

The Special Programme on Food Security (SPFS) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is a multi-disciplinary programme aimed at promoting an integrated and participative approach to food security. In addition, the FAO committee on Agriculture recommended the development of an organisation-wide programme on urban agriculture, now one of the Priority Areas for Inter-disciplinary Action (PAIA), "Food for the Cities". Under this programme, FAO has started urban garden allotments in several cities.

The United Nations Habitat NEPAD Cities Initiative captures a strategic operational approach in addressing the urban challenge in Africa, by emphasising development and the environment. It is based on a broad participation of public, private and community groups, and concerned with inter-sectoral and inter-organisational aspects. It relies on bottom-up and demand-led responses and on local capacity building. Urban agriculture is listed as a relevant and immediate livelihood strategy in times of conflict and disaster.

The Environmental Planning and Management Process (EPM) is based on the premise that achieving sustainable development requires all actors to recognise the interconnectedness of the environment and development activities. It has been popularised by the United Nations Environment program UNEP in partnership with UN Habitat, and applied in their Sustainable Cities Programme. It became a framework through which cities could implement the Local Agenda 21 and the Habitat Global Plan of Action. The Dar es Salaam Sustainable Cities programme has modelled its planning around the participatory approaches of the EPM process (see box 3.4). The Local Agenda 21 promotes development of action plans for sustainable development by local authorities jointly with stakeholders and citizens. It provides planning guidelines, incentive grants, training workshops, seminars, and promotes exchange of experiences in drafting local policies and action plans.

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PSRPs) are prepared by member countries through a participatory process involving domestic stakeholders as well as external development partners, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A review of most of the PSRPs shows that they do not take into account urban agriculture as a strategy for poverty reduction (yet)!

HIV/AIDS and urban agriculture

HIV/AIDS and urban agricultureHIV/AIDS and urban agriculture HIV/AIDS has emerged as on of the foremost challenges for development and poverty alleviation. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to nearly 30 million of the world's 42 million people living with HIV and AIDS. Local governments have been called upon to address the HIV and AIDS problem seriously. Urban agriculture might provide an opportunity to do something positive for people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS. Governments should provide land and waste water resources that can be used to boost the nutritional status of sufferers and their dependants. Medicinal plants can be readily grown and harvested within the local environment. Self- employment in home and community gardens may strengthen self esteem (see also box 3.5).

Access to land

Urban farming requires some land space, whether the farming system is soil based or not. Land is one of the most controversial issues associated with urban agriculture, referring to the issues of secure tenure and conflicts over use of scarce urban land, water and other resources. Since the other chapters in this book deal with other resources, the emphasis here is on land. Land for urban agriculture is either not available, or when available it may not be accessible, and when accessible it may not be usable for a particular form of agriculture (Mushamba et al., 2003).

Availability

In most cities and towns there is a high demand for land for residential, commercial and industrial development, among others. The productive or potentially productive areas of the city that have not been paved over are not limited to communal farms and private gardens. In many cities such as Accra, Ghana, Setif in Algeria, Divo in Ivory Coast (See for instance, the Urban Agriculture Magazine Number 11) a lease for agricultural use of the land is only given for one year, because of claims for other uses. This makes availability of land, and other resources associated with land such as water, a great concern for the urban farmer.

Institutional land areas (belonging to hospitals, schools, and churches), riverbanks and roadsides, parks, lands under high-voltage electrical towers that cannot be used for buildings and those surrounding refuse dumps make up much of a municipality's territory. Planning the use and exploitation of these spaces requires mapping their location as a first step and then assessing their potential. It is important to assess the availability of land for urban agriculture in a given city in the short-, medium- or long-term period. Land may not be available due to rapid development of the built-up environment.

Accessibility

Land may be available but not accessible because of social or political reasons. Accessibility relates to the opportunity for the actual utilisation of available land by needy households or groups, taking into account administrative procedures and conflicts that may arise. Access may refer to the land itself or the use of the land. Often the ownership and tenure patterns are not known because of lack of records or frequent change of hands. Traditional forms of ownership as under customary law also exist (see the case on Abidjan). Land may also be far from where farmers live and public transportation and roads could be inadequate or not available. Available land may be too costly for farmers to rent. Farmers may not have the social or political connections necessary to learn about or gain access to the plots that are available. The poor and recent migrants in cities often lack access to land for urban agriculture. Planning policies and legislation that deem urban agriculture as an illegal activity can prevent farmers from accessing land. Discrimination by gender may prevent equal access by men and women.

Usability

The usability of available and accessible land is determined by factors such as topography, size of plot, soil texture and quality, availability of water and security of tenure. Also, services such as water for irrigation and inputs or market facilities, transportation infrastructure are factors that determine a plot's usability. In Rosario (Dubbelling, 2003) the following variables are used to define the suitability of the land: environmental quality; potential agronomic use; actual use (and previous use if the area has been used as a dump or for other hazardous activities); current regulations for land use; urban and city projects planned; water supply; ownership; and population groups interested in agriculture.

Incentives for producers to invest are compromised by the lack of security concerning land tenure and the fear of eviction. Why erect terraces, improve and fertilise the soil, or build irrigation reservoirs if the government does not guarantee that benefits can be reaped from those investments? Taxation rules and legal frameworks are therefore necessary to provide security and incentives for producers.

Land tenure

Security of land tenure is very important, but hard to get for urban farmers, especially for those farming off-plot (on plots away from the homestead, like open areas in the city) or in peri-urban areas. Land tenure refers to the system of rights and institutions that governs access to and use of land and other resources on that land. It determines who can use what land and how. It derives from both statutory and customary law. Research on land tenure suggests that the most apparent qualitative linkage between tenure and food security is that increased security of tenure in productive resources enables more efficient and profitable production and hence greater access to food products.

Land tenure determines the level of investment that urban farmers themselves put into projects. The private sector is often not willing to advance loans to urban farmers as they lack legal rights to land and are therefore unable to use it as collateral. The tenure situation of women is even more precarious (MDP-FAO, 2001). Administrative arrangements for secure tenure are cumbersome and proper registration of plots and users is often nonexistent. However, (temporary) user permits have been successfully negotiated in some countries concerning leases for public and private land for specific periods of time with clear conditions as is highlighted in the cases.

Implications for urban planning and management

Improving the availability of suitable land for urban agriculture is important. Urban agriculture therefore should be included into official land use categories, statistics and surveys, so as to inform urban local authorities. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) could be used for registration purposes, for improving land use monitoring and evaluation activities, and as a basis for a transparent taxation system. The case study of Rosario highlighted in chapter 2 created a land bank, where land was categorised by type and those areas where UA could take place were identified. Governador Valadares (see case) included urban agriculture in their master plans and made sure that land was made available for the activity. In Gaborone in Botswana, special poultry zones were created around the city. Dar es Salaam also has zones where livestock is raised. The case study of Beijing highlights the impact of zoning in making land available for urban agriculture. A study by SWEDEPLAN highlights that in Sweden many housing developers are now incorporating compositing and kitchen gardening into designs and layouts for housing projects (Greenhow, 2002). Green houses are allowed on the walls of apartments facing the south. In housing schemes built in the 1960's where redevelopment is taking place, compositing facilities and space for gardening are being provided. (ibid).

Training of Urban Planners in Gaborone, Botswana

Municipal land use plans need to be studied to determine if spaces can be allocated for cultivation, aquaculture, animal husbandry and forestry, among other activities. Depending on the country, these municipal plans can be part of strategic plans, urban development plans, or land use plans.

Integrating Urban Agriculture into National and Municipal Policies

Policies related to urban agriculture can be categorised in the continuum from full endorsement and facilitation to regulation or outright prohibition. Under the more restrictive policies community concerns are ignored. Urban agriculture is not permitted, regardless of the desires of the community. These policies are characterised by restrictive legislation, lack of flexibility or room for innovation, resistance to change within the local authority and rigid adherence to rules. On the contrary, enabling or endorsing approaches are found when authority, statutory powers and other frameworks are used to assist, advise and guide communities on the way forward for urban agriculture; community concerns are given attention; and innovation and new ideas are encouraged.

Most current legislative frameworks do not facilitate urban agriculture, but leave room for flexible interpretation. In Nakuru, Kenya, Foeken (2006) shows that the laws, both national and local, tend to restrict urban agriculture, but that the practice is tolerated in the city. Most laws and by-laws are archaic and have been borrowed from the colonial days and are therefore not in keeping with the design and activities that take place now in cities of the developing countries. Legislation should therefore be crafted so that it supports promotion and regulation of urban agricultural activities.

Promoting urban agriculture at local and city level includes lobbying with different stakeholders at different levels, including the Municipality, NGOs, Departments of Lands, Agriculture, Food Security, Health and Local Governments and farmers, providing them with targeted information and best practices.

National government interventions

National policies determine activities or local policies promulgated by local governments. On the other hand, local authorities can lobby national governments to make policies which may then be adopted at national level. By-laws are made by local authorities and are only applicable within the jurisdiction of that particular local authority. (Makonese, 2005) Outsiders cannot be bound by these rules as long as they are outside the jurisdiction of that local authority. By-laws however should not be ultra vires national law. If they are, they become illegal and are not enforceable to the extent of the inconsistency. A policy is a broad operational framework (a way of doing things) for an organisation, institution or a country. Policies are statements of good intentions and are not legally binding. They therefore cannot be enforced in a court of law but only have persuasive or normative value. However, policies can result in the enactment of legislation or by-laws if it is deemed necessary.

The process of enacting laws and by-laws is generally long whilst policy development is fairly easy. It is for this reason that most cities and countries have chosen for policies on urban agriculture. Several platforms are available for convincing policy makers to push for policies on urban agriculture. On the other hand, by using international development programmes, workshops and conferences it may be possible to lobby governments and local authorities, for example the Harare Declaration arising from a conference on urban agriculture and food security. It is also possible to target national agencies and players like local government associations and push through them the mandate for national policy change. Policy change follows practice.

National governments could possibly have a role to play in:

• The creation of an institutional home for urban agriculture by selecting a national lead agency on urban agriculture and the establishment of an inter-departmental committee on urban food production and consumption;

• The creation of an appropriate legal framework for urban agriculture;

• Stimulation of policy and action-oriented research on urban agriculture, including research on the functioning of informal networks in urban agriculture, technologies for safe re-use of urban wastes and waste water, space confined and water saving technologies, integrated pest management and other ecological farming practices, small scale food processing techniques etc;

• Facilitating awareness raising among city administrators, urban planners, technical departments and NGOs through seminars and workshops that provide them with reliable data and positive examples ("best practices"); and

• Co-financing of city urban agriculture programmes.

The Government of Tanzania for example has, since the 1970s, openly supported urban agriculture through clear policy statements, as a means of boosting a poorly performing economy and meeting the need for food self sufficiency. The government and political leaders have, time and time again, encouraged urban dwellers to grow crops and keep livestock in their backyards and in open spaces. Other countries are following Tanzania's example as stated in the Harare Declaration on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa (see box 3.8).

Local government interventions

Local or municipal authorities can play a key role in enabling and regulating urban agriculture, amongst others by:

• Stimulating the dialogue and cooperation among the direct and indirect stakeholders in urban agriculture (see chapter 2).

• Reviewing and revising existing municipal by-laws and regulations regarding urban agriculture.

• Integrating urban agriculture into sector policies.

• Securing access to land and enhancing the security of user rights of urban farmers, among others by urban land use planning and zonification, provision of land, and the promotion of multi-functional land use.

• Promoting safe re-use of urban organic wastes and wastewater in agriculture.

• Stimulating enhanced support to processes of technological innovation in urban agriculture and promoting ecological farming practices.

• Facilitating local marketing of fresh, urban-produced food.

Opportunities to integrate agriculture into urban planning

The most commonly used planning tools in shaping the urban environment include master plans, local plans, subject plans, site plans and neighbourhood improvement plans. When drafting these plans, planning policy is drafted simultaneously to accompany them. These plans guide the use of private and public land, community and individual health, public safety, circulation and transportation. The plan includes broad policy statements and detailed zoning of land uses, with associated by-laws or ordinances and regulations listed in supplementary documents. Urban agriculture needs to be recognised and included as part of a development strategy with subsequent allocation of land for it in municipal plans.

In most urban settlements, the Master Plan has become a statutory provision. The law stipulates that a master plan needs to be prepared to guide urban development in the medium term - often 10-15 years. The preparation process involves wide consultation and public display of the master plan report. The master plan makes land allocation on a broader scale with the typical generous provision for open space, green areas and recreational areas as a public good. But master plans are rather static and slow to assume change. Still, there is great potential in the master planning process for integrating urban agriculture into its goals and spatial development framework. The cases of Rosario and Cienfuegos in Latin America and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania highlight how urban agriculture can be incorporated into a city master plan.

Derived from the master plan, Local Plans are prepared for specific development zones. It is much more detailed and includes a layout of how the land will be allocated and demarcated. It provides the opportunity for integrating urban agriculture on-plot as well as off-plot, since issues of plot sizes, mix, densities, tenure etc. are dealt with in the local plan. The Human Settlements Policy of Tanzania has designated special areas, where people would be granted legal rights to engage in urban agricultural activities, at the level of the local plan.

In any spatial area, a Subject Plan may be prepared, to deal with specific subject matter, for example public transport, drainage etc. These plans are often prepared when there has been a major public problem. Opportunity exists for urban agriculture to be presented in specific areas through subject plans. Under the EPM approach adopted in Tanzania, a working group on urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam produced a subject plan on urban agriculture.

Site Plans are the lowest level of land use planning and concentrate on individual stands or plots. Site plans are used to position development activities within the stand. Site plans relate especially to on-site urban agricultural activities, where space should be left around the dwelling to allow farming.

Finally, one should also seek to integrate urban agriculture into for example neighbourhood improvement plans (informal housing areas/squatter upgrading programmes), plot subdivision plans and urban regeneration/renewal plans. In all these situations, scrutiny should be made of all land that can possibly be used for urban agriculture. This requires the involvement and lobbying of local urban agriculture interest groups (see for instance the case of Cagayan de Oro in the Phillipines in Box 3.9).

Table 3.1 Integration of UA through various planning tools

Zoning land for urban agriculture

Zoning refers to the designation of land in a municipality to different related land uses and the regulation of the use of the land in those areas. Residential, commercial, and industrial are typical urban zones. Under zoning, regulations of the spacing of buildings, size (in terms of floor area or bulk factor) are included with the aim of conserving or promoting human health, safety and convenience. It is argued that zoning encourages urban agricultural activities to be undertaken (Ministry of Agriculture, Botswana, 2006, and in Kathmandu (Weise and Boyd, 2001). Zoning of poultry zones has been successfully used in the case of Gaborone (Botswana) as a strategy to encourage poultry production. The case of Beijing in China in regards to zoning has already been mentioned.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be used for mapping land for urban agriculture, for registration purposes and for improving land use monitoring and evaluation. A methodology for mapping vegetable production on open spaces has been successfully implemented in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The mapping procedure comprised an analysis of aerial imagery, mapping in the field, and integration of the results into a GIS. The basic functions of GIS proved to be a very useful. Integrated in local government and planning processes, the GIS database can contribute to raise public awareness on the situation of urban farmers, help to improve extension services, and can be used by town planners for further analysis and planning purposes. (Dongus and Dresher, 2001).

Plans and Standards

To stimulate UA, enhance its potential and facilitate its integration into urban development, municipal land use regulations that accompany the produced plans should clearly spell out urban agriculture as a legitimate land use. Standards for layout planning need to be developed on land size that considers agricultural production around the house. For example, standards already exist for the size of schools, open spaces, and roads per thousand inhabitants. Improved standards for community or neighbourhood gardens in dense areas and community or neighbourhood gardens together with private gardens in less dense gardens should be part of the plan formulation process. Further, specifications should be made for the types of activities that are permissible in given areas.

Women in a township in New Brighton, South Africa have invited a councillor to ask for gardening land.

Housing standards have been a subject of long discussion and debate. Minimum plot sizes have been revised upwards and downwards over time. There is a need to understand housing as a multi-functional space for production, reproduction and socialising, and not just as a place to sleep (Jarlov, 2001). In those cases where the (high) price of serviced land is used as an argument against bigger plot sizes, un-serviced off-plot land for urban agriculture should be identified. The case of Mbabane in Swaziland (Greenhow, 2002) highlighted the negative effect of the continued reduction of residential plot sizes on urban agriculture activities. Plots should be large enough to allow on-plot urban agriculture to take place. This will be influenced by the set-back distances of dwellings from neighbouring boundaries. If the plot is too small or the dwelling is designed in such a manner as to cover the entire plot, then there will not be enough land for cultivation.

Indirect planning tools

Indirect planning tools are used to regulate land use on land that is privately owned. This is done by permitting certain uses or by prohibiting other uses. These measures are often accompanied by stimulation in the form of information and incentives, including tax incentives or exemptions, environmental impact assessments and subdivision control. Subdivision control, particularly for peri-urban land, ensures that encroachment by land uses other than UA is controlled. Tax exemptions can be introduced for land that is made available for urban farming. Licences can be granted to the public at nominal rates for land to be used for urban agriculture (see also chapter 4). In Rosario, Argentina, land under urban agriculture attracts a lower property tax whilst in Valdares, Brazil, community urban agricultural activities are exempt from water tariffs through an association of urban agriculture and community farming. (RUAF, 2005). In the latter, the exemption is for a given quantity of water in accordance with the profile of the activity. In case the user does not carry out UA according to standard practice, the penalty will be to return to the public treasury an amount of money equal to the reduction in tariffs.

Urban agriculture by its nature has more direct effects at the local than at the national level. Even at the local level, the extent to which the practice can influence issues will also differ among local authorities depending on the nature, size of the city and the standard of living of the people within the local authority. Local authorities will therefore respond to the issue of urban agriculture at various levels through the use of different instruments. The current situation in most countries is that there are more by-laws that deal with the issue of urban agriculture in a more meaningful way than laws that are made at the national level (eg. Regulations or Acts of Parliament.) Even then, the by-laws that are in place do not deal directly and concisely with the issue but approach urban agriculture from a different perspective, regulating activities that have a bearing on urban agriculture rather than regulating the practice of urban agriculture itself. It is therefore important that national laws which recognise urban agriculture are promulgated at national level.

Conclusions

This chapter argues that the multiple functions and relation to other urban issues offer sufficient reasons for the integration of urban agriculture into sustainable urban development. Urban planning and design regulations are needed to facilitate this integration. However, planners do not make decisions, they only recommend them. The urban planner operates in an institutional environment that is at the centre of diverse political interests. The fact that urban planning officials are accountable to politically-elected councillors, most of whom have no relevant urban planning and management expertise, restricts development of innovative ways for integrating agricultural activities into the urban land use system (Chaipa, 2001). In addition, there is often limited capacity to enforce planning regulations with many other actors involved in enforcement, e.g. municipal police, courts, politicians etc. Furthermore, most practising planners are content with observing the status quo by implementing development control according to laid-down procedures, standards and provisions for legislation such as the Urban Councils Act. A critical shortage of skilled planners also hampers innovative and responsive planning (Chaipa, 2001).

Cities require an enabling policy framework to guide the enhancement of urban agriculture. This framework should have adequate legislation to enable access to land and guarantee rights for farmers. Institutionally, the framework should acknowledge that urban agriculture falls under the jurisdiction of several different levels and types of authorities, eg. agriculture, forestry, parks and gardens, public works and urban planning.

Demonstration plot at Musikavanhu Urban Agriculture project in Harare

Coordination and information sharing are important, as is its integration into other municipal developmental projects. Integration of urban agriculture into programmes dealing with MDGs, HIV/AIDS and poverty alleviation is important. The draft policy paper on UA in Botswana highlights the linkage between UA and HIV/AIDS.

Some of the innovative techniques such as land banks, participatory planning and long-term leases for land used for UA activities are beginning to address concerns of ensuring adequate access to land and other resources for UA by the urban poor and should be encouraged. To the extent possible, GIS should be used for registration purposes, for improving land use monitoring and evaluation activities, and as a basis for a transparent taxation system. Incentives in the form of local tax reductions, tariffs and promotions for urban agriculture should be encouraged.

Urban planners have an active role to play in integrating urban agriculture into urban planning, especially in encouraging it as an urban land use, and in catalysing change in the public perception. The cases discussed in this and the other chapters of this book demonstrate that it is possible to integrate UA into urban planning and come up with regulations that reinforce this. Such regulations have more chances to succeed, if they are permissive instead of prohibitive. The successful and sustainable integration of urban agriculture into urban land use systems is a complex task requiring a multi-stakeholder approach (as was outlined in chapter 2). The urban planner can and should take a leading role here by creating a conducive operational environment. Urban agriculture stakeholder forums, formed by stakeholders including planners, farmers, producers and representatives of various agencies, can be very useful for developing shared vision, resolving conflicts and developing joint action programmes. Urban planners are well positioned to change the views of politicians, other municipal staff and the public about what is appropriate urban form and function, and what activities are suited to the urban area. This requires intensive public and political awareness raising and good urban governance.

References

Berg, L. van den. 2002. Urban agriculture between allotment and market gardening: contributions to the sustainability of African and Asian cities. In: Brebbia.C. et al. (eds.). The Sustainable City II

Cabannes, Yves. 2003 – IDRC Guidelines for Municipal Policy Making on Urban Agriculture, No3.

Chapin F.S. and Kaiser E.J. 1979. Urban Landuse Planning: Third Edition -, University of Illinois. Chapter 2. The Theoretical Underpinnings of Landuse. p.p. 4 – 67.

Bourque Martin, 2000 Policy Options for Urban Agriculture. In Bakker N, Dubbeling M et al, edited. Growing Cities Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, DES, Germany. p.p 119-145.

Chaipa, 2001. The Urban Planning Dilemma in Harare, Zimbabwe. In Urban Agriculture Magazine no.4 the Integration of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture into Planning.

Dongus, S. and A. Dresher. 2001. The use of GIS, GPS and aerial imagery for mapping urban agricultural activities on open space in cities. Available at: http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/agriculture/overview/me05_108c.htm

Drescher, Axel. 2000, Urban Agriculture and Land Use Planning. (University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany)

Dubbeling, Marielle, 2003, Optimisation of the Use of Vacant Land in Rosario, Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 11.

Dubbeling, Marielle, 2004, Land as an Entry-Point for Urban Agriculture Development The case of Governador Valadares-Brazil, RUAF Resource Manual.

Faludi, A. 1973. Planning Theory. Pergamon, London

Foeken, D. 2006. Legislation, policies and the practice of urban farming in Nakuru, Kenya: Contradictions abound. In Urban Agriculture Magazine no. 16: Policies and Legislation for Urban Agriculture.

Food and Agriculture Organisation, July 2001, Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture – a briefing Guide for the successful implementation of Urban and peri-urban Agriculture in Developing Countries and Countries of Transition – Rome

Greenhow, Timothy. 2002. Urban Agriculture: Can Planners Make a Difference? Cities Farming for the Future Report No. 12, IDRC

Holmer, Robert J. and Axel Drescher, 2005, Building Food-Secure Neighbourhoods: The Role of Allotment Gardens, Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 15.

Jarlov, Lena. 2001. Why We Need New Urban Planning Concepts - Insights from South Africa, Urban Gariculture Magazine Number 4.

Kaufman, Jerry. and Martin Bailkey. 2000. Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper. Chicago. USA.

Kiguli et al, 2004, Access to Land for Urban Agriculture in Kampala, Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 11.

Kitilla, Martin D. and Anasteria Mlambo 2001. "Integration of Agriculture in City Development in Dar es Salaam". Urban Agriculture Magazine no4, July 22-24.

Lattuca, A, Terrille, R, Lagario, L, Ramos, G. (2005) Building Food Secure Neighbourhoods in Rosario, Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 15.

Makonese, M. 2005, Legal Issues in Urban Agriculture.

Makumbi, W. 2005 Urban and Peri-urban Farming in Kampala City: a Policy Maker's View, Paper Presented at Policy and Legislative Seminar, Harare.

Mbiba Beacon, 1994, Institutional Responses to Uncontrolled Urban Cultivation in Harare: Prohibitive or Accommodative, in the Environment and Urbanization, Vol 6, No 1, April 1994, pp 188-202.

Mbiba, Beacon, 2001: The Political Economy of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Southern and Eastern Africa: Overview, Settings and Research Agenda, Municipal Development Partnership and the International Development Research Centre [IDRC]. Workshop Report. P.p. 31 to 39.

MDP. 2001, The Political Economy of Urban Agriculture, report of a preparatory workshop, Harare, February 2001.

MDP. 2003. The Harare Declaration on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture, Botswana.2006. Urban and Peri urban Agriculture Consolidated Report.

Mougeot Luc. 2000. Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks and Policy Challenges. IDRC Cities Feeding People Series. Report 31.

Mougeot Luc, Editor, March 1999, African Urban Quarterly, Urban Agriculture in Africa, Vol. 2 Number 2 and 3.

Mposha, Mike. 2005. Policy and Legislation on Urban Agriculture in Zambia., Paper Presented at policy and Legislation Seminar, Harare, November 2005.

Municipal development Partnership, 2003, Harare Declaration on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture, MDP, 2003

Mushamba S., T. Mubvami and R.van Veenhuizen. 2003. Editorial. Urban Agriculture Magazine. Access to Land.

Mushamba S. and M. Makonese. 2004. A Review and Analysis of the Policy and Legislative Framework for Urban Agriculture in Zimbabwe, Sable Press, Harare.

Pothukuchi, Kameshwari; Kaufman, Jerome L,1999, Placing the food system on the urban agenda: the role of municipal institutions in food systems planning. In: Agriculture and Human Values No. 16 (1999) p. 213-224.

Quon Soonya, 1999: Planning for Urban Agriculture: A Review of Tools and Strategies for Urban Planners, IDRC CFP Report Series, Report 28.

RUAF. 2001. The Integration of Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture into Urban Planning, The Urban Agriculture Magazine, No. 4.

RUAF 2001, Resource Video on Urban Agriculture

RUAF, 2003, Availability, Access and Usability of Land for Urban Agriculture. The Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 11.

RUAF, 2004, Gender and Urban Agriculture. The Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 12

RUAF. 2005. Multiple Functions of Urban Agriculture The Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 15

RUAF. 2005. Resource Manual, Training for RUAF Partners (not published).

Ssebaana, 2002, Quoted in Kiguli et all

Shuval H.I.1987. Recycling wastewater for agricultural use: regulations and control of health aspects. Paper prepared for the Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome.

Sy Moussa, 2005, Land Availability for Urban Agriculture in Abidjan, Cote d' Ivoire Urban and Peripheral Urban Agriculture in Abidjan

Toriro, P. 2003. Urban Agriculture in Harare, Paper presented at Regional Dissemination Workshop on Access to Land, Harare.

UMP-LAC and RUAF. 2003. Access to Land and Water for Urban Agriculture, E-Conference Report.

Weise and Boyd, 2001, Urban Agriculture Support Programme for Madhyapur Thimi Municipality, Nepal, Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 4.

Wolfgang, T. And de Zeeuw, H. 2002, Green and Productive Cities: A Policy Brief on Urban Agriculture

Zeeuw H. De, S. Guendel and H. Waibel, 2000. The Integration of Agriculture in Urban Policies. In Bakker N, Dubbeling M et al, edited. Growing Cities Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, DES, Germany. Thematic

Land Availability for Urban Agriculture in Abidjan, Cote d' Ivoire

Moussa Sy

This text is a synthesis of a research report (in French) on urban agriculture and land use carried out in 2002 by the national coordination in Ivory Coast: Bureau National d'Etudes Techniques et de Développement (BNETD) of the Francophone Network on Urban Agriculture in Central and West Africa (RFAU/AOC)

Abidjan is the economic capital of Cote d'Ivoire and is located on the shores of the Gulf of Guinea, about 550 km from Accra, 1,300 km from Bamako and 1,150 km from Ouagadougou. The city is important to the West African economy with its seaport serving the neighbouring countries of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. Abidjan and its suburbs cover an area of 137,000 hectares, of which 58,000 are occupied by the town itself and the remaining 79,000 by the peri-urban districts of Bingerville, Anyama, Bassam and Songon. The city grows by about 450 to 500 hectares in its peri-urban areas every year (ASDA: Abidjan Urban Master Plan, 2000). Hundreds of hectares being used for agriculture are confiscated and indemnified every year by either the State or by private investors. Therefore, the competition for the use of land for agricultural and non agricultural activities is high. Land access constitutes one of the main preoccupations of peri urban agricultural producers.

Urban Agriculture plots along the main roads

Abidjan's population has grown from 2 million inhabitants in 1988 to 2.5 million in 1993 and was about 3 million in 2001. The current average population growth rate is about 3.8 percent. It is estimated that about 800,000 working people of Abidjan are involved in urban agriculture, or more than 3 percent of the total population. Nearly 70 percent of these agricultural producers are between 25 and 35 of age, explained by the high unemployment rate in Abidjan and consequently the importance of urban agriculture. In addition to supplying fresh produce, peri-urban agriculture contributes to poverty alleviation by employing at least 3 percent of the active population in Abidjan. Furthermore, urban producers make urban sites attractive and contribute to improvement of places such as the shores of the Cocody Bay (coast road) and the Boulevard de Marseilles, as well as the east side of Hotel du Golf at M'pouto.

Despite these advantages, urban agriculture is not legalised. Urban land legislation has been developed to cater for housing, but not for agricultural activities. Access to land in Abidjan is therefore an obstacle to the development of urban and peri-urban agriculture.

In relation to the development of urban and peri urban agriculture, the actors who have a stake in land tenure/ownership in Abidjan can be classified into four categories: the state of Cote d'Ivoire - the "official owner" of all the country's land -, represented by the Ministry of Construction and Urbanisation, Ministry of Agriculture and other institutions as BNETD and AGEF (Agence de Gestion Foncière); traditional land owners belonging mostly to the ethnic group of the Ebriés; private investors (housing promoters, multinational firms, etc.); and private individuals, who are small urban land owners.

Land management

Land scarcity and the increase in the number of producers has generated a strong pressure on the availability of cultivable lands and resulted in several land disputes, in the past years. The need for housing is pressing in Abidjan. Nearly 20,000 houses are built every year, which requires about 670 hectares of land per year1. Next to the major land owners mentioned above, the inherited land, generally, is the property of the community and is under the responsibility of the village chief. But in the face of important financial interests related to land, some heads of families manage their properties in a more and more individual way. A majority of the land disputes can be linked to the land management approach of village owners.

The State owns land registered under its name and land that is not registered under its name. There are three strategies to appropriate land:

- direct use of registered land which has not been allocated to any use;

- expropriate for public interest reasons land that is registered under the names of private individuals;

- purge of customary right on non-registered land (the management of which lies with traditional chiefs).

Virgin lands including the areas where peri-urban agriculture is practiced represent 66percent (67 700 hectares) of the non built-up areas of Abidjan. These areas constitute an asset for the long-term development of peri-urban agriculture of the town, but the practice is that these lands will be quickly absorbed by housing areas. In the non built-up areas (within the town) the agricultural sites generally represent illegal occupations of land reserved for housing and infrastructure. They are hardly accounted for, and this makes it difficult to estimate the land occupied by agriculture, particularly in urban areas.

The impact of land management on the development of urban and peripheral urban agriculture depends on whether the producer is the landowner or not. The study reveals that 57 percent of the producers questioned are not the owners of the land they use. Many of the traditional chiefs of Abidjan's peripheral urban area rent lands to agricultural producers. The producers and the landowners are generally bound by a "moral contract". In the absence of a legally binding contract, the village landowner may at any given time of the year ask the producer to return his land. Thus, morally binding contracts and/or non-certified sales deeds on non-declared lands makes it difficult to obtain a legal document from the administration (land deed) and makes the producers' land ownership even more precarious. However, selling to private investors seems more profitable than renting land to agricultural producers.

Land legislation and appropriation strategies

The Land Act of 1998 does not feature urban agriculture. Laws developed in relation to land and agriculture deal with the rural areas. Disputes related to land legislation have always existed2. The legislation of Côte d'Ivoire is complex. Since the colonial period, several statutory orders and decisions signed by Ministers and Governors of the French West African Colonies (A.O.F) have allowed colonisers to take possession of the land and facilitate the activities of foreign agricultural planters. But regardless of the period in which these acts of law ruling land were passed, the traditional land owners remain the most important group.

A study of the urbanisation master plan of Abidjan and its suburbs, a census of projects in the peripheral urban areas and urban areas, and a study of the existing agricultural sites shows that the municipality could have been more proactive in the allocation of non-used urban land for agricultural activities. The agricultural areas that are located inside the town are numerous and have an average size of 1000 m2. The majority of such sites are found in the town's peripheral urban zone. These sites count individual producer plots (manioc, maize, yam, vegetables, etc.) as well as big industrial plantations (coconut, palm and pineapple groves, hevea, etc.). The study shows land reserves for short-term agricultural projects (2 to 5 years), which cover 27,414 hectares, and reserves for long-term projects (5 to 15 years) of 67,600 hectares.

Dificult to estimate the land occupies by agriculture

The majority of urban producers encounter difficulties to access land, particularly the migrant farmers (who represent more than 5 percent of the total producers). This demand for land is higher within the town than in the peri-urban areas.

The low income of the majority of agricultural producers in combination with the strong demand for land creates a permanent threat of expulsion and sense of insecurity for the land users. Landowners lease their lands to agricultural producers in the hope of "brighter days" when richer private investors would buy the land or when they would sell parcels to a new housing programme.

The present administrative procedure for land access is in itself a factor of exclusion, considering that a considerable number of the agricultural producers are illiterate. Seventy five (75) percent of the producers who encounter difficulties in accessing land have an education that is below primary school level. Also the number of years of experience in agriculture is important. Those with more than 10 years of experience encounter less difficulties in accessing land.

Apart from land shortage, other factors too make land access difficult for producers in the peripheral urban area:

- insufficient attention paid to the need for agricultural land by the Ministry of Urbanisation;

- preference of village landowners to sell their land to private investors for financial reasons;

- limited financial capacities of small producers;

- expulsion threats to producers that spontaneously occupy listed land or land that is inappropriate for construction.

Spontaneous and illegal land occupation is the most practical response of producers to their difficulties to access land. Some examples are the occupation of the "Parc des Expositions" by market gardeners of Port Bouêt, or the land belonging to CI – TELCOM (Côte d'Ivoire Telecom) at Marcory "Sans Fil". The gardeners contribute to cleaning of these areas, but in the end, face a continuous threat of expulsion by the State and/or the municipal authorities. Landslides due to improper management of steep slopes and road accidents when close to important traffic networks are also problems caused by spontaneous and illegal land occupation.

The urban producers interviewed, foresaw enormous improvements if the municipal authorities or the Ministry of Constructions would provide access to appropriate land on a permanent or temporary basis. In addition, more simplified administrative procedures are needed to get title deeds for these lands. There is also a need to provide information on the current situation to the main actors, especially the institutions in charge of urban planning.

Land prices in Abidjan vary according to location. Considering their endowment in infrastructure (accessibility, clean water supply, public electricity, public transport) the renting or selling prices of land within the town are high (from FCFA 3,500 to 100,000 per m2). Land located in the peripheral urban area without infrastructures and without a definite administrative status has relatively lower renting or selling prices. More than 80 percent of tenant producers pay less than FCFA 35,000 per month. In the peripheral urban area landowners sell their land between FCFA 500 and 2500 per m2.

Conclusion

Access to land is one of the main concerns of urban producers. The majority of peri-urban producers (63 percent) encounter difficulties in accessing land. It will be important to formulate municipal action plans and to jointly find solutions to land issues related to urban agriculture. Some suggestions are to:

- Organise awareness campaigns for agricultural producers, especially women, for example on the procedure for acquisition of land deeds;

- Facilitate access to finance for agricultural producers;

- Encourage the producers to form cooperatives;

- Improve individual access to land;

- Sensitise consumer associations on quality control of urban agriculture production;

- Improve the capability of municipal authorities in land administration.

Notes

1 Hypothesis for calculation: for a low to middle income standing housing area, we consider on average 60 percent of the land allocated to house constructions, 15 percent for roads and 25 percent for infrastructure. Considering an average of 200m2 per house, this represents 400 hectares for houses. 40 percent of the land is allocated for road building or infrastructures, representing 267 hectares. The building of 20000 houses annually would necessitate a supplementary 670 hectares of urban land every year.

2 This analysis was largely inspired by the writings of Professor Albert Ley/PhD in law, former Head of the land estate service, the land registry and land conservation in Cote d'Ivoire in "le regie doanial et foncier et le developpement économique de la Cote d'Ivoire"/tome 18/1972

References

ASDA, Abidjan Urban Master Plan / August 2000. A diagnostic assessment of soil occupation. p.47

Albert Ley. 1972. Le régime domanial et foncier et le développement économique de la Côte d'Ivoire

Peri-urban Agriculture Development in China

Jianming Cai

As a country with a very large population and a relatively small amount of arable land, agriculture has always occupied a very important position in China's economy. Throughout history, the food supply in China has been very fragile.

In order to promote mutual support of industry and agriculture, and at the same time the integration of the urban and rural economies, China reorganised its spatial arrangement in the 1960s by enlarging the administrative boundaries of most of its cities. For example, the total administrative area of Beijing was enlarged from 4,822 km2 in 1956 to 16,808 km2 in 1958, which included ten urban and periurban districts as well as eight counties. In 1949, the total area of the city was just about 63 km2, including only four traditional urban districts.

This spatial enlargement of cities sparked the development of periurban agriculture in China. Thus, "suburban agriculture" (a term often used by Chinese scholars), is located mainly in the periurban areas and is fully oriented towards urban demand: the production of vegetables, fruit, milk, fish, livestock and poultry, as well as some high value-added grain products such as bean varieties. Suburban agriculture is labour-, and relatively capital-intensive with a high level of productivity. It has absorbed many rural labourers and provided a stable and diversified food supply to the urban residents in terms of quantity. More than 70 percent of non-staple food in the city, mainly consisting of vegetables and milk, was produced by the city itself during the 1960s and 1970s, with periurban agriculture playing a big role.

Agricultural workers are preparing the organic fertiliser

Many new cities were born and many existing cities, particularly the big cities, grew further, both in population and in area. Subsequently, more rural people migrated to the cities in search of a better life.

This process promoted the further development of periurban agriculture, due to: 1) urban growth creating a larger demand for diversified agricultural products; 2) rural migrants replacing the cheaper labour force in periurban agriculture as many of these farmers started to work in the industrial economy; and 3) competition for the scarce land between different economic activities making periurban agricultural production more capital-intensive.

These changes (migration, farmers decision making, etc.) up to the 1980s and the end of food shortages provided a powerful engine for urbanisation in China in the 1990s. Around 1990, the food shortage in China, in terms of quantity, came to an end. However, problems in terms of quality remained.

The late 1990s marked a turning point that brought a new development in periurban agriculture in China. Instead of paying attention to the quantity of food supply, people started to give priority to the quality of food supply. China began to incorporate the concept of food security into its planning agenda and regarded it as a new strategy. Food security in China means a sufficient, sustainable, accessible, diversified and nourishing supply. And periurban agriculture is important for food security in China.

Different municipal governments carried out programmes aimed at modernisation of the peri-urban agriculture sector. Agro-tourism has become the most dynamic component of periurban agriculture in China in the last five years, thanks to China's rapid economic development. In fact, agro-tourism has become more important than agriculture itself in terms of employment and income generation in some parks in Beijing (3).

In Beijing, as well as in Shanghai, agriculture-oriented science and technology development and demonstration parks have been established. Xiaotangshan modern agricultural demonstration park in Beijing is one such park.

Xiaotangshan town is gaining fame for its agro-tourism. In 1998, the municipal government of Beijing decided to develop a large modern periurban agriculture demonstration park around the city. According to the master plan, the park will include four towns as well as 45 villages, covering an area of 112 km2 with a population of more than 40,000.

Starting in 1998, a series of infrastructure projects were put into place. By 2001, the initial phase of the construction was completed and the park was opened to the public. In order to provide better service to the urban market, the park was further divided into eight sub-zones, each having its own focus. The eight sub-zones are classified as follows:

Precision agriculture zone: In this demonstration zone, all production processes such as irrigation, fertilisation, etc. are monitored and managed by a nerve centre equipped with (GPS, GIS and Remote Sensing) technologies, where it is demonstrated that yields per ha may increase by 18-30 percent at a lower cost.

Israel tomato, small in size but high in juice density

Flower producing zone: Many popular and high value flowers, such as the lily, rose and chrysanthemum, are planted according to market demand in this zone. Currently, the producing capacity of the zone is 6 million plants.

Tree nursery zone: This area of 156 ha is one of the largest tree nurseries in China and in Asia; the zone can provide 2 million young trees each year to the urban market of a variety of species.

Aquaculture zone: Technologically supported by the National Engineering Centre for Freshwater Fishery, this zone is famous for its development of new aquatic products with green feed. Sturgeon is currently the main product.

Lamb raising zone: In this zone of about 67 ha, 30 million RMB Yuan (equivalent to approximately 3.6 million US Dollars) has been invested in infrastructure to raise 800,000 lambs per year. As an important component for local economic restructuring, all lines of service, from lamb breeding to mutton processing, are offered within this zone.

Seed zone: To speed up the economic restructuring of the surrounding rural areas and to enhance the value of their agricultural products, the seed zone has been designed to provide rural farmers with high quality seeds of selected flowers and crops. Currently, orchids and strawberries are the dominant specialisations.

Agricultural product-processing zone: Guided by urban market demand, agricultural products are carefully processed in this zone, and sent to various supermarkets in wholesale packaging. These products are usually displayed on special counters with a higher price than the regular products in the supermarkets.

Agro-tourism zone and programme: Located around the historical royal resort and the beautiful hot springs, various zones are included in the agro-tourism programme. It also offers hotels and venues for meetings, training and leisure activities.

The modern agriculture park in Xiaotangshan region is proving to be very successful. In the past three years, it has attracted 51 enterprises to operate their businesses in the various zones, with a total investment of 3 billion RMB Yuan. Up to 100,000 people have visited the park. It is expected that in the coming five years, more than 500 million RMB Yuan will be further invested in the infrastructure. In 2008, when the Olympic Games take place in Beijing, the park will be one of the most important green food production areas in Beijing and in China.

The following elements have attributed to the success of the park. Firstly, the strong push and promotion from all levels of government was a precondition and necessity, particularly in the initial stage when kick-off investment and preferential policies were needed. Secondly, the active involvement of enterprises has determined the success of the park and its zones. As key players, enterprises act as a platform between suppliers and consumers, providing services to both villagers and urban residents. With the advantage of comprehensive and intensive utilisation of the land resources, and effective quality control in its production systems, the economic return of modern periurban agriculture can be 30-50 times higher than before. Thirdly, the participation and support of local farmers has been a basic requirement for smooth development. The local farmers not only provide labour but also the permission for land leasing as they collectively own the land.

References

Sit, VFS and Jianming, CAI. 1998 Theories and Hypotheses on China's Urbanisation by Non-PRC Scholars (in Chinese), Geographical Research 17(2):

He Dongsheng, Liu Junping. 2001. Theories and Practices of Agro-tourism (in Chinese). China Agriculture Science and Technology Press, Beijing.

Xiaotangshan Modern Agriculture Science Park Commission, www.xiaotangshan.org

Land as an Entry Point for the Development of Urban Agriculture: The case of Governador Valadares in Brazil

Marielle Dubbeling1

Governador Valadares has a population of around 250,000 inhabitants and is located along the river Doce, in the State of Minas Gerais in Brazil. A major problem of the city is the rising unemployment due to migration. However, the Municipality accounts for large areas of public and private vacant land, rivers and lakes with a distinct production potential for urban agriculture and fish farming. Moreover, the Municipality currently imports 90 percent of the vegetables consumed in the city. Taking these facts into account, the local government, in close collaboration with other actors, decided to promote urban agriculture, especially home- and community gardens and fish farms.

In 2002, the city embarked on a multi-stakeholder process that aimed to integrate urban agriculture into municipal planning policies and programmes, as a means of increasing the access of the urban poor to land for food production. The long term goals were to eradicate poverty and strengthen participatory governance at municipal level. This initiative in Governador Valadares, and similar processes in Cienfuegos, Cuba and Rosario, Argentina (see Chapter 2) were supported under the project "Optimisation of Use of Vacant Land for Urban Agriculture" promoted by the Urban Management Program for Latin America and the Caribbean (UMP- LAC/UNHABITAT), the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada and IPES – Promotion of Sustainable Development in Peru.

Community garden Sao Paulo

A multi-disciplinary team was formed by representatives of municipal departments (agriculture, planning and environment), social movements, NGOs and the University of Valadares. This team created the Forum for Urban Agriculture and Food Security, which took responsibility for documenting and analysing existing urban agriculture practices in the municipality, identifying problems and opportunities and developing a municipal action plan for urban agriculture.

The Forum decided to compile a land inventory to determine the sites in the city that would be suitable for (promoting or expanding) urban agriculture. A general lack of data on actual and potential use of land for urban agriculture implied that there were few guiding principles to determine targets for effective urban agriculture activities, or to capitalise on emerging opportunities. The land inventory therefore would help address these issues and in addition:

• improve availability of information on potential sites for urban agriculture in order to enhance planning and promotion of urban agriculture;

• provide a record on actual and potential agricultural land uses which could act as a benchmark for monitoring land allocation and land use change;

• identify links between urban agriculture and complementary urban management activities such as management of green areas, establishment of new housing schemes etc.;

• enhance the information base in general, to assist land use decision-making including neighbourhood plans and updating of by-laws.

Participatory baseline studies and land use mapping

Participatory baseline studies were carried out to identify and characterise cultivated and cultivable land in the city (in terms of property status, surface area, agronomic quality, feasibility of production and levels of accessibility). A typology of vacant spaces was developed by the project team, which distinguished:

• non-constructed municipal or state-owned land areas earmarked for future industrial or housing development, but could temporarily be used for urban agriculture;

• protected land areas or green spaces - mainly municipal tenure (urban parks, planted roadsides, public squares, green areas, river margins, and flood zones);

• public or private institutional land (belonging to commercial enterprises and social institutions such as schools, churches or hospitals);

• vacant or underutilised private household plots;

• urban water bodies.

Land use maps were based on information from urban producers and community representatives, and municipal databases (the land registry) and geographical information systems (GIS). In Governador Valadares, the use of questionnaires, plot diagrams and designs, and statistical analysis made it possible to get an understanding of the access and land use strategies of the poor producers.

Availability versus access to land

The study showed that the insecure tenure of, and access to, land by urban producers was a key limiting factor for urban agriculture development in Valadares. Availability of land was not the constraining factor (36 percent of the municipal land was deemed suitable for Urban Agriculture). Land already used for urban agriculture production was almost all privately owned (household plots). This indicated a problem related to individual or communal access to non-household plots (for example green spaces, river margins, and institutional land areas).

Discussion groups durings meeting of the Municipal Forum

The Forum organised a municipal meeting, with the participation of more than 100 community representatives and different municipal departments, to formulate action proposals to overcome the identified obstacles to land access. They also discussed the prospective use in urban agriculture for each land type, identifying the best use for each area (such as fish farming, growing of medicinal plants, fruit or vegetable growing) in the future.

Inclusion in Municipal Planning

Urban agriculture was included in the revised City Strategic Development Plan, and thus recognised as a legitimate use of urban land. At the same time it was also included in sectoral programmes dealing with the management of green areas, urban water bodies (urban rivers and lakes) and low-income housing programmes. Incorporating urban agriculture land use in official GIS databases and the land registry also facilitated identification and formal leasing of vacant plots to poor producers.

Facilitating legal framework

A law that led to the reduction of urban real estate taxes for vacant lots that are allotted to urban agriculture production was enacted. The government undertook to intervene between institutional and private land owners on the one hand and urban producers and community groups on the other. The government could in this way facilitate (and control) temporary user rights to interested urban farmers.

Pilot Projects

From 2002 to 2005, 47 community gardens were initiated developed and were all located on institutional land areas and public green areas. These gardens receive municipal support in the form of infrastructure and technical assistance. A Community Gardeners' Association was formed and a weekly market for urban agricultural produce was inaugurated, with support from the Food Supply programme of the Municipal Department for Environment, Agriculture and Food Supply. A total of 1,500 families are currently involved in urban agriculture in Valdares.

Note

1 Based on project documents of the Municipality of Governador Valadares and University Vale do Rio Doce.

References

The following unpublished documents prepared under the project referred to as "Projeto: Otimização do uso de espaços vazios para Agricultura Urbana. Municipality of Governador Valadares and University Vale do Rio Doce.

Elaboração, regulação e formalização dos distintos componentes normativos/legais (marco político facilitador) propostas nos Planos de Ação, 2002.

Informe da elaboração e legislação de instrumentos de cessão de terrenos que garantam a segurança do uso pelos produtores dos terrenos públicos e privados para a AU, 2002.

Informe da elaboração das propostas de instrumentos legais (incentivos fiscais e econômicos) para o uso do IPTU progressivo e regressivo para incentivar o uso produtivo dos espaços privados, 2002.

Informe das propostas para a inclusão da AU no Plano Diretor da cidade com base no Estatuto da Cidade, 2002.

Resources

The Peri-Urban Interface: a tale of two cities
Brook, Robert M.; Dávila, Julio (eds) 2000 School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK; Development Planning Unit, University College London; UK London: DFID.
This publication is based on the research conducted by the Natural Resource Systems Programme of the UK Department for International Development on natural resources in the 'periurban interface'. It describes research conducted in two city-regions: Kumasi, Ghana, and Hubli-Dharwad, India.

The Political Economy of Urban Agriculture
MDP. 2001. Report of a preparatory workshop. MDP. Harare, February 2001.
This report contains case studies commissioned by the Municipal Development Programme for a preparatory workshop in Harare, in February 2001The five country case studies are on Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Planning for Urban Agriculture: a review of tools and strategies for urban planners
Quon, Soonya. 1999. Cities feeding people series report no. 28. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada.
On the basis of published and "grey" literature and a survey among 26 urban planning professionals from 18 cities around the world, key planning-related constraints facing urban farmers were identified together with possible responses to these constraints. The findings are compiled in this publication.

Placing the food system on the urban agenda: the role of municipal institutions in food systems planning
Pothukuchi, Kameshwari; Kaufman, Jerome L. 1999. In: Agriculture and Human Values No. 16 (1999) p. 213-224.
This article looks at the relationship of city planning and the urban food system in the USA. Existing and potential city institutions that could offer more comprehensive management of the urban food system are examined. These include the city department of food, the policy council, and the city-planning department.

The Peri-Urban Interface, Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use
Mcgregor Duncan et al (ed.). 2005. Earthscan, Paperback: ISBN 1-84407-188-X, Hardback: ISBN 1-84407-187-1
Periurban interfaces – the places where urban and rural areas meet – suffer from large problems caused by rapid urbanisation. This book gives a comprehensive overview of periurban (rural–urban) areas of the developing world, with extensive case material from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. And it lays out strategies for research and overcoming these problems and promoting truly sustainable natural and human resource development.

Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes: Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities
Viljoen, A. (ed), 2004. Architecture Research Unit, University of North London, U.K. ISBN 0750655437, Paperback, 240 Pages. Price: £ 29.99
This book provides a design proposal for a new kind of sustainable urban landscape: urban agriculture. By growing food within an urban, rather than an exclusively rural environment, urban agriculture would reduce the need for industrialised production, packaging and transportation of foodstuffs to the city-dwelling consumers. The impact that this would have on the future shape of cities could be immense. Urban design is shown in practice through international case studies and the arguments presented are supported by quantified economic, environmental and social justifications.

Urban Agriculture and Land Use Planning
Axel Drescher. 2000. Bibliography of Urban Agriculture (unpublished, but available at www.ruaf.org)

Magazines

Urban Agriculture Magazine, no 4: The Integration of Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture into Urban Planning, July 2001.

Urban Agriculture Magazine, no 11: Availability, Access and Usability of Land for Urban Agriculture, December, 2003 (including a report on the Electronic Conference under the same title).

Urban Agriculture Magazine, no 15: Multiple Functions of Urban Agriculture, December, 2005

Environment and Urbanization Vol. 12, no. 2: Sustainable Cities Revisited III

Environment and Urbanization Vol. 15, no. 1: Rural-Urban Transformations

Environment and Urbanization Vol. 17, no. 2: Chronic Poverty

www.iied.org
The International Institute for Environment and Development provides expertise in achieving sustainable development at local, national, and global levels. Many publications, amongst others Environment and Urbanisation, can be found here.

www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/pui
This is the site of the peri-urban interface programme of the University College of London. Research findings of this programme, general publications and related events are regularly updated.

www.mcgill.ca/mchg/
The website features the Making the Edible Landscape Project: This three-year collaborative project aims to demonstrate the value of including urban agriculture as a permanent feature in city planning and housing design. Project activities are being undertaken in three cities: Colombo, Sri Lanka; Kampala, Uganda; and Rosario, Argentina.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/socialplanning/initiatives/foodpolicy/index.htm
This website reports on the development of a just and sustainable food system for the City of Vancouver (see also case study in this Chapter). Integrating urban agriculture into urban land use planning and design is key to their food policy.

www.planning.org/2006conference/sessionproposal/foodsystembg.htm
Site of the American Planning Association (APA). On this page an overview is given on The discussion of food system planning within APA and the annual conference in 2006. Furthermore on this site research highlights, publications and knowledge exchange.

www.cyburbia.org/forums
This bulletin board on urban/town planning-related topics has a page on urban agriculture and community gardening in urban planning.

Chapter 4
Financing and Investment for Urban Agriculture

Financial support can make a significant difference to poor urban families. Many of the increasing group of urban dwellers who live around the poverty line are (informal) micro-entrepreneurs, involved in a diversity of activities such as waste collection and recycling, trading, having a shop, transport and farming. These entrepreneurs require access to working capital, but most of them face limited access to credit and investment schemes. Important lesson can be drawn from rural micro-finance programmes. The challenge now is to further build on these experiences, including (partnerships with) the private banking sector and rural innovative micro-finance institutions. This chapter reviews lessons learnt from studies in the urban setting.

Financing and Investment for Urban Agriculture

Yves Cabannes

Introduction

In cities around the world, urban and periurban agriculture (UA) is assuming an increasingly important role in making cities more sustainable. By growing food in the city, the urban poor can reduce household food expenses and generate additional income, thereby enhancing food security and reducing poverty. UA can also help recycle urban wastes, create green space in cities, and maintain existing green spaces in both urban and periurban areas (see further Chapter 1).

However, UA requires increased financial and political legitimacy if it is to continue developing as a productive force. While political support for urban agriculture has been steadily increasing, financial support for urban growers has been more limited. Most urban producers lack access to credit and investment schemes. Information about such schemes is also scarce. Evidence about the benefits of urban agriculture is anecdotal and deals mainly with highly localised, small-scale experiences. Little is known about credit and investment interventions around the world that could benefit large numbers of producers and thereby make UA a major contributor to productive and inclusive urban economies.

A milk separator in Debre Zeit town, Ethiopia, finances by the Dairy Association

Thus, a more systematic survey and evaluation of significant and diverse modalities of finance and investment provision to urban agriculture were deemed very timely. This, more so, because the growth of the UA sector at the margin of the mainstream economy could not only aggravate the environmental and public health risks posed by bad practices, but could also undermine the ability of the sector to make an even greater contribution to food security, employment and income generation as well as productive management of idle or underutilised urban resources (land, waste and water).

This chapter thus examines how different types of urban and periurban agriculture (UA) are financed drawing on the following empirical, field, and scientific sources:

1. Analysis of 13 experiences with urban and periurban agriculture in Asia, Latin America, and Europe (see also Box 4.1);

2. Direct exposure to a large number of local processes in Latin America and the Caribbean region from 1994-2004;

3. Research and development of UA activities in the Fortaleza metropolitan region of Brazil (1988-1997) with special attention to the economic and financial dimensions of these activities (See Cabannes, 1997);

4. Publications by RUAF and IDRC-Cities Feeding People Program;

5. Observations following presentations on UA made at the World Urban Forum (WUF) networking seminar in Barcelona in 2004 (see also Box 4.2).

As a result, this paper reflects the collective work and contributions of a wide array of actors, both academics and practitioners. The central question of this chapter is "what kind of financing is best suited to each different type of UA?".

Types of Urban Agriculture

An analysis of current practices suggests that, to start with, some conceptual clarification is necessary to understand the different types of UA, in light of substantial differences (a) between subsistence-oriented activities and market-oriented activities, and (b) between these activities and urban agricultural activities as a source of leisure and recreation.

The choice of the most appropriate financing mechanisms for UA should be guided by the type of UA system. Currently, UA is being practised for meeting subsistence needs, as a market-oriented activity, for recreation, or as a combination of these, each of which requires a different financing instrument or mechanism. For instance, micro-credit may not be the best form of financing for a poor family that undertakes UA at subsistence level and is not capable of repaying a formal loan. And a small cooperative composed of farmers aiming for expansion of their UA activities would need forms of financial support that go beyond the provision of free access to seeds or other equipment. Thus it is necessary to getter an in-depth conceptual understanding of these types of UA in order to select the appropriate financing mechanisms of these interventions (See also figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Various types of urban agriculture

The first type of UA, and probably the most common, refers to UA as a way by which the urban poor and, to a lesser extent the middle class, support their livelihoods. In this case, UA plays a part in a subsistence economy, generally family-based, and is seldom monetorised. This activity does not generate a cash surplus but provides food or medicinal plants that reduce the expenses of the family, improves their diet and provides them with medicine (Cabannes, 1997).

The second type is related to market-oriented activities. They can be individual or family- based micro-enterprises or activities undertaken through larger cooperatives or producer associations. They refer to the whole food chain, from the production of vegetables, milk, fruit, and other products to agro-processing and marketing. As part of these market-oriented activities, the products are sold by directly by the producers at markets or through intermediaries. To a lesser extent, these products are dispersed of through formal distribution channels such as supermarkets and green grocers.

The third type refers to urban agriculture that is undertaken as a part of leisure and recreational activities, occasionally or regularly. This type is more common in the developed rather than the developing countries. In some cities, this type of UA is seen as a way to maintain or restore the relationship between urban citizens and nature, raise awareness on environmental issues and allow children to experience food production cycles.

The Flower Growers Association in the community of San Miquel Tlaixpan, Mexico.

Mixed forms are a combination of two or three of the previously described types. For instance, a family involved in UA for its own food consumption can also sell the surplus locally, providing extra, occasional cash. Similarly, European farmers practicing UA primarily as a recreational or health-related activity use some of the produce for food, thus reducing their home expenses occasionally.

Urban Agriculture and Municipal Policies

Beyond clarifying the types of UA, it is also necessary to improve our understanding of the links between these and other policy target areas, such as the alleviation of poverty, economic development, or environmental policies, so as to justify the financing of UA and mainstream it into existing policies and public support programmes. According to specific situations, municipal and national policies that aim at supporting UA can be part of a wide range of policies.

Urban agriculture can be part of a poverty alleviation policy that sees in UA a means to mitigate the effects of poverty and enable social inclusion. The main aim here is to ensure a food secure and inclusive city. Such policies can take special importance during a crisis, and support to UA can then be part of a crisis mitigation strategy. This is illustrated clearly by the Cuban national and municipal policies, which promote UA in the face of the crisis generated by the economic embargo imposed by the United States. It is also illustrated by the municipal policy of the city of Rosario, Argentina. The optimisation of vacant land and its transformation into cultivable land was a strategy to cope with the dramatic effects of the economic collapse of the country in December 2000 and the social turmoil that resulted from an increase of poverty to levels never seen before (Dubbeling, 2004).

Urban agricultural policies can also be part of a local economic development policy that focuses on income generation and job creation, for a whole range of producers, not only home-based or community-based and not necessarily poor. In this case, the rationale for urban agriculture is its economic value and its capacity to generate local economic development. The main aim is to achieve a productive city, one in which produce brought from outside the city is substituted with locally-grown produce.

Urban agriculture is in some cases part of an integrated environmental policy, with its main benefit being the greening of the city and raising citizen's awareness of nature. Increasing the access of the poor to a healthy environment or reducing the ecological urban footprint could be dimensions here.

In short, UA activities are, according to its different contexts, part of municipal policies for different reasons, considering their contribution to making the city more inclusive, more productive or more ecological. And this in turn allows urban agriculture to be linked to a broader sustainable development perspective that is based on similar elements, i.e. social, economic and ecological sustainability.

Learning from Field Experiences

Before examining the different ways to finance specific types of UA (be it subsistence, market-oriented, or recreation) as part of strategies that support poverty alleviation, local economic development or environmental management, some general findings and lessons learned from local practices and global research are presented here. More specifically, they include findings of a cross-sectional analysis of 13 innovative experiences of credit and investment schemes for UA, geographically representing various regions: Latin America (3), Africa (4), Asia (3) and Europe (3) (see also Box 4.1)

Reality of finance for UA

A crucial finding of the research, substantiated by cases studied, is that micro-finance institutions, banks, and micro-credit initiatives seldom allocate resources and loans to urban and periurban activities. Financial support to (peri)urban producers and agro-industries seems to be taken on as part of rural agricultural support programmes, as is the case in Gaborone, Texcoco, Camilo Aldao and Addis Ababa, or as part of urban community development programmes (Philippines). Credit is the exception rather than the rule. In addition, credit for urban agriculture and urban-agro processing is rarely incorporated in banking statistics or public budgets. These, and other factors, make it difficult to determine if loans have been allocated to urban, periurban or rural based activities. These methodological and technical difficulties tend to further blur the reality of finance for UA, as limited as it is already, and is an issue that deserves future attention.

Figure 4.2 Location of case studies

Source: Survey of city experiences with credit and investment for Urban Agriculture interventions, IPES/UMP-LAC/IDRC.

Three basic ingredients of UA financing: savings, subsidies and credit

The cases describe a variety of financial systems and mechanisms for (peri)urban agricultural production and marketing. Urban and periurban agriculture is usually financed through a highly variable combination of savings, subsidies and credit (primarily micro-credits).

Key role of savings and resource mobilisation

Urban farmers rely heavily and primarily on the mobilisation of their own funds. By and large, urban agriculture for subsistence is self-financed. Generally speaking, resource mobilisation and savings occur in very different ways and can be: a) individual b) family-based c) collective savings of small groups of producers or d) community-based. There are situations in which voluntary and organised savings are more formalised as in the case of the Nepalese savings and credit union cooperatives.

The variety and sources of subsidies

A second type described here is subsidies or donations for agriculture in the city, again in different forms:

a. financial subsidies to the banking system, such as those related to "soft conditions" for credit,

b. subsidies directly to the farmer, for main agricultural inputs (land, water, seeds etc), or subsidies in the form of free technical assistance and training or support to obtain inputs (Botswana, Nairobi-Kenya), and

c. subsidies to generate a facilitating environment such as in St. Petersburg, where a positive environment for agricultural production in and around the city is created by subsidising transport to agricultural plots and markets.

Private sector subsidies such as grants and charities from NGOs and other civil society groups (as is the case in London), and from public subsidies coming from local and national government such as the case of the HOPCOMS cooperative in Bangalore are other forms of subsidies.

Another key lesson from the research is that fully commercial loans, eg. those operating at a full cost recovery approach, are an exception and not the rule. This underlines the need for subsidy policies.

Cooling plant, dairy farm project in the Tambo Community Project, Argentina

Credit systems

A third group is (micro-)credit systems. These encompass credit funds supported by international donors (Bulgaria), national governments (Argentina), federal or municipal governments (Brazil), private banks, informal private credit, or NGOs and cooperatives (Sudan). Most existing credit and investment schemes however are not accessible by the poor or other vulnerable groups, as clearly identified in the Bulgaria experience. Poor urban farmers usually cannot afford the requested collateral or the high interest rates, while they often lack access to marketing or management experience. There are however several innovative experiences that allow for the participation of these excluded groups. In Argentina, for example, participation is restricted to those who do not have additional forms of income or whose family income does not add up to more than two minimum salaries (US$156). In Nepal, the system of peer or group lending incorporates a system of solidarity guarantees which excludes physical collateral is required. In Texcoco (Mexico), grace periods are defined in relation to the type of production system and cycle (including for example longer grace periods for animal husbandry systems). All cases point to the need of integrated development strategies, where financial support is complemented with training (technical and business skills), legal advice and marketing support.

Combination of strategies

Most studies indicate that financial support for urban agriculture is best based on a combination of all three mechanisms: savings, subsidies and (micro-)credit. Savings could for example work as collateral for receiving credit. Tax incentives or other subsidies could motivate people to become involved, and complement credit systems with training and assistance, and in this way better guarantee success and sustainability of the (integrated) support programmes.

Understanding the financing credit cycle: from financial sources to financial

In general terms the financing cycle can be summarised in three successive steps. The first refers to the sources of finance, which can be international, national or local, from public, private or institutional sectors or from private savings. The second refers to the transformation of these resources into financial products by specific financial intermediaries, and the third to the type of products financed.

The St. Petersburg UA financing cycle: an example of complexity

Financial flows and products for urban farmers from the study case of St. Petersburg, Russia, Moldakov 2002 (see figure 4.3) illustrate the complexity and the richness of financing UA.

The sources of finance are of different origin: (a) International, being loans and grants through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the Eurasia Fund; (b) Private (agro) processing companies; (c) Private savings and deposits from individuals and (d) Public resources coming from the municipal budget. These sources have varied time-lines: the savings and deposits are on a monthly or occasional basis, the municipal budget is annual; the international resources are usually made on a project-by-project basis, stipulating a number of years for disbursement. Transforming such different resources into strong, reliable and steady credit (financial products) is a key issue in any financial system. The answer lies essentially in the quality and the nature of the financial intermediary that will transform these resources into financial products.

Figure 4.3 Financial flows and financial products for urban farmers in St Petersburg, Russia

Source: Moldakov, O. "Saint Petersburg Urban Gardening and Farming. Micro credit and investment for Urban Agriculture in Russia, St. Petersburg Urban Gardening Club," St. Petersburg, Russia 2002 Cabannes, Y 2004a.

The case of St. Petersburg is typical of the multiplicity and different characteristics of the financial intermediaries, some of them being local and others being a branch of a national bank. Some of these institutions have a unique source of financing whereas others have the capacity to draw on from multiple sources. The main institutions identified in this particular case are: (a) St Petersburg Lease Centre, having a limited volume of resources, drawn mainly from the municipal budget; (b) St. Petersburg Farmer Credit Cooperation, fed by both private agro-processing companies and private savings; (c) Saving Bank of Russia that is channelling international credit and grants to various Russian cities, including St. Petersburg; (d) some private banks, such as the Petrovsky bank, AB Bank or NBO Bank, who in their turn receive funds from national and international sources.

These multiple sources and the variety of financial intermediaries explain the wide variety of products that an urban farmer can access, in theory. They cover the following kind of credits and grants: leases for trucks and tools, debt alleviation; micro-credits for agro-processing or for agricultural production, seeds and animals; short term loans (less than one year) for composition of assets; micro-credits especially for women or conventional commercial loans, open to clients able to provide a high level of guarantee.

The Botswana experience

Figure 4.4 " Financing of UA in Botswana"1 shows, as in St. Petersburg, the multiple intermediaries that transform very diverse financial resources from central government, individuals, international and private enterprises into loans and grants to urban farmers. In this case, the following intermediaries were identified: (a) commercial and parastatal banks; (b) Citizen's Entrepreneurial Development Agency - CEDA (c) Cooperatives; (d) African Development Foundation, (e) NGOs (f) Micro-Finance Institutions

The existence of multiple intermediaries does not always mean that they are resourceful and that their products are accessible to most urban farmers. They suggest on the contrary that some effort should be made in order to connect these initiatives and to focus on the one(s) that would have the best comparative advantages. The complexity of intermediaries, as illustrated by these two cases, was found in most situations analysed. This suggests that efforts should be taken to give this information to urban farmers in a simpler way. Urban farmers are usually interested in knowing about the reliability, quality of service and financial conditions on loans of intermediaries. But above all they are interested in clear information on the duration of credits and grants offered. Brochures that explain these options in simple terms appear to be a necessity, not only in St. Petersburg and Botswana but in the majority of the cases studied.

Role and Diversity of Financial Intermediaries

Role and Diversity of Financial IntermediariesRole and Diversity of Financial Intermediaries Analysing all the cases, it is clear that a large number of actors are involved in providing (sources) and managing funds (intermediaries) for (peri)-urban agriculture. A more detailed analysis is needed to define which system(s) is/are best adapted to the specific local circumstances. Funding sources are found in the context of poverty alleviation programmes, food security programmes (Argentina) employment generation programmes (Brazil, Botswana), or integrated environmental management programmes. Funds stem from for example the "Fund for Social Municipal Infrastructure" (Mexico), "Fund for Social Investment" (Brazil), within general "Financial Assistance or Entrepreneurial Programmes" (Botswana) or through specific "Agricultural or Horticultural Programmes" (as is done in India). However, in most of the studies, there is confusion and overlap between the source of funds - private, public, institutional, international - and their transformation into credit or subsidies. These two aspects and the role different actor's play in each of them should be distinguished and clarified.

A typology of intermediaries that transform resources into loans directed to urban farmers can be drawn up for this purpose (see Figure 4.5). Some typical situations include:

a. Public intermediaries at local level (see initiatives from two local governments, Texcoco in Mexico and Rosario in Argentina),

b. Private and community-based intermediary (illustrated by the experience of a saving and credit cooperative from Nepal) and

c. Private banking system with the case of Prove Pantanal (Brazil) or combinations of all the above (Botswana, St. Petersburg).

Figure 4.4 Financing of urban agriculture in Botswana

Source: Mosha, A.C. "Credit an Investment for Urban Agricultural Interventions: Case Study: Gaborone City, Botswana," University of Bostwana, Gaborone, July 2002 & Keboneilwe, D.L. "Credit and Investment schemes for urban agriculture". Power Point presented for the International Panel Microcredit and Investment for Urban Agriculture, Barcelona, 2004. Cabannes, Y 2004a.

Municipal intermediaries

The experience of Texcoco, Mexico

The local government of Texcoco, in the Mexico metropolitan region, set up an innovative urban agricultural loans programme a few years past this date (see Figure 4.6), and obtained significant results (See Ramirez-Garcia, 2002) both in financial and social terms.

Resources from the central governments were transferred to local governments, as part of a vast national social programme. The Texcoco municipality decided to transform these resources into a limited and innovative set of loans to agricultural cooperatives (in particular for flower production) and to small solidarity groups of producers that had not yet formed cooperatives, as was the case with a group of rabbit keepers. A third line of loans was specifically tailored to women urban farmers. No specific institution was set up and the resources were simply earmarked and deposited in a bank that was managing the municipal resources.

Figure 4.5 Financial intermediaries in the urban agriculture financial cycle

Cabannes, Y 2004a

After a couple of years, this successful programme received less attention from the newly elected local senior officials and the mayor. Despite requests from the producers, the technicians in charge and the university that was technically supporting the activities; the programme was left to die out slowly.

Participatory budgeting in Rosario, a promising initiative

The recent experience of the city of Rosario, a city of one million inhabitants in Argentina, shows under which conditions municipal earmarked resources can meet the needs and the expectations of urban producers, Municipalidad de Rosario (2003) (see also Figure 4.7).

Here, the financial resources for UA are managed in two different ways: on the one hand, the Municipal Secretariat for Social Promotion develops a set of support activities to assist local urban farmers (input supply, technical assistance, and training). In addition, Rosario started a Participatory Budgeting Approach2 in 2002 through which citizens – whether organised or not - could control how part of the public resources of their cities is used. Interestingly enough, in two out of the six districts of Rosario where the approach was introduced, organised urban farmers proposed projects related to the production and processing of UA vegetables and medicinal plants. These two projects were eventually prioritised and were integrated into the municipal budget allocations. The corresponding resources were then earmarked within the Municipal Secretariat for Social Promotion. Financially speaking, they were included in the budgetary allocation and specific funds were deposited in the bank managing the budget of the city.

Figure 4.6 Financial flow for urban agriculture, Texcoco, Mexico

Source: Ramirez-Garcia, G. "Estudios de Micro crédito e inversión para la Agricultura Urbana (AU): Caso Texcoco, Mexico," Centro Operacional de Vivienda y Poblamiento A.C., México, 2002. Cabannes, Y 2004a.

Figure 4.7 Financing of urban agriculture with participatory budgeting, Rosario, Argentina

Source: Municipality of Rosario and field visit.
Cabannes, Y 2004a.

The key element that differentiates the experience in Texcoco from that of Rosario lies in the control of resources. In Rosario, the producers have direct control of public resources (bottom up approach), whereas in Texcoco, decision-making over the resources always remained in the hands of the local government. However, even though participatory budgeting allows for better adaptation of public resources to the needs of the population, it is not a full guarantee of continuity as the process could be interrupted by circumstances such as a change of government.

Public resources and subsidies have been a crucial source of funds for facilitating the access to credit of small urban farmers, and for leveraging and channelling additional resources. However, the dependence on public money has the risk of a sudden interruption to or closing of excellent and economically successful UA activities. The case of Texcoco shows the risk of depending on public resources as the UA programme was halted after a change of local government. The extent of independence of a financial intermediary and its ability to survive political or policy changes should be given close consideration. In order to reduce the dependency of a credit system on political will, it is necessary to build strong intermediary financial institutions that can lend and work with public money, but that will not depend on political orientation for their continuity. This is probably one of the key issues to be dealt with as far as financing of UA is concerned.

Here, the financial resources for UA are managed in two different ways: on the one hand, the Municipal Secretariat for Social Promotion develops a set of support activities to assist local urban farmers (input supply, technical assistance, and training). In addition, Rosario started a Participatory Budgeting Approach in 2002 through which citizens – whether organised or not - could control how part of the public resources of their cities is used. Interestingly enough, in two out of the six districts of Rosario where the approach was introduced, organised urban farmers proposed projects related to the production and processing of UA vegetables and medicinal plants. These two projects were eventually prioritised and were integrated into the municipal budget allocations. The corresponding resources were then earmarked within the Municipal Secretariat for Social Promotion. Financially speaking, they were included in the budgetary allocation and specific funds were deposited in the bank managing the budget of the city.

The key element that differentiates the experience in Texcoco from that of Rosario lies in the control of resources. In Rosario, the producers have direct control of public resources (bottom up approach), whereas in Texcoco, decision-making over the resources always remained in the hands of the local government. However, even though participatory budgeting allows for better adaptation of public resources to the needs of the population, it is not a full guarantee of continuity as the process could be interrupted by circumstances such as a change of government.

Public resources and subsidies have been a crucial source of funds for facilitating the access to credit of small urban farmers, and for leveraging and channelling additional resources. However, the dependence on public money has the risk of a sudden interruption to or closing of excellent and economically successful UA activities. The case of Texcoco shows the risk of depending on public resources as the UA programme was halted after a change of local government. The extent of independence of a financial intermediary and its ability to survive political or policy changes should be given close consideration. In order to reduce the dependency of a credit system on political will, it is necessary to build strong intermediary financial institutions that can lend and work with public money, but that will not depend on political orientation for their continuity. This is probably one of the key issues to be dealt with as far as financing of UA is concerned.

Private and community based intermediaries
The experience of a savings and credit co-operative in Nepal

The Mahila Prayas Savings and Credit Co-operative Ltd. (MPSACCO) was established in Nepal in 1998. This relatively young institution offers both individual and peer lending for agricultural activities, for setting up shops and for dairy farming3. (See also Figure 4.8)

Figure 4.8 Financing of urban agriculture in Nepal

Source: Centre for Micro Finance (CMF) Nepal. "Managing Credit and Investment Schemes for Urban/Peri-Urban Agricultural Activities: A Case Study of Two Urban Based Cooperatives in Nepal," CMF: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2002.

Cabannes, Y 2004a.

The financial resources of the cooperative's members is generated through various types of savings such as regular compulsory (monthly), voluntary, marriage and festival savings. This variety indicates how a community-based banking facility is tailored to cultural and local practices and substantially different from conventional banking systems for the poor in which savings is simply a compulsory activity that is precondition for getting a loan.

In addition, the central government provides loans and (limited) grants. Various "Social Economy" institutions have provided loans, occasional subsidies and technical assistance to MPSACCO and its members (i.e. Cooperative Development Board, Federation of Savings and Credit Unions of Nepal and Aaincho Paaincho, a Micro-Finance Institution).

Private and banking sector as financial intermediaries

The Prove experience in the State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, is based on a similar successful experience carried out in Brasilia, in the mid 90's4. Its basic principle is to provide credits and technical assistance to home-based producers, so that they can add value to their agricultural family-based production by processing primary produce and selling it to supermarkets.

Figure 4.9 The case of PROVE Pantanal, Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil

Source: Araújo, P., Szukala, S. "Programa Prove Pantanal, Study Case of the IPES/UMP/IDRC Research Program, sd, 38 pp.
Cabannes, Y 2004a.

The credit that Prove provides at state level was funded through Central Government resources, while the technical assistance comes from the State Government budget. Interestingly, the State Government separated the technical assistance component from the management of the credits, and delegated the financial management to a development bank operating through its branches at State level. The bank authorises the various loans and the borrowers repay at this same bank, in a fairly conventional way.

Such a model raises again the issue of what might happen in the case that the Federal Government stops feeding the current credit line. Two answers might be given. For one, the loans are paid back to the State Development Bank that does not have to pay back to the Federal Government. The budget allocation from the Federal Government to the State Bank is used as a starter for generating a revolving fund. The money paid back by the clients can be given out again as loans. However currency devaluation and possible reimbursement defaults will cause the lending capacity to shrink.

Secondly, this financial set-up has had the opportunity to open the doors of the bank, in most cases for the first time ever, to family-based urban farmers. If they pay their first loans back and thus gain credibility, they will be in a better position to apply for future loans from the bank, beyond the specific, subsidised PROVE credit line. In this sense, the PROVE programme acts as a bridge between informal producers and the formal banking system, and this makes it especially attractive.

Producer involvement in management of resources

The financial intermediation, as far as the studies are concerned, is an area of great innovation that deserves more attention. A thorough understanding of the best adapted financial intermediaries - either a private cooperative such as in Nepal; a public/private one in Bangalore; a public bank such as in Mato Grosso do Sul; or a private bank - is crucial in order to optimise the financial sources. In this context, involvement of producers/user groups in fund management such as is often the case in credit cooperatives, credit unions and community-based financial organisations appear as viable and important mechanisms that necessitate attention. The cases of London and St. Petersburg and the group credit mechanisms in Sofia are also particularly relevant.

Conclusions

How are the different types of urban agriculture currently financed?

Earlier in this chapter, three types of urban agriculture (UA) have been identified. Further, financing of urban agriculture has been discussed by means of a varying combination of three financial mechanisms: (a) mobilisation of both financial and non-financial resources by the urban farmers and their families, (b) subsidies, which may come from varying origins, especially public and international, and are usually channelled through differing mechanisms, and (c) credit provision, generally limited in amount, and usually for individual borrowers, and not so much for groups.

A matrix can be drawn to co-relate the origins of the resources to the differing types of urban agriculture. Such a matrix shows the most common situations and can help in deciding on the most desirable options for financing urban agriculture in future. Figure 4.10 depicts the most common situations in the cities studied.

Figure 4.10 Financial sources according to the type of urban agriculture

Cabannes, Y 2004a.

Subsidies, both from public and international sources, can allow the financial burden on small urban producers to be reduced. Since subsistence agriculture is not commonly commercialised, and is undertaken by a large number of urban poor people (generally without land titles, fixed employment or a regular income) who are often unable to secure conventional banking guarantees, credit for this type of urban agriculture is almost noninexistent. Unfortunately, they are the neediest and have the most to gain from financial assistance, but are precisely the ones who receive the least support.

The second type, the more commercial and economically-focused UA, appears to have limited access to credit. In addition, as shown in the experiences referenced in this study, it receives non-financial subsidies, such as technical assistance or other inputs in the form of seeds, equipment and tools.

The third type of urban agriculture, more recreational and educational nature or related to healthy practices in the cities, is probably the form of UA which is most subsidised, mainly by public resources (see examples from Europe, Canada or the experiences in St. Petersburg). Notwithstanding, it also depends to a large part on the capacity of the urban producers to mobilise their own resources to pay the rents for their plots or the taxes levied.

How to optimise the available financial resources and for which type of urban agriculture?

There is no one solution to this question. The matrix below (see figure 4.11) can help in deciding on the allocation of resources according to the type of urban agriculture practiced and to which kind of urban farmer financial support should be directed to.

Figure 4.11 The necessity to adapt and optimise the resources according to the type of urban agriculture desired

Cabannes, Y 2004a.

However, one can suggest that public resources from central, regional and local governments should be distributed more evenly between the different UA types than is being done currently. Some of these public resources should also be used to reduce the financial exclusion of poor families and urban farmers, especially those to whom urban agriculture is a vital source of food and medicines. Access to affordable credits and credit conditions is also crucial.

A similar analysis can be applied in trying to identify which UA activity should be financed: primary production, processing (agro-industries) or marketing (figure 4.12).

Figure 4.12 Urban agriculture production cycle and sources of financing

Cabannes, Y 2004a.

One can observe in the case studies that both subsidies and credit tend to concentrate in the first phase of the UA cycle, during the growing cycle of crops or for the raising of animals. There are very few experiences and financial systems in which resources have been concentrated in the agro-processing phase (i.e.preparation of frozen food, food preservation or making of extracts and natural essences for medical use) and in the marketing and commercialisation phase, particularly in the formal sector (supermarkets, permanent markets, hypermarkets). The experiences of PROVE in Brazil and Camilo Aldao in Argentina are extremely relevant, because they clearly demonstrate the positive results that are obtained when credit and subsidies are concentrated on the latter phases of the UA cycle.

In the light of several successful experiences, financial systems should support the demands of the urban producers and service their needs and initiatives. Participatory budgeting processes, which allow urban farmers to exercise their citizen's rights and decide on the destination of public resources, are encouraging and deserve much attention. Specifically, a gender equity focus in the definition of target groups and operational structures should be incorporated.

On the other hand, political legitimacy and support remains crucial to further development of UA. Under the current circumstances, specific support from municipal governments will be necessary for urban agriculture, especially when dealing with urban poor and vulnerable groups. Beyond facilitating access to finance, secure access to land and water sources are of paramount importance (see also Chapter 3 in this book).

Recommendations

One of the main conclusions of the present study is probably the significant lack of appropriate "financial products" for urban farmers and producers that could help them cultivate, process and better market their farming products. The shortage of credit, as well as limited access to credit, forces us to think about several strategies that are not mutually exclusive:

• Setting up of municipal funds for UA;

• Establishing a system of evolutionary loans (loans that develop over time) with decreasing subsidies; and

• Drawing on existing rural and urban housing and micro-enterprise credit systems.

Municipal local fund for UA and for economic and social inclusion

Mixed municipal funds are not yet very common in the field of urban agriculture, but they exist in other sectors such as home improvement and/or generation of income. Figure 4.13 illustrates a central element of these funds, which is the diversity of their financial sources to include international donations or loans, public resources and private savings particularly of urban farmers.

Such devolution of power to the people was part of a broader approach on empowerment through credit. Such an approach was not incompatible with a financial rationale. As a matter of fact, the financial results were much better than in any of the formal banking systems. One the one hand the level of reimbursement was significantly higher and the proportion of defaulters was minimal. On the other hand, the administrative costs for the whole programme were extremely low, mainly because of the involvement of the community at each stage of the process.

The final aspect that needs emphasis is that these mixed funds should have a bank account in the most suitable financial institution operating at local level, be it a commercial bank, a cooperative bank or a development bank.

Figure 4.13 Mixed municipal fund for urban agriculture

Cabannes, Y 2004a.

Evolutionary loans with decreasing subsidies

The co-responsibility principle applied in such municipal funds, between the government (contributing with subsidies), the citizens (mobilising their savings and paying back their credit) and the private sector (who contributes generally with credit lines) also constitutes the basis for models of evolutionary loans with decreasing subsidies.

Other principles are that credits are limited in value (and thus more accessible), are of short duration, and are progressive, which means that the second credit can be superior to the first, and the third superior to the second. The above mentioned "Better Homes" programme, for example, grant loans with a duration of less than 12 months and less than US$ 300 dollars in value, which were equivalent in 1997 to three monthly minimum wages.

The numbers in the rows of the table (Figure 4.14) indicate the proportion of the savings, of the subsidy and of the credit to the total value of the loan. For instance, for the first loan, the value of the compulsory savings in 1997 was around US$ 100, whereas the subsidy was US$ 200, and the maximum amount of credit was US$ 300, adding up to total of $ 600. With this amount of money a family could improve part of its home, for instance adding a room, changing the roof tiles or building an outer wall around the family plot. For subsequent loans, the subsidy is gradually reduced, whereas the saving component increases, along with the value of the credit.

These evolutionary loans are progressive steps that lead people to get access to the formal banking system. In the model presented here, the initial idea was that the fourth loan was not granted by the municipal local fund, but alternatively by private banks. The fund thus acts as a bridge that allows poor people, normally excluded from the formal banking system, to get access to higher-valued loans managed by banks, having being gradually introduced to repayment obligations and systems of savings. The regressive subsidies, in addition to their value for the people, acquire a social function, fostering the inclusion of those who had no access to formal credit before. It would be interesting to carry out additional research to monitor and assess the level of actual "banking exclusion" of those involved in the Brazilian and other similar projects.

Figure 4.14 Evolutionary loans with decreasing level of subsidy, the Casa Melhor model, Brazil

Cabannes, Y 2004a.

Drawing from existing banking initiatives and credit

Drawing from rural loans

The first strategy would consist of channelling credits for "rural agriculture" to periurban and urban agriculture. The knowledge accumulated over the years in rural financing should be applied to UA as well. The practical experience of organisations working in rural areas should also be tapped into. Examples of rural innovative micro-finance institutions are found in cooperatives with owner-membership and solidarity groups or credit groups (or rotating credit groups), which are less formal, and are donor-driven or traditional like those found in West Africa. These also include village banks, which can be seen as a combination of cooperatives and solidarity groups, and micro-banks, which are not based on membership but more on individual contracts. All these experiences are aimed at reaching the poor micro-entrepreneurs and at creating sustainable financial support systems. The achievements of the Wadramli Agricultural Cooperative Society, close to the city of Khartoum in Sudan, are a noteworthy example.

Loans for productive homes

Many urban agricultural activities are home-based, and therefore, the notion of "productive housing", i.e. a home that is not limited to a residential function, is a key feature of UA. Micro-credits or housing loans to upgrade or to develop the "productive side" of a house (adding on a small workshop, a kitchen that will become a small restaurant opened to the public, a room to process what was cultivated or transforming a vacant backyard into a place to cultivate plants) have been very difficult to include within conventional building loans, even for home improvement loans. Despite the success of the few experiences such as the "Casa Melhor" program in Fortaleza or the "Casa Production" in Peru, we have not been very successful in developing such programmes to the needed scale, though this should be further experimented on.

Way forward: development and action-research agendas on financing for UA

Development agenda for finance and urban agriculture

Consolidation of the existing positive experiences should be promoted, while at the same time improving the documentation of lessons learned, and the monitoring and evaluation of impacts to make the concrete and positive results visible and thereby support upscaling and dissemination.

Additionally, the issue of financing of UA should be placed on the agricultural agenda and international debates on development, beyond the circles that it has reached to date and fairly quickly.

Strengthening local experiences including local governments

The first suggestion is to consolidate existing local experiences on credit and investment for UA, in particular those that were documented and referred to in the present study. This can happen through the channelling of financial resources from other sectors or through the implementation of mixed local funds for the UA, and by including the modality of regressive subsidies that provide a bridge to the formal banking sector. The consolidation of experiences in some selected cities will bring about a demonstrative power that could move other cities and actors to become involved.

Building "resource cities" in urban agricultural finance

In addition to consolidating experiences at city level, it is necessary to build the capacities of the actors in these cities so that they become international and national advocates of their experiences. Such consolidated cities could become "resource cities", capable of exporting their knowledge, advising other interested cities and functioning as "on the job training centres". The time is ripe to select a number of cities and to contribute to building the capacities of the different actors involved.

Lobby at international level

Members of the Dairy Association bring their milk to the delivery station in Debre Zeit town, Ethiopia,

Several local government initiatives in financing UA have been active and successful in recent years. Several of the documented cases provide evidence to the determining and positive role local governments in UA. It may be timely to bring these experiences to the international arena. One possibility is establishing close relations with the Forum of Local Authorities for Social Inclusion (FAL) which meets usually at the same time as the World Social Forum of Porto Alegre and of its regional forums such as the European Social Forum or the Social Forum of the Americas.

So far, the FAL is a loose gathering of around 400 local governments, namely those dealing with inclusion and participatory democracy. In addition, the FAL became the first commission (on social inclusion) of the newly established World Association of Cities and Local Governments (Barcelona 2004).

Dissemination of the lessons learned from the experiences of the "resource cities" to the cities associated with the Forum of Local Authorities for Social Inclusion, as well as to other local government forums, should be a priority.

It may also be useful to use WUF 2006 as an event to present research findings related to the agenda suggested below. The appropriation of the findings by the academic and scientific community dealing with urban agriculture and finance issues are important for the future.

Urban agriculture and its contribution to the Millennium Developments Goals

For local or international actors to provide further financial support to UA, it would be necessary to identify the trade offs of supporting investment in UA rather than other activities, as well as to monitor its impacts, amongst others, on improved livelihoods, social inclusion, local economic development and environmental management. In a recent paper (Cabannes, 2004b), a preliminary effort was made to identify how and to which extent UA is contributing to the Millennium Development Goals (in terms of its outcomes) and to good governance in terms of the processes that it entails (see also Chapter 1 of this book). Measuring these contributions in qualitative and quantitative terms is essential to justify financial support to UA and to target it to the different types of UA.

An action-research agenda on Urban Agriculture finance

In addition to the issues highlighted in the analysis of the case studies, the following areas could become part of an action-research agenda to continue developing knowledge and supporting the development of expertise and capacities, which a wide range of actors (from government to producer groups) need. With such knowledge and expertise, these actors can devise and improve the means and ways for UA to make our cities better fed, cleaner, safer and more liveable:

1. Capture the full economic value of using intra and periurban space for agriculture, aquiculture, animal husbandry and forestry

Capturing the urban value of cultivated land refers to the valuation of the benefits, opportunity costs and costs avoided through UA in our cities, not only in economic and monetary terms, but also in social terms (health, safety, sense of community, preventive inclusion of youth), and in environmental terms (productive green spaces, reduction of contamination, dumping, squatting, increased waste recycling). This is important for governments and society in order to justify financial support to UA. The economic rationale should go beyond the commercial value and the potential economic rate of return. This thinking supposes a totally different economic calculation that includes notions such as social value and ecological value, which are as significant as economic value. This approach takes a critical view on the conventional liberal economic perspective that often equates the economic value to the commercial value.

Produce being brought for sale to HOPCOMS in Bangalore, India

2. Understand and enhance producers' own informal financing strategies

The study and analysis of mechanisms of resource mobilisation by urban farmers referring to the means and ways through which urban farmers and producers mobilise financial resources and invest in urban agricultural activities is another understudied area. What are the informal financing mechanisms created by producers to facilitate access to inputs and services which allow them to expand, intensify or diversify their production, and process, store and distribute their products? It is important to know more about this if we are to introduce formal financing mechanisms that would enhance what people arranges on their own. How can the financial assistance to make farmers less dependant on outside resources be transformed over time? Could this be achieved through a community development programme? And what about providing appropriate technical assistance? All these questions need to be examined in combination.

3. Document proven options for optimising the use of public subsidies, issue guidelines and support pilot interventions

One of the outcomes of the research on credit refers to the wide range of levels, types, end receivers, and channels of subsidies related to UA, both at local and central government levels. It demonstrates that subsidies have empowering and leveraging impacts. However, more research needs to be accomplished to optimise the use of public policies for UA. After all, how public policies can best enable urban producers make the transition from full subsidy to mainstream financing (capacity building and intermediaries are important) remains a key question.

4. Implement and monitor innovative fiscal and financial instruments

Fiscal and financial municipal policies are other fields that demand research. Increasing the knowledge on issues such as participatory budgeting and its impact on UA, partnerships with banks and micro-finance institutions, mixed municipal funds, innovative institutional financial set-ups, extending rural credit to peri- and intra-urban areas and fiscal policies are key to increasing the access of urban producers to financing products.

5. Document, advice and test supply contracts between producer groups and large consumer groups

Organisation is critical for small periurban producers to gain recognition, respect, legitimacy and inclusion in policy processes, receive appropriate support, professionalize, be more accountable for their trade, and enlarge their contribution to the local economy, through partnerships and alliances with a range of rural and urban actors. These alliances allow, among other benefits, the produce and products of urban producers to reach various consumer markets. UA is well placed to cater to important niche markets in cities. What is and can be the role of public institutions (schools and others), consumers' associations, private sector business in financing UA, for example, through direct buying of primary or processed produce (on farm, in food boxes, for canteens etc.)?

6. Comparative advantage of financial intermediaries

In this chapter, several institutions of financial intermediation have been identified and described: public sector intermediaries, private agencies and community-based institutes. Having made this typology, a comparative study of the advantages and the limits of each of these models should be done to further strengthen the current experiences.

The following is an agenda that was adopted during a panel event organised as part of the World Urban Forum 2004 in Barcelona (see Box 4.2). Further inputs in crafting and implementing this action-research agenda that will lead to successful credit and investment programmes for UA and that will ensure their inclusion in local, national, and regional agendas, are welcome.

Micro-credits for income generation and job creation

The fast and massive expansion of MFIs - Micro Finance Institutions- and of the financial resources available for micro-enterprise development has scarcely benefited UA producers. To find modalities to tap these resources for the benefit the urban farmers presents a decisive shift for the expansion of the sector. Experiences in Quito-Ecuador showed the willingness of credit cooperatives to finance market-oriented activities of urban farmers and farming groups, especially when other organisations stepped in to support these activities through training, technical assistance and social organisation.

Promoting UA as part of new urban development models

As a final remark, we want to stress that financing urban agriculture cannot be separated from promoting an urban development model, where local economic development goes hand in hand with respect for the environment and social inclusion and justice for all.

The rationale of financing urban agriculture, and its expansion and success, lies in its integration into sustainable development models that aim to respond to the needs of a growing urban population for food, jobs and recreation and provide "rights to the city for all".

Hundreds of millions of the urban poor are already practising UA to reduce their food and financial insecurity, to relate with the urban economy and urban environment in a more socially-inclusive way, as well as to build better governance. Governments and financial support institutes can tap into this creativity and energy to build more self-reliant food systems, healthier communities and more productive local economies. The signs are that more and more of them are taking this route.

Notes

1 The Graph was prepared with the help of the author of the case study. For a complete description, see Mosha, A.C, (2002)

2 For more information on participatory budgeting and a comparative analysis that includes Rosario, see Cabannes, Y. (2003)

3 For further information on this innovative experience, see Centre for Micro Finance (2002)

4 For a description and critical analysis of the Prove experience of credits to home based producers in Brasilia Federal District, see the following working paper written by one of the key players and moving spirit of this seminal experience: Homen de Carvalho, João Luis, O Prove-Programa de verticalização da pequena produção familiar, Brasilia, Brasil. APROVE, PGU, IDRC, IPES. 2001, 60p.Quito, Cuaderno de Trabajo N° 83, Programa de Gestión Urbana (UN Habitat / UNDP).

References

Abdelgadir, Khalid Elamin. 2002. "Survey of City Experiences with Credit and Investment for Urban Agriculture Interventions: Sudan Case, Wadramli Agricultural Cooperative Society," Khartoum City, 2002. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Araújo Szukala, Paulo Sergio. 2002. "Programa Prove Pantanal, study case of the IPES/UMP/IDRC research program. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Banco Do Trabalho. (nd), "O Banco do Povo de Brasilia," compilation of texts made available from the Secretaria do Trabalho e Renda, Federal district, Brasilia.

Batac, Joseph. 2002. "Investment in the Urban Agricultural Component of Urban Poverty Reduction: The Case of Marilao in the Philippines." Urban agriculture Magazine

Cabannes, Yves. 1997. Agriculture urbaine et création de revenus, in Agriculture urbaine pour l'assainissement et la creation de revenues dans l'agglomération de Fortaleza (Brésil). Rapport technique final. Programme de Recherche CRDI, Canada. Fortaleza

Cabannes Yves. 2003. "Participatory budgeting and municipal finance". Base Document, Urbal Network N°9, Municipality of Porto Alegre-Brasil

Cabannes, Yves. 2004a. 'Public Financing and Investments for Urban Agriculture", Paper prepared for the WUF 2004, Barcelona-Spain. IPES/UMP-LAC/IDRC.

Cabannes, Yves. 2004b. "Credit and Financing for Urban Agriculture'. Paper presented at workshop on IDRC-supported initiatives on urban agriculture and food security, Ryerson University, Toronto, August-September 2004

Centre for Micro Finance (CMF) Nepal. 2002. "Managing Credit and Investment Schemes for Urban/Periurban Agricultural Activities: A Case Study of Two Urban Based Cooperatives in Nepal," Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Dubbeling, Marielle. 2004 "Optimizing use of vacant space for urban agriculture through particvipatory planning processes" Paper presented at workshop on IDRC-supported initiatives on urban agriculture and food security, Ryerson University, Toronto, August-September 2004.

Homen de Carvalho, João Luis. 2001. "O Prove-Programa de verticalização da pequena produção familiar, Brasilia, Brasil". APROVE, PGU, IDRC, IPES, Cuaderno de Trabajo N° 83, Programa de Gestión Urbana (UN HABITAT / UNDP).

Mbiba, Beacon and Richard John Wiltshire. 2002. "Resources and Financing of Urban Agriculture Interventions in London: The Woodlands Farm and Vauxhall City Farm Experience," Urban and Periurban Research Network at South Bank University: London. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Mireri, Caleb. 2002. "Credit and Investment in Urban Agriculture in Nairobi City, Kenya," Department of Environmental Planning and Management at Kenyatta University: Nairobi, Kenya.

Moldakov, Oleg. 2002. "The Saint Petersburg Urban Gardening and Farming. Mic ro credit and investment for Urban Agriculture in Russia", St. Petersburg Urban Gardening Club," St. Petersburg, Russia. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Mosha, A.C. 2002. "Credit an Investment for Urban Agricultural Interventions: Case Study: Gaborone City, Botswana," University of Bostwana, Gaborone. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMPLAC, IPES and IDRC.

Municipalidad de Rosario. 2003. "Presupuesto Participativo en Rosario. Pautas presupuestarias 2003 definidas por las vecinas y los vecinos de la ciudad". Rosario, Argentina.

Mushamba, Shingirayi. 2002. "Case Studies on Prospects for Finance, Credit, and Investment for Urban and Periurban Agriculture in Zimbabwe: Kintyre Lake County Development and Musikavanhu Cooperative." Paper presented to the regional workshop on Urban Policy implications of enhancing food security in African Cities, UN Habitat, Nairobi.

Premchander, Smita. 2002. "Cooperative for Sale of Fruits and Vegetables: A Success Story of Urban Horticultural Marketing: Horticultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society," Sampark, Bangalore. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Programa de Gestión Urbana Coordinación Regional para América Latina y El Caribe. 2003a. "Crédito e inversión para la agricultura urbana: sistematización y análisis transversal de 13 estudios de caso," Quito- Ecuador.

Programa de Gestión Urbana Coordinación Regional para América Latina y El Caribe. 2003b. "Microcredit and Investment for Urban Agriculture". Guidelines for municipal policymaking on urban agriculture PGU-ALC, IPES, IDRC.

Sunde, Teresa. 2002. "Estudio de Micro Crédito e Inversión para la Agricultura Urbana: Programa Social Agropecuario, "Camilo Aldão-Córdoba, Argentina. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

The case of Prove Pantanal, Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil (based on Araújo Szukala, (2003)) Ramirez-Garcia, Gabriel. 2002. "Estudios de Micro Crédito e Inversión para la Agricultura Urbana (AU): Caso Texcoco, Mexico," Centro Operacional de Vivienda y Poblamiento A.C., México. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 9 (2003). Special issue on Financing Urban Agriculture, April 2003. RUAF, Leusden, Netherlands.

Yoveva, Antoaneta. 2002. "Micro-crediting for urban agricultural activities in Bulgaria," Sustainable World Foundation: Sofia, Bulgaria. Paper prepared for UN HABITAT, UMP-LAC, IPES and IDRC.

Credit and Investment in Urban Agriculture in Nepal

Roshan Shrestha

Nepal is a landlocked country sandwiched between China and India. About 80 percent of the Nepalese population depends on agriculture, which is mainly based in the rural areas.

Due to the high rate of urbanisation, most of the arable land of Nepal's capital city Kathmandu is occupied by housing infrastructure and agricultural production has thus been reduced. At present the population of Kathmandu Metropolitan City is estimated at 701,962 (2001 census) with a per capita income of US$ 360. Cultivation of rice, wheat and vegetables within the metropolitan area continues on a small scale. Some inhabitants are also involved in cow and buffalo keeping for milk production, for their own use as well as for sale.

There is no strict division of tasks in periurban agriculture

Most of the arable land on the city's fringes is used for agriculture (rice and wheat cultivation), horticulture, poultry farming and bee keeping on a larger scale, the products of which are processed (jam s and pickles) and sold at local markets.

Nepal is a predominantly agricultural country. The government has formulated a 20-year Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) in which the development of advanced technology and infrastructure for achieving high agricultural production is emphasised as one of the main objectives. The national policy recognises micro-finance as an important means of reducing poverty and achieving economic growth. However, the need for micro-finance investment in urban and (peri)urban agriculture is generally not recognised, though there are some (peri)urban based micro-finance institutions, including member-based saving and credit cooperatives, which provide micro-finance services to members/clients for (peri) urban agricultural activities.

Two credit and investment schemes

Mahila Prayas Savings and Credit Co-operative Ltd. (MPSACCO) is a women-only cooperative that has adopted two types of lending methodologies: individual lending and peer lending. Samudayik Savings and Credit Co-operative Ltd. (SSACCO) is a mixed membership cooperative that has individual lending only.

Individual lending is characterised by:

• loans that are guaranteed by savings and/or co-signatories (in the case of SSACCO, loans are guaranteed by co-signatories for amounts up to Rs.20,000 (US$260)) and/or by physical collateral (for loan amounts more than Rs.20,000 (US$260));

• potential clients who are screened by credit checks and character references;

• loan amounts that are based on thorough viability analysis;

• loan sizes and terms that can be tailored to needs of the business within a maximum limit;

• staff of the lending institution who work to develop close, long-term relationships with members.

Peer lending has the following characteristics:

• loans are mutually guaranteed by other members in the group;

• potential clients are screened by their peers;

• loan approval is based on the scheme presented;

• loan size and terms are determined by the nature of the business;

• staff of the lending institution has a distant relationship with large numbers of clients; and

• peer groups are used to reduce staff workload.

MPSACCO has individual lending in urban areas and peer lending in the periurban areas. The cooperative has different kinds of savings schemes like regular savings, voluntary savings, marriage savings and festival savings. Each member deposits Rs.100 (US$1.30) every month as regular savings (or in the case of group savings, each group collects money from its members), for which the cooperative provides 12 percent interest rate. One can further deposit any amount at any time on a voluntary basis, for which the cooperative provides a 9 percent interest rate. Similarly, a member can save for marriage and for a particular festival. She cannot draw on these savings for other purposes. The cooperative provides 12 percent and 9 percent interest rates for marriage savings and festival savings, respectively.

Transporting vegetables to the market

SSACCO has only one kind of savings, compulsory savings, for which each member has to deposit at least Rs.100 (US$1.30) per month at a 10 percent interest rate. According to the records, the members have deposited Rs.100 (US$1.30) to Rs.500 (US$6.50).

Members' savings are the main source of capital for these cooperatives. Other sources of capital of MPSACCO are:

• a revolving credit fund of Rs.375,000 (US$4,870) provided by the Asian Development Bank funded Micro-Credit Project for Women, disbursed only to group members in Kathmandu, and

• loans of Rs.200,000 (US$2,597) under the Self-Reliance Fund of Nepal Rastra Bank, a central bank of Nepal, at a subsidised interest rate, invested only in group members in the periurban area of Kathmandu, Rs.500,000 (US$6,493) from the Nepal Federation of Savings and Credit Co-operative Union at 17 percent interest rate and Rs.325,000 (US$4,221) from Aaincho Paincho, a Multinational Financial Institute, at a 14 percent interest rate.

Most of the members of MPSACCO in periurban areas use credit for agricultural activities such as buffalo/cow/goat raising, poultry farming, vegetable cultivation, millet cropping, bee keeping and nursery management. In addition some group members have opened shops. The urban members of MPSACCO use the credit for opening shops. Some members purchase vegetables from the wholesale market and sell these at retail prices in the local markets.

Ladyfinger cultivation along with corn cropping

The members of SSACCO have predominantly invested in agricultural activities like buffalo/cow/goat raising, poultry farming and vegetable cultivation, using the credit. The milk produced by the members is partly sold in the local areas and also supplied to the collection centres, giving reasonable profit. Some members have invested in shops.

MPSACCO has both short-term credit, provided for six months, and long-term credit, provided for 18 months. The minimum loan size is Rs.5,000 (US$65) and the maximum loan size is Rs.50,000 (US$649). The cooperative charges 18 percent interest rate to the urban-based members, who join as individual members, whereas it charges only a 16 percent interest rate to the periurban based members. In the case of individual lending, members who know the borrower have to be the guarantor. Clients, who live in a rented house, must have the house owner as the guarantor in order to receive individual loans. However, in the case of peer lending, group members have to be the guarantor.

There are different types of repayment procedures provisioned in the cooperative. Some repay the instalment each month (for household consumption or running a shop), some repay every three months (for vegetable cultivation) and some repay every six months (for livestock raising). Loans issued for poultry farming can be repaid at three-monthly or six-monthly intervals.

SSACCO has only one loan term, in which the borrower has to repay the loan within one year in different instalments. Instalments can be monthly, bi-monthly and quarterly within a year. The cooperative provides a minimum loan size of Rs.8,000 (US$104) and a maximum loan size of Rs.50,000 (US$ 649). Members have borrowed Rs.8,000 (US$104) to Rs.15,000 (US$ 195) for vegetable cultivation and about Rs.50,000 for buffalo raising, cow raising, poultry farming and opening a shop. SSACCO charges 18 percent interest rate on the loans provided to its members. If a member takes a loan less than her or his savings in the cooperative, then the cooperative charges only 16 percent interest rate. To borrow an amount up to Rs.20,000 (US$ 260) another member of the cooperative should be a guarantor. Members have to pledge their land ownership certificate as collateral to get a loan of more than Rs.20,000.

Recommendations

• With effective and efficient management, the member based savings and credit co-operative model could be a viable model for providing sustainable micro-finance services to the members as it has its own resource base to meet its operational and financial costs.

• Diversification of savings schemes in a member-based cooperative supports its capital formation. Credit should be combined with savings as savings could work as collateral to some extent. Diversification of savings schemes also addresses the various needs of its members.

• Financing family businesses generates more employment (for all family members) and is more sustainable than financing individual businesses.

• Peer lending is more sustainable and inclusive in terms of reaching the poor and women, since it emphasises group membership and adopts the mechanism of group screening. This minimises risk and saves costs in terms of time and money.

• Credit schemes should incorporate agricultural training to the members. For this, the cooperatives should seek support from local governmental bodies, municipalities, donors and international NGOs.

• The central and local government should link urban farmers with international NGOs and donor agencies and create an urban environment that attracts private investment. The government should further promote urban farmers' organisations, especially of women farmers and/or vulnerable groups. Tax incentives to the members of the schemes would motivate people to be involved in agricultural enterprises.

• NGOs should provide training and seed capital to urban farmers (members of the cooperatives). In this regard they should take the urban farmers' organisations (eg., cooperatives) as partners.

• Farmer organisations should include cooperatives as part of their network, and assist in technology transfer among its members, organise workshops to share knowledge and skills. Exposure visit programmes among its members could also be organised to learn new and innovative agricultural techniques.

• The responsible authorities should facilitate the supply of agro-products from urban farmers to the markets, through collection centres and provision of information regarding availability of finance, inputs and product demand.

Note

This case study was undertaken for IDRC, UMP-LAC and UN-HABITAT in 2003. The article appeared in UA Magazine no. 9, 2003. Both, the article and the full paper are available at www.ruaf.org.

Focusing credit on urban agriculture in Gaborone, Botswana

A.C. Mosha

The city of Gaborone, with a population of 225,000 in 2001, has grown from a very small village to become the capital city of Botswana in a period of less than 36 years. Still, subsistence and commercial agriculture are both found throughout Gaborone and Greater Gaborone.

While poverty in Botswana is predominantly rural, the rate of urbanisation (at 8.4 percent per annum) is the highest in Africa. Rural migration has led to increasing concerns about social and physical changes in urban areas. One of the safety nets adopted by the poor has been urban agriculture either as a means of survival or to supplement low incomes, while some entrepreneurs have opted for urban agriculture as a means of making money. Poultry (40 percent), horticulture (20 percent) and piggeries (10 percent) dominate the activities taking place in the city. There is a gender bias in favour of women within this sector. A key problem to further development of urban agriculture is the lack of financial support.

Credit and Investment for UA Interventions

The Botswana government has a long history of assisting the entrepreneurial development of businessmen and women through various schemes and programmes; it also provides credit in the form of outright financial grants, loans, inputs (machinery, seeds and seedlings, etc.), as well as other financial subsidies. In addition, NGOs and donors have mainly invested in the poor, while the private sector has provided credit for commercial farms in many areas including periurban areas. Of the various programmes, three have achieved some marked success in urban and periurban agriculture. These programmes will be examined in depth and evaluated further in this paper.

Participation in commercial urban agriculture in Greater Gaborone is gender balanced

The Arable Lands Development Programme (ALDEP)

The ALDEP was conceived in 1977 and has gone through several phases since then. It provides assistance to needy farmers who are capable of increasing production and household income, the prerequisites for eligibility being the number of cattle they own and their yearly income. The assistance packages provide the approved applicants with an 85-90 percent subsidy for fencing materials, water tanks, agricultural tools and inputs and cattle. These conditions have been conducive enough to attract a great number of citizens to be farmers, but only with minimal involvement in farming.

In the Gaborone area, the target was to reach 11,388 individuals, but to date only 5,484 farmers have been reached (48 percent). Packages received vary from a low of US$ 852 to US$ 4,326 per farmer (GoB,1999). The ALDEP has not been able to significantly improve the performance of urban and periurban farmers as they usually cultivate only small patches of land (GoB, 2000). At present, the ALDEP appears to be more of a welfare programme rather than a development programme.

The Financial Assistance Programme (FAP) (1982-2001)

The FAP was introduced in 1982 as an incentive and subsidy programme aimed at creating employment and encouraging investment in a range of economic activities, including agriculture. The FAP has been a significant catalyst in increasing urban agriculture. Funding has been given for setting up of chicken or horticultural farms, rearing of animals, etc., and is used to purchase inputs, and to help pay for training and other costs. Women were given priority in the disbursement of grants; hence, 82 percent of the beneficiaries were women.

The total amount of FAP grants provided to commercial periurban and urban farmers in the Gaborone area is approximately P3,000,000 (US$ 500,000). The grants fall within the small-and medium-scale sectors, which support enterprises with investments in fixed assets of less than P75, 000 (US $ 12,500) and between P75, 001(US$ 12,500) and P200,000 (US$ 33,333), respectively. In a recent study by Hovorka, many respondents noted the FAP as a major incentive to start up agricultural production. Those not receiving FAP assistance had bank loans or lines of credit, while the remainder used personal savings for financing their agricultural operations (Hovorka, 2001).

Citizen Entrepreneurial Development Agency (CEDA)

In 2001, the government of Botswana shifted from the policy of issuing grants under the FAP to giving loans under the CEDA Programme. The financial assistance provided by CEDA is in the form of loans at subsidised interest rates as opposed to outright grants. This is meant to be a "soft window" for citizens wishing to start or expand business operations and to buy into existing businesses.

Since the project is quite new and still trying to find its feet, it is difficult to make an evaluation of its impact in terms of benefits to the agricultural sector in the study area of Gaborone and its environs. However, up until the end of 2000, 229 applications had been accepted in principle, totalling P139 million (US$ 23 million). Of these, 22 were urban and periurban agricultural projects (Botswana Guardian, 26 April, 2002).

Support to small businesses is important.

The minimum size of the loan for small projects is P5000 (US$ 900) and the maximum is P150,000 (US$ 25,000). An interest rate of 5 percent per annum is charged on the loans. Repayment periods vary according to the size of the loan and the project cash flow, with a maximum repayment period of 60 months or 5 years, with some flexibility for projects of a special nature (urban and periurban agriculture included).

For medium-scale projects the minimum size of the loan is P150,001 (US$ 25,000) and the maximum is P2,200,000 (US$ 445,000). An interest rate of 7.5 percent per annum is charged on the loans. Repayment periods vary according to the size of the loan and the project cash flow, with a maximum repayment period of 84 months or 7 years, with some flexibility for agricultural projects.

Assistance for large projects (such as big chicken, dairy or pig farms) takes on the form of equity capital and/or loan and management assistance. This is provided under the Venture Capital Fund. However, promoters are required to contribute a minimum of 25 percent of the total project cost as equity and to pay market-related interest rates.

Other schemes

There are also private banks providing some credit to farmers. The African Development Bank is active in assisting producer groups in agriculture and other sectors involved in economic empowerment projects. However, their role is limited, because they are reluctant to lend money to agricultural projects as they consider agriculture as a high-risk sector.

The Women Finance House is an NGO that gives limited loans to agricultural projects at 4 percent interest. These are payable within 6-12 months. These are meant to assist women and are extended to individuals.

Lastly, the Department of Cooperatives has a Central Cooperative Fund that cooperatives can draw on to assist their businesses. They are required to repay the money so that others can also benefit (acts like a revolving fund). These cooperatives, most of which are dominated by women, have attracted funding from other government departments like Women Affairs that have resources for funding women's groups, as well as from international organisations like the Canadian, American, German and Norwegian embassies. Producer groups exist mainly in the horticultural sub-sector. Poultry, Piggery, Small stock and Dairy also exist.

Analysis of the Different Schemes

The government has slowly shifted from giving outright grants or a mixture of grants and loans (as in FAP, and ALDEP) to giving loans (CEDA), which are well-monitored and controlled through a bank, and impose (subsidised) interest rates.

Financial Grants were the hallmarks of the FAP, and to a lesser extent the ALDEP. Such grants are useful in situations where the people are extremely poor and cannot raise credit through the formal or informal systems. However, a reliance on grants leads to complacency and can in the end kill the spirit of self-reliance, as with some people who took FAP grants as a free-for-all financial handouts.

Loans are the only financial assistance mechanisms that have sustainability in the long run. Obviously, they suit middle- and high-income earners. People are encouraged to work hard in order to pay back such loans. This is the new philosophy of CEDA.

Input supports in agriculture like tractors, seeds, fertilisers, etc. (e.g. under the ALDEP) are justified when prospective farmers cannot afford to buy them. Targeted inputs can be quite effective in getting people started.

Tax incentives are useful in attracting major investors to agriculture and manufacturing. If properly targeted and selective, they can be very effective in creating employment and incomes. However, the time factor should not be more than 3-5 years; otherwise they can be abused as in the case of the large-scale FAP grants/loans and CEDA loans.

Cooperatives can be quite an effective means of getting people started in urban agriculture. The government, donor agencies, and NGOs find it better to lend to cooperatives than to individuals. It is suggested that the Cooperative Bank should be resurrected and that the government should intensify the promotion of institutional Savings and Credit Cooperatives.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Institutional cooperation is needed. The different institutes and programmes should interact and collaborate to improve credit services for (peri-)urban agriculture. Some effort should be made in order to connect the above described initiatives and to focus on the one(s) that would have the best comparative advantages. Also the accessibility of these schemes for poor urban farmers should be studied in order to develop specific credit lines.

Flexible credit-support systems should additionally be put in place to provide farmers, especially small-scale farmers, with market information and support, and training in basic bookkeeping, business skills and marketing.

Under market forces, urban farmers will be squeezed out; hence, measures such as zoning, price subsidies, and relaxing some of the stringent town planning and environmental laws are necessary and should complement financial support.

This case study was undertaken for IDRC, UMP-LAC and UN-HABITAT in 2003. The article appeared in UA Magazine no. 9, 2003. Both, the article and the full paper are available at www.ruaf.org.

References

GoB. 1999. Short-term plan of action: National Gender Programme 1991-2003. Women's Affairs Department and Ministry of Labour and Home Affairs, Gaborone.

GoB. 2000. National Master Plan for Agricultural Development. Government printer, Gaborone.

Hovorka, AJ. 2001. Commercial Peri-Urban Agriculture in Greater Gaborone. In: Proceedings of the National Workshop on Peri-Urban Agriculture-Botswana, May 28-29, Gaborone.

Securing Funds through Municipal Participatory Budgets: the experience of Porto Alegre, Brazil

Saya Saulière

Porto Alegre is the capital of the state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), and has 1,340,590 inhabitants (IBGE, 2000). It is the second state capital in the country with the largest suburban area, representing 30.56 percent of the city's land surface 17,116 ha (SMIC, 2002). Of this area, 60 percent is used for horticulture, fruit growing and cattle keeping. According to the 2002 statistics (EMATER), there are close to 600 farmers in the area.

Participatory Budget

Porto Alegre is internationally known for its innovative management strategies. One of the pillars of local democratisation was the implementation of a Participatory Budget1, a democratic process of popular participation, under which the population directly decides how to allocate public funds for works and services to be executed by the municipal administration. Organising the Participatory Budget and getting it operationalised took several years. Under the administration of the previous government (2000-2004), it worked as described below.

The city is divided into 16 regions, based on geographical, social and community organisational aspects. On this regional basis, the population expresses its needs and highlights four priorities within 13 existing themes every year. Within each theme, the work to be carried out and the services to be performed are prioritised. In addition, six technical committees operate city-wide to extend participation to other social actors previously not involved in the Participatory Budget (i.e. union members, merchants, businessmen, farmers, students). These committees are able to go beyond a restricted neighbourhood vision and think at the scale of the city. The committees decide on sector investments to city organisation and urban and environmental development; traffic and transport; health and social welfare; education, sports and leisure; culture; and economic development and taxation. The city administration organises a large plenary meeting of the community each year.

Honey processing at the Casa do Mel, in Porto Alegre, Brazil

Over the past years, four urban agricultural initiatives were financed by the PB, and prioritised by the Thematic Economic Development Committee.

Fishermen's Cooperative

The city of Porto Alegre lies on the banks of the Guaíba River. In 1999, the fishermen of the islands (Ilha da Pintada and others) established the first fishermen's production and service provision cooperative in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Coopeixe. In the same year they applied to the Thematic Economic Development Committee for funds to construct a fish collection centre (located in the periurban area). The construction of this building would allow them to collect the entire fish harvest at one location and to handle and clean the fish according to health regulations; the building was also supposed to serve as a supply centre. The monetary investment was approximately 350,000 Reales (2). Currently, the cooperative has 230 members. Fish is sold at markets, to restaurants and directly to consumers. This experience with the municipal participatory budget prompted the cooperative's members to go further and participate at state level. In 2000-2001, the state's fishermen got organised and applied for funds to purchase material (nets and vessels), securing 150,000 Reales from the Thematic Agriculture and Supply Committee.

Casa do Mel of the Gaucha Bee-keepers Association

The Gaucha Beekeepers Association (AGA) was created 40 years ago, and currently has 80 members in Porto Alegre. One of the biggest problems faced by the association's beekeepers was the processing of honey. In 1995, the members applied for and obtained approximately 70,000 Reales from the Participatory Budget's Thematic Economic Development Committee to build a Casa do Mel ("Honey House"). The association bought equipment for the house (30,000 reales) using a percentage of the proceeds from the honey sales. The house was inaugurated in 1998. In 2002, the association decided to apply for more credit to build another processing unit and a structure for the collection of honey as an extension to the current honey house. Products currently processed in Casa do Mel bear the federal health control seal, which allows them to be exported. The honey produced by the association is sold at a kiosk assigned by the municipality and located in the centre of Porto Alegre and also at fairs. The association does not want to sell its honey in supermarkets as it would then be sold at higher prices, which the members believe is not correct from a social point of view. In 2002, 15 tonnes of honey was produced.

The Fishermen's Cooperative

Pig Farmers' Association

In the 1990s, urban pig farmers in Porto Alegre used to collect the city's unsorted garbage and sort it at their homes, separating out the organic matter to feed their pigs. However, these practices were harmful to the environment. To solve this problem, the Municipal Department of Urban Sanitation (DMLU) implemented a project whereby organic waste was sorted at the source, and thereafter collected and distributed to producers. In return, the 15 producers involved in the project supplied two day-care centres (200 children) with nonperishable food worth 500 Reales every month. Currently, the organic waste is collected at 35 facilities (mostly hospitals and some company cafeterias) with an average of 7 tonnes/day to feed 1,700 pigs. The DMLU is responsible for the collection and transportation of the waste to a distribution centre, located at the house of one of the pig farmers. At the start of the project, the 15 producers were not organised in an association. They decided to form the Association of Pig Farmers of the Southern Zone to be eligible to submit an application to the Participatory Budget. In 1996, they applied for and obtained from the Thematic Economic Development Committee funding to purchase a machine to crush and sterilise organic waste. This year, the members plan to apply for funding to the PB to construct an agro-industrial facility to slaughter the animals and process the meat.

Agro-industry within a tourism project

The rural community association of Belem Velho is developing an agricultural tourism project that includes treks to nearby areas, visits to farms, etc. The members wish to process local products and sell them to the tourists. In 2002, they applied for and obtained from the Participatory Budget's Thematic Economic Development Committee 10,000 Reales for the construction of an agro-industrial facility. Either this year or the next, they hope to apply for more credit to build shops within the association's facility in order to sell local products.

Reflections

In Latin America, since the first PB in Porto Alegre in 1989, there is an exponential increase in the number of local governments undertaking PB. In 2005, more than 1400 local governments have worked with PB, most of them located in Peru where a national law enforces local governments to define their budget in a participatory manner.

PBs in LA are diverse in terms of the budget allocated, the level and forms of citizen's participation and the methodologies used (Cabannes, 2004). For example, the methodology used in Porto Alegre induces the selection of paving, sanitation, health, and education projects in regional committees, while urban Agricultural projects can be financed only through the Thematic Economic Development Committee. In Peru, the PB methodology used facilitates the selection of various local economic development projects in territorial assemblies. This methodology facilitates the funding of agricultural projects such as small agro-industries (producing cheese, cacao), food security projects, agricultural cooperatives or fish farming.

Urban farmers have to be organised and be part of an association in order to obtain funds through the Participatory Budget. As the number of representatives from the same association in meetings and assemblies to apply and advocate for their requests increase, the chances of succeeding also increases. It is evident that the likelihood of getting funds provides a significant incentive for farmers to join forces (Coopeixe, Pig Farmers' Association) or to strengthen their organisation (Casa do Mel). During the meetings where the prioritisation of investments is discussed, arguments used by farmers in submitting their requests are always focused on social benefits and gains for their communities.

Farming activities supported by the Participatory Budget in Porto Alegre are diverse and the granted funds range between 10,000 and 350,000 Reales. In the cases mentioned, the Participatory Budget was the only way for producers to obtain funds for their activity. In the case of Coopeixe, the PB allowed them to build the infrastructure, without which the cooperative could never have existed.

Urban farmers obtain funds through the Participatory Budget to support production (machinery and materials), supply and processing (infrastructure and equipment for agro-industries). They are also considering applying for funds to support commercialisation (shops).

The participation of farmers and fishermen in the Participatory Budget opens communication channels with the municipal government, which allow for other types of collaboration (sales points, service provision for municipal events, possibility to profit from complementary training). In some cases, members of organisations provide social services in return.

Notes

1 For informaation on the participatory budget, see: www.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/op

2 In March 2003, 3.35 Reales was US$1.

References

Cabannes, Y. (2004) Respuestas a 72 preguntas frecuentes sobres Presupuestos Participativos Municipales. Campaña Mundial Sobre Gobernanza Urbana, UN-HABITAT.

EMATER Empresa de Assistencia Tecnica e Extensao Rural do Estado

IBGE, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estadística

SMIC, Secretaria Municipal da Produção, Indústria e Comércio

Resources

Micro-credit and investment for urban agriculture/Microcrédito e inversión para la agricultura urbana.

Working paper/Cuaderno de Trabajo 123, UMP-PGU, IDRC, IPES, CEPESIU, 2003, Quito-Ecuador In 2002-2003, a systematic survey and evaluation of significant and diverse modalities of credit and investment provision to urban agriculture was implemented and co-ordinated by UN-Habitat through its Urban Economy and Finance Branch (Nairobi, Kenya), its Urban Management Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean (UMP-LAC), its Regional Anchoring Institution IPES- Promotion of Sustainable Development as well as the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The project identified, typified and analysed 13 experiences (case studies) in different cities of Latin America (3), Africa (4), Asia (3) and Europe (3). A comparative analysis of the case studies was included in a synthesis paper, elaborated by IPES and UMP-LAC in cooperation with the Centre for the Promotion of and Employment in the Urban Informal Sector (CEPESIU -Ecuador). The document is available in both English and Spanish.

RUAF, "Financing Urban Agriculture", Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 9, April, 2003, Leusden, the Netherlands
The above-mentioned initiative was further supported with additional cases by RUAF. Fifteen of these cases were incorporated in issue 9 of the UA-Magazine, which can be downloaded from www.ruaf.org.

Learning From Clients: Assessment tools for microfinance practitioners Nelson, C and Garber, C (eds, with contributions from B MkNelly, E Edgcomb, G Gaile, K Lippold, N Horn and B Beard). 2001. The SEEP Network (The Small Enterprise Education and Promotion Network). Management Systems International, Washington, D.C. 341 pp. (available in English, French and Spanish). Download:
www.microfinancegateway.org
An in-depth process of consultation and field testing, reflection, and improvement has gone into this manual. The process was led by a core team of the SEEP Network – a private voluntary organisation (PVO) of practitioners. It had supplementary guidance of AIMS researchers and USAID, and it engaged NGO practitioners of micro-finance (in six sites around the world) as testers, trainees, and early users. The document that has emerged out of this pool of diverse experience and skills is one that describes several critical advances in the practice of mid-range
impact assessment.

CD-Rom International Panel on Credit and Investment for Urban Agriculture (English and Spanish) An international panel on credit and investment for urban agriculture was organised during the 2004 World Urban Forum by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), IPES-Promotion of Sustainable Development and the Urban Management Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean (UMP-LAC), with support of ETC-RUAF and the International Centre on Urban Management (CIGU). Experts in urban and financial issues, researchers, and decision-makers shared information and experiences about innovative forms of UA financing. The views of international agencies and local actors about public financing of urban agriculture, micro-credit systems, and farmers cooperatives were presented. The presentations made by this panel, accompanying background papers, lessons learned and the elaborated action agenda have all been put together on a CD-ROM. The CD-ROM is available in English and Spanish.

www.uncdf.org/english/microfinance/index.html
The United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), through its micro finance programmes, supports a variety of initiatives that facilitate the provision of financial services to the poor. A joint unit of UNDP and UNCDF established in 1997, called the Special Unit for Microfinance (SUM), is now fully integrated into UNCDF, and is considered the lead technical unit on all matters pertaining to micro-finance in the UNDP Group.

www.microfinancegateway.org
The Microfinance Gateway is a public forum for the micro-finance industry at large that offers a wealth of tailored services for micro-finance professionals, including resource centres on specific topics in microfinance, a searchable library of electronic documents, a consultant database, a jobs listing service, and specialised discussion groups.

www.fao.org/ag/ags/agsm/biblio.htm
These pages of the FAO web site allows access to the Bibliography on Agricultural Credit and Rural Savings, Second Series No. 10 prepared by the FAO Rural Finance Group, in collaboration with the Department of Agricultural Economics at The Ohio State University (OSU), USA.

www.gdrc.org/icm/icm-bibliography.html
This library on micro-credit of the Global Development Research Centre contains 810 entries. It gives you categories such as Newsletters on Micro Finance, Islamic Banking and the Urban Informal Sector. Also of interest is the page http://www.gdrc.org/uem/index.html on Urban Environmental Management.

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 5
Gendering the Urban Agriculture Agenda

Urban agriculture has been embraced and promoted by the international development community as a means for urban dwellers to achieve sustainable livelihoods and socio-economic advancement. Many low-income households who farm in the cities gain a more consistent source of food and better nutrition. They can also earn or free up cash for non-food items. Advocacy for urban agriculture was initially focused on the policy agenda, but has moved recently into the realm of municipal development. Now that municipal authorities increasingly recognise this pivotal activity, it is easier for urban agriculture practitioners to integrate it into planning and decision-making mechanisms at the city level. This chapter seeks to make clear why this trajectory must be conceptualised along gender lines, since gender dynamics are central to the form, function, organisation and structure of urban farming.

Gendering the Urban Agriculture Agenda1

Alice J. Hovorka
Diana Lee-Smith

Gendered Urban Agriculture

Agendered perspective on urban food security is essential in understanding and explaining dynamics that shape the production and marketing of foodstuffs in and around urban centres. Without exploring the question of what role do women as distinct from men play in feeding cities, researchers, planners, and policymakers risk leaving unaddressed key local and structural issues and processes that shape gender inequities and hinder food supply at multiple scales. Such exploration necessarily counters the invisibility of specifically women's work in conceptualisations of food supply and security that assume food production and trade to be part of women's automatic and everyday duties, related to the domestic sphere, and therefore not important in economic or political spheres.

Women's role in food security

Training of women on milking and milk handling at ILRI Debre Zeit Research Station

There is a wide consensus that women cook and, in most cases, prepare food. Women also tend to shop or procure the food for eating in the home, which in some cases means growing it in kitchen gardens or keeping small livestock for milk and eggs, for example. In other cases, it means saving some food from produce that they sell as traders. It can also mean that, when drought or economic crisis hits, women feel the pinch most, as they have to find some way to provide for their families, and this can lead them to organise collectively. Regional examples can be cited. The "glass of milk" programme where Latin American women organised to address urban hunger and disease highlights social movements and organisations that have emerged from this association of women and food supply in Latin America. The same applies to Asia, for example, the domestic stove improvement programmes in India (Barrig, 1991; Sarin, 1991). Thus in most societies, even where little or no food is produced within the household, women may be major actors in facilitating domestic food supply because of what Tripp calls the "moral economy" within which their work is located (Tripp, 1997).

The strong association of women with subsistence production and the implications for economic development has been recognised for more than thirty years (Boserup 1970). Numerous academic studies have addressed this issue regarding specifically urban areas, including a special issue of the journal Environment and Urbanization in 1991 and the International Research Seminar on Gender, Urbanisation and Environment held in 1994 (Lee-Smith, 1994). It is important to recognise the distinction of women's association with domestic food supply, as opposed to men's roles in households as income earners or "breadwinners" when collecting and analysing data on women's roles in food production, including in urban agriculture.

Historical overview

Early research documents women's participation in food production and trade in urban areas, as well as the policy-based impediments to their role in enhancing urban food supply and security. Guyer (1987b) found that, in 1888–1912, women farmers would bring the small surplus they generated from family food production for sale in the town of Yaoundé. Mitullah (1991) describes something similar in early colonial Nairobi, and this is much more extensively treated in Robertson's (1997) work on men, women and trade in Nairobi. By the 1920s and 30s, the colonial division of labour meant men were working as urban or plantation labourers, whereas it was generally women who were farming and bringing in the urban food supply. In Dar-es-Salaam, Bryceson (1987) found urban wage-workers were fed by their wives in the 1930s. In Yaoundé, male chiefs took advantage of this division of labour by "marrying" hundreds of "wives" who constituted unpaid work crews to supply urban food and profits for them (Guyer, 1987b). After independence in the 1960s and early 70s, rural women were both farming and trading to bring food to the city of Yaoundé.

In Kano, Nigeria, Hausa women's food supply remained outside the purview of policy (and official attention) whereas Hausa men's production and sale of staples on a small scale brought them into conflict and competition with large-scale traders and the authorities (Watts 1987). Studies of post independence food supply in both West and East Africa document how food production policies failed to take into account this gender division of labour and actively promoted men as opposed to women farmers (Guyer, 1987; Tripp, 1997). In the 1970s in Yaoundé, women continued to grow food for their families and sell the surplus, though this remained outside the purview of national food and agriculture policy. The national policy focus on rural agriculture may have actually increased urban agriculture production in Dar-es-Salaam according to Tripp (1997). In Dar-es-Salaam, where the women were bringing in food for the men in the early colonial city, only seven percent of labourers had farm plots in 1950. By 1974, when official food supply and distribution systems were in operation, 70 percent of households in an urban low-income settlement had urban agriculture plots, and in 1980 this had increased to 80 percent, with two thirds of the farmers being women. This is attributed to the malfunctioning of the official schemes, which failed to match supply and demand (Tripp, 1997).

Men tend to have access to greater amounts of resources

A little-known but extensive study in periurban Kumasi, Ghana, raises interesting questions about the relationship between gender, land rights and food production (Kasanga 2001). In examining how women have lost out in the control of land in the urbanisation process, even where matrilineal inheritance of land is the norm, Kasanga states that:

"There are more women farmers than male farmers in the peri-urban villages. They are also more likely to farm on family lands using a low-input bush-fallow system to grow food crops. These farmers are vulnerable to losing their farms to residential development. They are also constrained by a cycle of low productivity from investing in further farm development." (Kasanga 2001).

Clearly, the relationship between women's association with providing food for the family as opposed to men's association with growing cash crops, encouraged by official policy and social norms, has led not only to the current data about the prevalence of men in urban farming in Kumasi, but also to the disempowerment of women in a society that traditionally empowered them.

An examination of the role of women as food traders into and within towns reveals a complementary picture, showing how normative expectations of the role of women intertwine with food policies that systematically ignore that role or, even worse, undermine the activities of women food traders or subject them to harassment. In this respect, there is no difference between East and West Africa. Although the association of women with small-scale food trading is reportedly stronger in West Africa, where it is unusual to find men as food market traders, the term "market women" is common throughout the continent. In Kenya she is the "mama mboga" (mother vegetables), while in Dar-es-Salaam the term "mama ntilie" – meaning "mother put food on the table" – means food selling from temporary kiosks in the informal sector. It is recorded that women formed the majority of vegetable market and street-food traders in several cities including Accra, Addis Ababa, Kampala, Lusaka and Nairobi (Mitullah, 1991; Tripp 1997). Robertson has done detailed historical studies of the origins and development of this trading by women in Accra, Ghana and Nairobi, Kenya (Robertson 1990, 1997).

In 1973, women formed the bulk of food producers and traders for the urban market of Yaoundé. As a form of income and employment, food trading was the main occupation of urban women, and women formed 89 percent of traders, half of them combining trading with food production in "rural" areas. Presumably, this would include periurban or even urban production, since 45 percent of Yaoundé's food came from the immediate hinterland. These women transported their produce by "head-loading" and they owned no vehicles. In 1968 women were accused of being responsible for rises in food prices and in 1972 market price controls were introduced that subjected women traders to harsh punishments. The women were reported to think high-class people wanted merely to exploit them, but they had no political voice. Those who did have a voice claimed women have "an obligation to feed us" and created a "disloyal competition" to trading through the official channels. Food production was supposed to be done by men farmers in rural areas, and trade though the unsuccessful MIDEVIV initiative (Guyer, 1987b).

In Dar-es-Salaam, women were not food traders in the 1930s, according to documentary sources, merely bringing food for their families but, by the 1980s, 69 percent of adult women were self-employed traders, and only nine percent were in wage employment. It is worth noting the breakdown, 50 percent of married women being self-employed and only three percent in wage employment. Women were the major players in the explosive growth of the informal sector of the economy, and they in fact produced in and around mainly in food, specifically vegetables, fruit and cooked foods. Much of the food was in fact produced in an around the city, with "markets for selling urban produce" being categorised as one of four main activities of the "parallel markets" identified at the time. This must be contrasted with the assumptions, at the time of liberalisation of markets in the 1990s that urban food was coming from rural areas (Tripp, 1997).

Milk marketing in Ethiopia

As in Yaoundé, but a decade later, there was much harassment of women traders in Dar-es-Salaam, especially the poorest, who were classed as "economic saboteurs" in the early 1980s. Women were rounded up and taken to detention centres. They had to produce certificates of employment or marriage – the assumption being that women must be dependants of employed men. All this ran counter to the facts documented by researchers that women formed the majority of entrepreneurs and earned higher incomes than employed men.

An urban dairy farmer in Addis Ababa

Many married women were supporting their households, as men's wages were very low (Tripp, 1997; Tibaijuka, 1988). The policy was clearly counter-productive and, by 1986, a statement was released that informal sector traders should "come out of hiding" – an ironic comment no doubt since it referred to 95 percent of the city's population. By the mid 90s, the policy climate had changed, with support for the informal sector and women traders being established. By this time, women had set up organisations and networks, giving them some greater political cloud. However, formal plans and policies still fail to take account of the way women's businesses are run, as part of their work in household maintenance and not simply as profit-making enterprises. Women's work continues to be disadvantaged (Tripp, 1997).

Claire Robertson's studies of women food traders in Accra in West Africa and Nairobi in East Africa contain meticulous ethnographic and historical information on how such patterns of behaviour, power and control operated. She focuses on the perceptions and reactions of the women themselves, and traces how they have responded by organising as collectives and by finding an increasing political voice (Robertson 1990, 1997).

Contemporary trends

Contemporary research on gender and urban agriculture documents clear gender dynamics in food production and trade in and around cities. There is now quite extensive case-study data on the prevalence of women as urban farmers in East and Southern Africa whereas, in West Africa, more men than women are found in urban agriculture as a rule. Thus, women predominate among urban farmers in Uganda, Kenya and Namibia, for example, whereas men predominate in Ghana and Nigeria (Obuobie et al., 2004; Kessler et al., 2004). Studies from Port Harcourt, Nigeria, and Senegal, however, note that women predominate as agricultural labourers and men as owners of horticultural enterprises (Oruwari, et al. 2004).

In Latin America, the pattern appears equally diverse, with women forming the majority of urban farmers in Rosario, Argentina (where emergency strategies in the face of economic crisis prevail) and men in Lima, Peru (where men are traditionally the cultivators). However, as articles in the issue of the Urban Agriculture Magazine devoted to Gender and Urban Agriculture show, things are changing in Lima as part of ongoing interventions and organised action by women themselves (Hetterschijt, et al. 2004). Little information is available from Asian cases, but the study from Nepal in the above-mentioned issue indicates periurban farming in Nepal is a family activity, with men and women playing different roles, but men controlling the land and the surplus production. The same appears true in Kolkata, India, where there is again a division between women's unpaid work and men's (assumed) role as income earners (Mukherjee et al., 2004; Sapkota, 2004).

Generally speaking, while both men and women are active participants in urban farming, the nature and extent of their participation varies in different contexts. The predominance of women urban farmers in many parts of Africa, for example, is ascribed to the fact that women still bear the main responsibility for household sustenance and well-being. Women also tend to have lower educational status than men and therefore more difficulties in finding formal wage employment (Hovorka 2005). At the same time, the predominance of men urban farmers in many parts of Asia is attributed to the commercial nature of agriculture in and around cities. Men and women may differ strongly in their preferences and priorities related to their main roles and responsibilities, for example regarding production goals (enough food for consumption versus surplus products to sell at the market), preferred location of plots (women with young children often prefer to work close to the home), preferred mode of production (single versus multiple cropping) etc. (Wilbers et al., 2004). Men and women also have different responsibilities related to production and reproduction, depending on socio-economic and cultural circumstances. This division of labour relates to the types of tasks assigned associated with certain crops (eg. cash crops or larger livestock versus food crops and smaller animals) and objective of cultivation (eg. subsistence versus income generation). Beyond actual cultivation, men and women farmers participate in governance, local politics, and community groups, linking social activism with food security issues (Wilbers et al., 2004).

Gender dynamics also influence access and control over productive resources (including land, credit, labour and information), as well as access to and control over the benefits of production. While both women and men face constraints regarding access to land, women are often further disadvantaged because they traditionally have less access to and control over land than men. Men tend to have the first choice of any available vacant plots of land, which leaves women with low-quality, less secure plots of land, or plots that are located far from their homes. Much time and effort must then be devoted to travel, which proves to be a significant constraint for women, especially the elderly or those with young children. Farming in remote and insecure places can also increase the risk for women farmers (Wilbers, et al. 2004). Thus, it is important to acknowledge that increasing access to land as such may not solve the problem of inequitable access to urban land between women and men (Hovorka 1998). There is often also inequitable access between men and women regarding other agricultural inputs, labour, and information. Men and women differ with regard to their knowledge of, for example, the husbandry of certain crops and animals, the application of certain cultural practices and the use of certain technologies. Limited information on and exposure to the use of modern inputs and technologies may also be the result of limited access to training courses offered by institutions or NGOs. The fact that women are less likely to benefit from research or extension services that fail to consider gender-specific differences regarding methods of plant production, crop species and use of compost, manure and fertiliser also plays an important role (Wilbers 2004).

Both men and women view the sector as a means of economic or socio-cultural empowerment

Gendered access and control over productive resources are rooted in socio-economic conditions and legal arrangements whereby women are often disadvantaged through institutionalised gender inequities related to access to capital, education, and off-farm employment opportunities, as well as laws governing inheritance and land transfer. Moreover, women often have rights to use renewable products (for example, harvesting leaves from trees), while men have rights of consumptive use (harvesting the tree itself). Decision-making patterns are also highly gendered on account of differences in men's and women's ability to exert power and control within the household, community and municipality. Beyond recognising such gendered experiences, access to resources and decision-making capacities, it is important to design an urban agriculture agenda that has gender needs at its core. As urban food markets evolve, women often continue to be disadvantaged.

Considerable research, policy and advocacy initiatives are needed to ensure women are able to compete on an equal basis with men in urban and periurban food markets (Mitullah, 1991, Robertson 1997, Purushothaman et al., 2004). To this end, key elements of a gendered sustainable urban development agenda are outlined in the section below.

Towards Gendered Sustainable Urban Development

As an emerging development strategy, the urban agriculture agenda is well poised to accommodate just and equitable guidelines for addressing the needs and interests of both men and women. But this can happen only when there is clarity about what gender means and how to "do it". As recently noted in the UNDP (2003) report on gender mainstreaming, nowhere is the gap between stated intentions and operational reality as wide as it has been in the promotion of equality between men and women. While organisations and institutions continue to grapple with the incorporation of gender dynamics, the needs and priorities of one half of humankind have yet to make it to the centre of the development agenda. Emerging largely in the 1990s, the Gender in Development (GID) approach aims to challenge the dominant and widely held development directions shaping choices and practices amongst the international community. It largely focuses on the analysis of different roles of men and women, and their respective access to and control over resources and decision-making (UNDP, 2003). This approach is broader than the original focus on Women in Development (WID) that tended to isolate women's interests without considering the power relations and dynamics between men and women in the development process. Beyond embracing this approach, achieving a gendered sustainable urban development agenda requires a concerted effort around five elements of mainstreaming, namely conceptual clarity, identifying practical and strategic needs, political will and commitment, capacity building and resource allocation, and scientific research.

Women are forced to take up a productive role

The first element of a gendered sustainable urban development agenda is conceptual clarity. It is difficult to find a group of development practitioners other than "gender experts" with a shared understanding of what gender mainstreaming actually is and how it is done (UNDP, 2003). Adding to the confusion is the over- or mis-use of the term "gender" in policy documents and strategic frameworks, which muddles the conceptualisation of such an approach. Gender can be defined as the socio-cultural construction of roles and relationships between men and women. Gender analysis involves the examination of their roles, responsibilities and social status in relation to local cultural perceptions of masculinity and femininity that delineate access to opportunities and resources in a particular context (Hovorka, 1998). Gender mainstreaming means identifying gaps via gender-disaggregated data, developing strategies to close those gaps, putting resources into implementing the strategies, monitoring the implementation, and holding individuals and institutions accountable for the results (UNDP 2003). A gendered sustainable urban development agenda recognises that concrete, positive structural change can emerge only if both men and women make concerted efforts to addressing gender inequities. Unfortunately, the concept of gender has come to be widely simplified to be just another word for women, instead of denoting a human rights based approach.

The second element is the clear articulation of practical and strategic needs of men and women that are appropriate to the context at hand. According to Moser (1989), practical needs are "immediate needs related to the inadequacy of [people's] living conditions, such as the supply of food, water, health care and employment". Satisfying them implies no change in gender relations. Strategic needs "are related to the division of labour, power and control by the genders, and can include issues such as legal rights, eradication of household violence, equal wages". Satisfying them helps men and women achieve greater equality and bring about shifts in existing roles. Practical and strategic needs are interrelated, and involvement in urban agriculture can contribute to satisfying both (Hovorka forthcoming, Wilbers et al. 2004). Ideally, planning around urban agriculture should address gender issues as well as women's issues in two ways: first, by helping women to cope with their immediate, and often marginalised, circumstances; and second, by helping women achieve positive, structural change in their lives (Hovorka forthcoming). Identifying the type and scale of intervention (be it through programmes, planning or policies) should rely on a solid understanding of the local context and structural factors that delineate opportunities and constraints for individual producers. Short-term and localised interventions may involve small lines-of-credit or extension services, while longer-term and institutional interventions may require more substantial changes to legal frameworks, land allocations and social norms that often marginalise women relative to men (Hovorka forthcoming).

The third element is political will and commitment amongst key stakeholders at all scales. Concepts and methods become meaningful and applicable only if and when the organisations and institutions promoting them actually support them. This means that gender mainstreaming must be a stated organisational goal all the way through the system. Leadership is key: without senior management support, it is difficult (even impossible) to achieve results (UNDP, 2003). Gender mainstreaming requires a concerted effort amongst researchers, practitioners and decision makers in order to strengthen linkages between research, programming and policy/planning initiatives around urban agriculture. Women's groups and their collective practices related to urban farming could be promoted and involved in the community processes so that the women will be recognised as social and political actors, thus converting urban farming into a citizen's concern.

Many tasks outside the farm are performed by the women

The fourth element is capacity building and resources allocation to achieve gender mainstreaming and successful monitoring and evaluation. Logistical support and material requirements are essential for gender mainstreaming at municipal, regional, national and international levels. In general, building capacity for gender mainstreaming has emerged as a particularly elusive goal in development cooperation, and initiatives have constantly faced a lack of necessary skills, inadequate resources, and weak institutions. Training is fairly general for civil servants – participants are rarely asked to look beyond the difference between sex and gender, the differing roles of (wo)men, and their own prejudices and stereotyping practices. Even those who emerge from such training convinced and committed after are unsure how to translate their convictions into daily work, particularly in the more specialised sectors that seem remote from gender concerns (UNDP, 2003). Gender mainstreaming demands expertise, which in turn requires resources, and until organisations back up their gender promises with money, inaction will continue. Such operational challenges often stem from the fact that, as the quintessential "cross-cutting" issue in development, gender is rendered institutionally homeless. By making gender everybody's job, it can easily become nobody's job. Budget implications are significant, given that cross-cutting issues seldom sit atop dedicated pots of money for hiring staff and experts, and agenda pushing is easier done if money is attached to political will (UNDP, 2003). There is also need to develop ways to measure success in mainstreaming. At the moment, it is too easy to sprinkle the necessary references to women, gender, participation and equality through documents and then claim to have "done gender mainstreaming". The shift to results-based management provides way to address this problem (UNDP, 2003).

The fifth element is continued access to rigorous and insightful scientific research on gender dynamics. Creating a foundation for gender mainstreaming around urban agriculture requires a solid research base, which explores conceptual issues and provides empirical evidence of men and women's differential and often inequitable experiences with food cultivation and livestock rearing in different cities around the world. Research can reveal these differences, identify the mechanisms that often keep women in a disadvantaged position, and establish the significance of urban farming in people's everyday lives. Gender research, as detailed in Box 5.1, provides an entry point into such investigations, including gender-disaggregated data collection, interpretation and analysis of results, and allows researchers to uncover the "underlying power relations and structures that create imbalances and inequities between men and women" (Hovorka, 2001). An action-oriented research agenda that incorporates continuous interaction with and feedback to communities is essential in this regard. Theoretical and empirical research on gender and urban agriculture provide a springboard for programming, planning and policy initiatives, whereby researchers can identify the practical and strategic needs of men and women in order to formulate action plans to support urban agriculture.

Conclusion: Gendered Urban Agriculture Strategies

Marketing of produce at a farmer's market in Rosario

There are numerous examples of urban agriculture strategies that address and incorporate, to a greater or lesser degree, the above-detailed elements of a gendered sustainable urban development agenda (see for example, cases in the Urban Agriculture Magazine No. 6 and No. 12). The three case studies featured here include Peru's Resources for Development Association, which promotes communal gardens through a GID approach; India's collaborative government-NGO effort, which promotes increased market access together with increased entrepreneurial skills development, and Senegal's GIE Bokk Jon cooperative movement, which promotes community-based integrated food production systems. Each demonstrates ways in which gender issues are being incorporated into urban agriculture projects.

The case studies highlight the fact that gender is conceptualised as primarily "women-focused", bringing attention to women's disadvantaged circumstances compared to their male counterparts. The Peruvian case goes beyond this conceptual focus to illustrate the change in gender relations and redistribution of power between men and women that comes about as a result of supporting and encouraging urban agriculture projects. The distinction between practical and strategic gender needs is central to all of the cases, best illustrated in the Senegalese case where local cooperatives are improving women's immediate circumstances, as well as facilitating empowerment and self-fulfilment in the women themselves, and have been paired with a recently passed law addressing equal access to land. This relates directly to the element of political will and commitment so essential in establishing a gendered sustainable urban development agenda. Both the Sengalese Government and local authorities in Peru are lending legitimacy to urban farming activities, thus facilitating greater success of local initiatives. Capacity building and resource provision is a key element of all of the case studies, largely focused on the local community level, whereby women's empowerment is seen as a two-tiered strategy comprised of both skills training and increased access to capital and infrastructure. Finally, both the Peruvian and Indian cases illustrate the importance of research in documenting and understanding local gender circumstances and dynamics prior to establishing a plan for action.

It is important to recognise that urban agriculture projects and related policies can have differential impacts on men and women, depending on the degree to which gender has been taken into account during design and implementation. It is also necessary to recognise gendered structural inequities, which manifest themselves in urban agriculture dynamics and reinforce social exclusion, particularly of women.

The list of problems in mainstreaming, understanding and recognising gender dynamics is extensive, ranging from logistical issues associated with gender analysis capacity and allocation of sufficient resources, to more ideological constraints, including strong political commitment, explicit targeting goals for mainstream areas, and development of accountability mechanisms (UNDP, 2003). A significant challenge to a gendered sustainable urban development agenda lies in recognising the ideological barrier in gender mainstreaming that may be summarised in the differences between integrationist and transformative approaches. Many development agencies have emphasised efficiency and opted for the more politically acceptable integrationist approach, seeking to bring women and gender concerns into existing policies and programmes and focusing on adopting existing institutional procedures. But the results of this integrationist approach have yet to transform the mainstream or redefine men's and women's positions within it. These efforts have fallen short of addressing the fundamental legal, economic, political, and social factors that underlie gender differences and inequalities.

A transformative approach to gender in development addresses the issue of power head-on, whereby ending women's subordination is viewed as more than a matter of reallocating economic resources but also involves redistributing power. This approach is fundamentally and explicitly rooted in the protection and promotion of rights, equality and social inclusion. The three cases highlighted in this chapter demonstrate the positive pathway on which a gendered agenda may proceed through support and encouragement of farming in the cities. Ultimately, gender mainstreaming around urban agriculture programming, planning and policy requires having emancipation (or transformation) as an inherent goal.

References

Anosike, Vide & Fasona, Mayowa. 2004. Gender dimensions of urban commercial farming in Lagos, Nigeria. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 27–28.

Ba Diao, Maty. 2004. Women and periurban agriculture in the Niayes zone of Senegal. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 23–24.

Barrig, Maruja. 1991. Women and Development in Peru: old models, new actors. Environment and Urbanization 3 (2):66-70

Boserup, Esther. 1970. Women's role in economic development. Earthscan, London.

Bryceson, Deborah Fahy. 1987. A century of food supply in Dar-es-Salaam. In: Guyer, Jane (ed.), Feeding African cities: studies in regional history (Manchester University Press).

Dima, S.J. & Ogunmokun A.A. 2004. Urban and periurban agriculture in Namibia. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 36–37.

Environment and Urbanization. 1991. Women in environment and urbanization: strategies for action and the potential for change, special issue edited by Diana Lee-Smith and Ann Schlyter, 3(2).

Guyer, Jane (ed.). 1987. Feeding African cities: studies in regional history. Manchester University Press.

Guyer, Jane. 1987b. Feeding Yaounde, capital of Cameroun. In: Guyer, Jane (ed.), Feeding African cities: studies in regional history (Manchester University Press), 118

Hetterschijt, Tasso. 2004. Our daily realities: urban organic homegardens in Lima, Peru. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 10–11.

Hovorka, Alice J. 2006. Urban agriculture: addressing practical and strategic gender needs. Development in Practice 16(2):

Hovorka, Alice J. 2005. The (re)production of gendered positionality in Botswana's commercial urban agriculture sector. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(2):294-313

Hovorka, Alice J. 2001. Gender considerations for urban agriculture research. Urban Agriculture Magazine 5: 7-9

Hovorka, Alice J. 1998. Gender resources for development research and programming in urban agriculture. Cities Feeding People Series, Report No.26. Ottawa: IDRC.

Kasanga, Kasim. 2001. Peri-urban Kumasi, Ghana: urbanization, land markets, and gender insecurity under matrilineal property rights. In: Ishani, Zarina & Lamba, Davinder (eds), Emerging African perspectives on gender in urbanization: African research on gender, urbanization and environment (Mazingira Institute, Nairobi), 66-91

Kessler, Angelika; Streiffeler, Friedheim & Obuobie, Emmanuel. 2004. Women in urban agriculture in West Africa. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 16–17.

Lee-Smith, Diana (ed.). 1994. Gender, urbanization and environment: a research and policy agenda. Mazingira Institute, Nairobi.

Lee-Smith, Diana. 2004. Women feeding cities: re-focusing the research agenda. Keynote address at meeting organised by Urban Harvest and RUAF on Gender and Urban Agriculture in Accra, Ghana, 20–23 September 2004.

Mascarenhas, Ophelia. 1999. Kigogo and Hananasif in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania,: gender aspects of urbanization and natural resource management. In: Lee-Smith, Diana (ed.), Women managing resources: African research on gender, urbanization and environment (Mazingira Institute, Nairobi), 52-79

Merzthal, Gunther. 2004. Urban agriculture in Rosario: an opportunity for gender equality. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 8–9.

Mitullah, Winnie. 1991. Hawking as a survival strategy for the urban poor in Nairobi: the case of women. Environment and Urbanization 3(2):13-22

Mukherjee, Madhumita; Banerjee, Rajarshi; Datta, Arindam; Sen, Soma & Chatterjee, Basundhara. 2004. Women fishers in periurban Kolkata. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 40.

Nabulo, Grace; Nasinyama, George; Lee-Smith, Diana & Cole, Donald. 2004. Gender analysis of urban agriculture in Kampala, Uganda. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 32–33.

Obuobie, Emmanuel; Drechsel, Pay & Danso, George. 2004. Gender in open-space irrigated urban vegetable farming in Ghana. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 13–15.

Oruwari, Yomi & Jev, Margaret. 2004. Integration of gender in municipal policies in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 29.

Purushothaman, Sangeetha; Subhas, M.S. & Nagrecha, Mitali. 2004. Building women's capacities to access markets in the periurban interface: the hardware and software required. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 20–22.

Robertson, Claire. 1990. Sharing the same bowl. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Robertson, Claire. 1997. Trouble showed the way: women, men and trade in the Nairobi area 1890–1990. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Sapkota, Kanhalya. 2004. Gender perspectives on periurban agriculture in Nepal. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 38–39.

Sarin, Madhu. 1991. Improved stoves, women and domestic energy. Environment and Urbanization 3(2): 51-56

Tripp, Aili Mari. 1997. Changing the rules: the politics of liberalization and the urban informal economy in Tanzania. University of California Press.

UNDP. 2003. Transforming the mainstream. New York: United Nations Development Program.

Watts, Michael. 1987. Brittle trade: a political economy of food supply in Kano. In: Guyer, Jane (ed.), Feeding African cities: studies in regional history (Manchester University Press), 228

Wilbers, Joanna. 2004. Urban agriculture and gender: some key issues. Unpublished Discussion Paper 1, RUAF, Leusden, Netherlands.

Wilbers, Joanna; Alice Hovorka & van Veenhuizen, René. 2004. Editorial: gender and urban agriculture. Urban Agriculture Magazine 12: 1–5.

India's Collaborative Market Access Initiative

Sangeetha Purushothaman
M.S. Subhas
Mitali Nagrecha

In the periurban interface, immense changes in livelihoods and land use occur. Expansion of cities led by globalisation and privatisation poses risks for existing livelihoods as well as opportunities for new livelihoods that make use of urban employment and markets. In a participatory planning initiative undertaken in 2000 with the twin goals of natural resource management and livelihood enhancement in mind, communities in six villages in the periurban interface of Hubli-Dharwad, India, drew up action plans. One finding was that that none of the plans or strategies of the government and NGOs really worked for the poor (Purushothaman & Purohit, 2002). Separate meetings with landless men and women confirmed this gap in the action plans. Landless women were more tied to the villages on account of their reproductive responsibilities and fewer acceptable options for mobility compared to landless men, who have more mobility.

Peri-urban women producers sell their produce in an urban market in Hubli-Dharwad

This initiative was followed by meetings with poor women's sanghas (groups) to plan more appropriate strategies. These meetings revealed that previous income-generation efforts failed because markets have changed and products made by the women's groups were now obsolete. Unfortunately for potters, plastic pots had flooded the market, and for basket weavers rubber baskets now had replaced bamboo-woven baskets, and so on. Even those who produced food products, such as pickles, were disadvantaged by companies that produced pickles or other products at much lower rates and in more attractive packaging and that used advertising and brand names to corner the market successfully. To create new options for the poor to access markets, the government and NGOs started several initiatives, two of which are examined below.

The Hardware: The Farmers' Market

A raythere santhe or farmers' market was recently initiated by local government in Karnataka based on the success of similar initiatives in Punjab (Apni Mandi), Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu. The farmers' market is conceived of as a forum for farmers to sell their produce directly to the consumer without middlemen. The local government in Hubli-Dharwad wanted a case study conducted to understand the barriers to success faced by the rayethra santha, since the state government intended to upscale this initiative state-wide to all districts in Karnataka. Thus a rapid appraisal was conducted in November 2003, including interviews with farmers who had been issued identity cards to use the raythere santhe in Hubli Dharwad and Bangalore.

For participating periurban farmers, there are clear advantages, like a market space, a clean environment and a fair rate, as prices are regulated to be "reasonable". However, there are a number of points to improve upon. In the Hubli market, only 20 of the 80 booths were occupied on average. There were enough customers but farmers still sold most of their produce in the mornings to middlemen. In regular markets, farmers only spend their mornings selling to middlemen (most farmers need to get back to work on their farms). Barriers included inadequate facilities in terms of washroom and childcare facilities and inadequate bus services to the farmers' market, which meant that farmers were unable to transport goods.

Three landless periurban women from Mugad being trained in MOVE to become entrepreneurs

The raythere santhe is supposed to be attractive to customers because rates are lower than those at the regular market. However, it was found that prices were not consistently lower. Every morning officials of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), together with farmers, should set rates between the wholesale and retail rates, so as to benefit the consumer but simultaneously make the market unattractive to middlemen. Another finding was that farmers were bringing large quantities of one product, which could not be sold retail, and were thus forced to sell to middlemen. Farmers should be encouraged to diversify production so that they can sell smaller quantities of different products consistently at the raythere santhe at this higher rate, which would simultaneously provide the variety demanded by urban consumers. Finally, not all farmers can engage in direct marketing if it means having to sit at the market from morning to evening. In Madurai, for example, this is not the case. The market starts at 6 or 7 a.m. and all produce is sold by noon. Farmers might have more incentive to sit at the market or have a family member do so if there are more consumers and if they earned a greater profit.

The Software: Capacity Development to Access Markets

In conjunction with the above local government strategy, a new initiative entitled MOVE (Market Oriented Value Enhancement), funded by the Natural Resources Systems Programme of DFID (UK Directorate for International Development), brings together marketing management experts and community-based organisations in Dharwad. Under MOVE, a small group of poor landless periurban women were selected and are being trained in the basics of setting up and running small and micro enterprises to make themselves self-reliant in the free market economy. These women are not fully motivated, and depend on subsidies and doles offered by the government and other agencies; on the other hand, they are unable to face hardships and problems. The project team has attempted to evolve a detailed methodology of converting these zero-level potential entrepreneurs into full-blown entrepreneurs by increasing the motivational levels and providing them with skills to understand the market.

Motivational training is done by the NGOs and is something that only NGOs can do. What motivates a woman may be different from what motivates a the traditional male entrepreneur. Women want to be seen as being able to contribute towards household decision-making, especially financial decision-making, and as leaders who can make decisions in their communities. Mobilisation of women into sanghas is a first step. These women then need to be taught the value of sharing risks and labour, and that unity among women contributes towards building and sustaining communities.

The training on markets is intended to help these women, in part, understand market dynamics in rural, periurban and urban areas, distinguish between qualities of products, enhance their marketing strategies, negotiate with retailers and form direct relationships with consumers. MOVE started only in 2004 and it will take more time before it can fully materialise. Early results show that the participating women became more conscious of prices after visiting different markets where they learned how to negotiate prices. They have also become more confident, have a better understanding of value addition to products (roasting, sprouting of cereals, packaging, etc.) and, with some encouragement, they also came up with new product ideas. Finally, the women and the NGOs working with them now understand the difference between group-based product identification and market-oriented product identification.

New Hardware and Software Needed

Building poor women's capacities to understand markets, mobilising them into groups to deal more effectively with other actors in the market, creating innovative financial instruments, and providing a marketing infrastructure are the most important components needed to facilitate access to markets for women. Government initiatives typically only provide the "hardware", without providing any training to build marketing skills of those using the raythere santhe. While taking the initiative to provide infrastructure, transportation and other facilities, the government activities need to be more tailored to the poor, particularly to women. Government rural credit provision programmes often come to a grinding halt in the periurban areas, the very space where credit is most needed. Access to formal banks and other financial institutions for the poor is declining in the face of the rapid retreat of government programmes, as urbanisation spreads and urban municipalities expand.

In contrast, NGO capacity-building initiatives provide the necessary "software" but often not the hardware. They build people's capacities to understand the market but do not provide the necessary infrastructure or credit. In fact, credit instruments promoted within community-based organisations can be detrimental to production, while extremely beneficial for meeting consumption needs. One major contribution of NGOs, however, is the mobilisation of women producers, which is the building of social capital. There are several successful examples of how women, when mobilised, can negotiate more effectively within the market. It is the combination of the software and hardware that will actually make the best use of the opportunities that the periurban interface and the new markets offer qualities of products, enhance their marketing strategies, negotiate with retailers and form direct relationships with consumers.

Note

1 This article incorporates material from the paper "Women Feeding Cities: Re-focusing the Research Agenda" by Diana Lee-Smith, presented as the Keynote Address at a meeting organized by Urban Harvest and RUAF on Gender and Urban Agriculture in Accra, Ghana, 20–23 September 2004.

References

Fisher, Thomas & Sriram, M.S. 2002. Beyond micro-credit: putting development back into micro-finance. Oxfam, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi.

Subhas, M.S. 2003. What are liberalization and post liberalized markets? Reading paper prepared for Training of Trainers in Building Market Linkages and Business Development Strategies using MOVE, August.

Purushothaman, Sangeetha. 2002. Capacity development of grassroots networks to become effective partners in local governance for poverty eradication: lessons from below, written on behalf of the Huairou Commission. Paper commissioned by The LIFE Global Programme of IDG/BDP/UNDP.

Purushothaman, Sangeetha & Purohit, Simone. 2002. Participatory action planning process: a process document. Submitted to the University of Wales, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Purushothaman, Sangeetha; Rameshwari Varma & Purohit, Simone. 2000. Women's access to and control over financial resources: towards development and redesigning policy. Policy document commissioned by the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Karnataka.

Velayundan, Sanal Kumar. 2003. Rural marketing: targeting the non-urban consumer. Response Books, New Delhi.

Peru's Resources for Development Association

Marta de Olarte

Urban agriculture has steadily increased in the past few decades in metropolitan Lima, largely brought in by rural migrants. These new urban dwellers have maintained their agricultural ways, planting crops and raising domestic animals on a small scale on their home plots. This context led to the Resources for Development Association (REDE) to promote "communal gardens" in the southern cone of Lima beginning in 1994, as a way to fight hunger and malnutrition. REDE observed that the active intervention of women's organisations in the communal garden projects empowered these women. They participate at different levels in public life, and this results in an increase in consciousness, well-being and available educational opportunities. REDE works with a GID focus in urban agriculture. The roles and the needs of men and women are analysed in order to empower and improve their position as part of the betterment and transformation of society as a whole.

Training of Trainers in Urban Agriculture, AUSAN project

The initiative of the communal gardens was very well received by the population, which is predominantly made up of women who are of child-bearing age and members of large families. As the providers of food for their families, they see urban agriculture as an answer to their practical needs and as a way to fulfil their gender role, e.g. producing vegetables and preparing the daily family diet.

A team of agricultural promoters was selected and trained to implement the REDE project, but also to ensure a multiplier effect through other women's groups in Lima and the provinces. Thes promoters later became the trainers themselves. The invitation to become promoters was extended to men and women, but it was the women who were the most interested in this type of work. It should be noted here that there is a cultural acceptance by men of the idea that women and children carry out small-scale gardening and remain in their homes. The garden became an empowering place for the women: it improved their self-assurance and self-esteem, heightened their expectations of life, and improved the division of labour with their spouses. At the beginning, some men protested when their wives attended the training or provided technical assistance in school or community gardens. This changed as these men witnessed the progress and the perseverance of the women in the gardens. The public recognition given by the authorities and the community to the work of this group of women provided a lot of weight in the process of legitimisation.

Subsequently, after this recognition, husbands and sons started offering their moral and physical support to the women's groups by helping in preparing the land, collecting manure and irrigating the crops. The families began to appreciate the project as theirs, and to validate it from inside the home. There have been cases in which the husbands or sons replaced the women in the gardens when they had other things to do, like attend meetings of their organisations (eg. Clubs of Mothers, School Committees, Community Kitchens).

This experience motivated REDE to initiative a new stage of work at the end of 2002. With the help of German Agro Action, REDE launched a new initiative on urban agriculture that focuses on women with little children (under the age of five years). This project, which is in its initial stages, promotes the strengthening of women's roles.

References

Niñez, V. 1985. Working at half potential: constructive analysis of homegarden programs in the Lima slums with suggestions for an alternative approach. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 7(3): 6–14.

INIA/CIID. 1999. Evaluación del proyecto sistemas de producción de animales menores en el hogar en el Peru. La Molina, Peru: INIA/CIID.

IPAC. 1999. Proyecto solidaridad-villas informe final. Chorillos, Peru: IPAC.

Personal communication with Andres Dasso from REDE.

Senegal's Cooperative Movement

Nathan McClintock

In Senegal, urban agriculture has grown rapidly in response to the fragile nature of urban food security and to meet the market needs of the growing urban population. Inadequate access to land, precarious land tenure, and insufficient water and manure make urban farming increasingly difficult. These constraints are often felt more acutely by women farmers whose access to land, manure, and water is even more limited than that of men. Over the last few decades, the creation of groupements d'interêt économique (GIEs), or village and neighbourhood cooperatives, as well as the creation of groupements féminins, women's groups, has been a vital source of empowerment for women farmers in Senegal, providing them with access to capital and training. In the past several years, many women's groups – urban and rural, official and unofficial alike – have embarked on successful agricultural endeavours, providing participants with income and incentives to stay in their communities of origin.

Two kilometres south of Thiès, Senegal's second largest city, lies Touba Peycouck1, a village of 2,000 people. The activities of the GIE Bokk Jom of this village provide an inspiring example of grassroots community development. In the integrated system of animal husbandry, agroforestry, gardening, and field crops, women play the major role in maintaining the soil's fertility through their composting activities. Of Bokk Jom's 72 members, 42 are women. Several administrative positions are held by women, including Assistant Secretary General and Treasurer. A revolving micro-credit programme provides women members with 6-month, 25,000 FCFA loans at 7.5 percent interest. Recipients have used these loans for various business ventures and none has defaulted on payment since the programme began. The incomes of members are higher than those in the rest of the village, and their access to training and status in the community has improved. When asked what women contributed to Bokk Jom3, several male members said the success of the ongoing composting and agroforestry projects is due to the high level of participation of the women.

Bokk jom members in one of the experimental gardens

Soon after its creation in 1990, Bokk Jom opened a small grocery shop, supported the village elementary school, and later opened a public telephone booth and a small library. They also built a wood-fired oven for bread baking. In the mid-1990s they raised 500,000 FCFA2 and received a 5.7 million F CFA grant from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to embark on an ambitious development project integrating animal husbandry, agroforestry and gardening. The Rodale Institute, an American NGO, provided training in gardening, agroforestry and composting techniques. Bokk Jom started a tree nursery and launched a large-scale reforestation campaign. The group purchased four local milk cows and had them artificially inseminated in order to produce offspring with higher milk production. They then constructed a chicken coop and started to produce poultry, earning more than half a million F CFA in profit per year. With additional technical training from Rodale, Bokk Jom constructed several large composting pits to transform the cow manure and poultry litter into quality fertiliser. The compost is used for tree, garden and field-crop production.

After the fertilisation needs of the group's tree nursery are met, members have the right to take compost produced in the group pits and use it on their personal plots. In addition to this compost, many women have started their own compost pits within their family compounds, which they fill with kitchen scraps, cooking ashes and manure from tethered livestock. Most women in the group own their own animals, on average three to five goats or sheep per person. The use of compost has spread rapidly throughout the village and into neighbouring villages. Ninety percent of produce is sold, usually to other village women who buy in bulk to sell at the markets in Thiès and nearby Rufisque and Bambey. Two-thirds of the remaining 10 percent is given away as gifts, and only a third kept for family consumption. While whatever revenue a woman earns from her gardening is her own, a large portion of it goes to purchasing food for the family.

Bokk Jom members in their office

The shortage of land in Touba Peycouck is a primary constraint. The périmetre communale, or village garden area, is divided into a hundred 20x20-metre (400 m2) plots. Based on selection criteria that included salary and available labour, village officials allocated plots to the chefs de carrés, male heads of household. Women have access to garden plots only through their husbands or by renting plots for 25,000 F CFA for the October–June gardening season. Currently, only a third of the women in Bokk Jom maintain their own plots, whereas all of the group's men are active in gardening. Women in one focus group complained that they had plenty of compost but no plot on which to use it. In addition, gardeners must pay 4,000 F CFA per month for water. These overhead expenses, as well as start-up costs of seed and equipment, discourage many women from gardening. Others abandon their plots during the gardening season if they are unable to make a profit, and turn to pretty trade in order to earn enough to cover expenses the following year.

As elsewhere in West Africa, women's role as urban farmers is limited by these constraints, leaving the majority of production in the hands of men. Nevertheless, cooperatives such as Bokk Jom improve women's access to land and infrastructure by offering credit at reasonable interest rates, as well as by providing them with opportunities to pool resources. Most important, perhaps, and most difficult to quantify is the sense of empowerment and pride that membership elicits from female members. While Bokk Jom's primary goal is not to improve the livelihoods of Touba Peycouck's women, its success has directly benefited its female members by providing them with a solid organisational foundation and forum for cooperation. Nevertheless, patriarchal traditions within the community on the whole ultimately define the extent of women's participation in urban agriculture. Gender-specific initiatives to provide assistance to cooperatives such as Bokk Jom may ultimately be necessary to overcome these obstacles.

In a final brainstorming session3, the Bokk Jom members came up with the following policy recommendations:

• Guarantee women equal access to land

• Provide incentives for sustainable agricultural production

• Promote womens' groups and facilitate access to funding and credit

• Expand technical training opportunities for women

• Improve public health awareness and infrastructure.

A recently passed law (Loi d'orientation agricole) addresses the first concern by guaranteeing equal access to land. The true challenge will be to enforce it. Some of the remaining recommendations may seem impossible to instate on a government level because of cuts to public programmes in the name of "Structural Adjustment" and because of "free trade" regulations prohibiting agricultural subsidies. However, they provide a useful and relevant framework for NGOs and aid agencies working both with policymakers and directly with local people. Groups like Bokk Jom have been successful in addressing some of the very real constraints facing the farmers of Touba Peycouck and women engaged in urban agriculture throughout the developing world.

Notes</