The publication of the Urban AgricultureMagazine (UA-Magazine) is one of theways the RUAF Programme intends tofacilitate the flow of information and dis-cussion on the actual and potential rolesof intra-urban and peri-urban agriculture.The RUAF web-site, which soon will bereleased, will be the main medium in thisprocess. The site will provide additionalinformation including reviews of recentpublications, a guide with information on institutes and resource-persons andinstitutionson urbanagriculture,and a (inter-active) bibliographic database. There will also be news and networking. Some of thisinformation is also included in this hard-copy version of the UA-Magazine.

THE URBAN AGRICULTUREMAGAZINE We have discussed many formats for theUA-Magazine. We have been trying to finda balance between a fully electronic maga-zine and the “hardcopy” version, some-thing that would meet the needs of all ourreaders and contributors. What you havebefore you is a magazine format that is still

The UA-Magazine will bepublished three times

a year on the website

Welcome to this first issue of

the Urban Agricultural Magazine

n 1996 a group of international institu-tions - the Support Group on UrbanAgriculture (SGUA) - gathered in

Ottawa to discuss the potentials and risksassociated with urban agriculture. Theyalso discussed strategies that could beused to overcome the principal con-straints to sustainable food production inand around the cities of the South.

This group of experts concluded that amajor bottlenecks was lack of communi-cation on urban agriculture among actualand future practitioners whetherresearchers, city farmers, urban planners,consumer organisations, city administra-tors, national and international supportorganisations, and other stakeholders.The RUAF Programme (Resource Centreon Urban Agriculture and Forestry) wasdeveloped to fill this gap.

Growing cities and urbam populations are one of the bigchallenges of the future. The importance of urban agriculturein sustainable urban development is growing. As recognition

grows, more people are becoming involved with the issue.Many newsletters and magazines have devoted editions to

the subject in recent years including GATE, Urban Age,African Urban Quarterly, and the LEISA Newsletter and therehave been many workshops and conferences on the subject.

I

ww

w.r

ua

f.o

rg

Editorial

The Urban Agriculture Magazine

RUAF, P.O. Box 64

3830 AB Leusden, The Netherlands

ruaf@etcnl.nl

UR

BA

N A

GR

ICU

LTU

RE

MA

GA

ZINE

VO

LUM

E 1,

NU

MB

ER 1

, JU

NE

20

00

in an experimental stage. The UA-Magazine will be published threetimes a year on the RUAF-website.Subsequently it will be published anddistributed in hard copy.

The UA-Magazine will act as a platform forthe exchange and discussion of qualityinformation on urban agriculture includingresearch results, project experiences, criti-cal analysis of conventional and innovativepolicies on urban agriculture. We hope thatthe UA-Magazine will stimulate and facili-tate an interdisciplinary debate. Urbanagriculture is a typical cross sectoral phe-nomenon and joint reflection and activeco-operation between various disciplines –including planners, health specialists,water management experts, agriculturistsand environmental specialists - is essential.At the same time the UA-Magazine is notjust another journal for experts. All typesof stakeholders are needed to build,examine and consolidate the growingbody of knowledge on urban agriculture.The experiences presented should reflectthe viewpoints of all city farmers, men orwomen, consumers, local authorities,local private enterprises, and other ser-vice organisations. Development of sus-tainable urban food systems requires theactive involvement and support of vari-ous actors - the general public, localneighbourhood groups as well as urbanfood producers and consumers.

The UA-Magazine will facilitate the shar-ing of information on the impact of urban

agriculture and promote analysis anddebate on critical issues for the develop-ment of the sector. We welcome contri-butions on new initiatives at individual,family or enterprise, neighbourhood, cityand national levels. We want to publishthe “best” or “good” or even ‘bad” prac-tices in urban agriculture.

We will give attention to the technologicalaspects - appropriate cultivation technol-ogies for urban conditions, for example -as well as to social and economic aspectsof urban food production and distributionsystems such as gender aspects, distribu-tional aspects, consumer-producer link-ages. Special attention will be given to theintegration of urban agriculture into citydevelopment and land use planning and

the development of more adequate andoperational local standards and regula-tions for urban agriculture.

All issues of the UA-Magazine will focus ona selected theme, which will be preparedand edited in collaboration with a guesteditor who is a specialist in that theme.The next issue will focus on UrbanLivestock, and is planned for October2000. This issue has been planned forsome time. Urban Livestock is an oftenneglected issue, because attention tends tofocus on vegetable production in the cities.

FORTHCOMING ISSUEDuring two workshops, in Quito andHanoi (see page 34/35), a survey was carried out on the issues respondents

Urban Food Security; urban agriculture response to crisis

This article is based on informationextracted from 20 city case studies on urban agriculture world-wide andadditionally draws from experiences of the Urban Vegetable Promotion Project in Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania). It is argued that local authorities have to take their responsibilities in securingurban food security.

Urban Agriculture and BiodiversityBringing back agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and livestock

rearing to the human settlement is a key component to reduce the ecological footprint of cities. This statement is defended

and illustrated in this article with different examples.

PA

GE

11

The Support Groupon Urban Agriculture

(SGUA)The Support Group on Urban Agriculture (SGUA) dates back to 1991 whenUNDP established the Urban Agriculture Advisory Committee, which in the nextyear resulted in the establishment of the Support Group on Urban Agriculture(SGUA). This Group has been looking into the identification of key research anddevelopment needs in urban agriculture and how to co-ordinate and pool supportof SGUA-participants. In this past decade, the number of international supportorganisations involved in Urban Agriculture has rapidly grown, which is reflectedin the growing number of organisations participating in the SGUA (actually overthirty international organisations participate).

The SGUA aims to stimulate and facilitate activities regarding urban agriculture bynational and local governments, NGOs, and agencies for international and bilater-al development co-operation, and the direct involvement of local stake holders(associations of urban farmers, neighbourhood organisations, small entrepreneursactive in recycling of organic wastes, etc.) in the planning and implementation ofsuch activities.

The SGUA is guided by a Steering Committee in which at present participate rep-resentatives of IDRC (secretariat), UNDP, FAO, DGIS, CIRAD, ETC and TUAN.Members of the SGUA meet at least bi-annually since 1992, hosted by one of itsmembers: In 1999 SGUA members met in Havana, Cuba, hosted by DSE, taking

PAGE 8

wanted to address in a Magazineon urban agriculture. The respondents were requestedto give their opinion on importantissues in urban agriculture thatshould be tackled in forthcomingissues on the UA-Magazine, bothin an open question, and by givinga score (1-5) to a list of givenissues. They were further askedhow they preferred to receive theMagazine. On the latter question,half of the respondents indicatedthat they preferred the internet,while the other half would like toreceive a hard-copy or a diskette.According to the open questions,the next issues of the UA-Magazineshould deal with Technologies;Policy Development; Methodology(in assessment, planning andimplementation); and ImpactMonitoring. The rankings of thegiven subjects, showed that afocus on Methodologies; Health;Waste Management; Marketing;Planning; and MethodologyDevelopment, would be preferred.

Based on the results of these surveys, and considering that the

forthcoming electronic confer-ence, organised by FAO and ETC(see page 33), will supply us witha lot of potential contributions,the following planning for thenext six issues is made:No. 3 Integration of urban

agriculture in urban planning

(January 2001) No. 4 Management of urban

agriculture related health aspects

(April 2001)No. 5 Methodologies in planning

and facilitation of urban agricul-

ture (September 2001)No. 6 Urban agriculture and food

security (December 2001)

A questionnaire similar to the oneused in the two workshops men-tioned above has been included inthis issue. We would be grateful ifyou would fill it in and return it tothe editors so we can takeaccount of your suggestions andcomments.

In the near future RUAF will alsoproduce regional hard copy ver-sions of the UA-Magazine in locallanguages, in close co-operation

with regional institutions and net-works. This year we will only dis-tribute an English version to mem-bers of the SGUA and readers thatdo not have access to the Internetor will use the hard copy versionfor local promotional activities.

THIS ISSUE For this first issue, we decided topresent a range of topics on urbanagriculture, rather than a thematicselection, in order to give thereaders an idea of the array ofsubjects that could be dealt within the UA-Magazine in future.The collection of articles soughtand received (no call was done forthis issue), do show a certain the-matic focus: various articles deal,explicitly or sideways, with urbanagriculture as a response to crisisand as a mechanism applied bydisadvantaged families to securetheir livelihood under adverseconditions. Economic crisis, andrelated problems of unemploy-ment, lowering cash incomes and

advantage of their participation in the international workshop ‘Growing CitiesGrowing Food’. The next meeting is foreseen in July 2000 in Berlin.

The main functions included in the Global Initiative of the SGUA are the following: ❖ Policy development; SGUA-members actively support awareness creation amonglocal authorities regarding the potentials of urban agriculture, seeking the integra-tion of urban agriculture in city development. Research; SGUA stimulates innovativeresearch on urban agriculture, with an emphasis to removing roadblocks for theintegration of urban agriculture in policies and planning at national and local levels.❖ Technical assistance: SGUA encourages and facilitates that technical assistance ismade available to target group organisations and support organisations active inthe field of Urban Agriculture, with an emphasis on South - South co-operation. ❖ Investment and credit: SGUA encourages private investment in urban and periurban dairy and small livestock, vegetables and poultry production, the produc-tion and distribution of agricultural inputs, and other urban agriculture relatedsmall and micro enterprises. ❖ Information and Communications; were identified as one of the main functions ofthe Global Facility. SGUA members jointly formulated the RUAF Programme inorder to facilitate communication on urban agriculture and to enhance documen-tation and exchange dissemination of experiences.

More information on the SGUA, its members and their activities can

be encountered on the IDRC website http://www.idrc.ca/cfp/sguaf_e.html

Contact Luc Mougeot (PhD), Co-ordinator Cities Feeding People Programme

IDRC, telephone: 613 236 6163, #2310 fax: 613 567-7749 -

LMougeot@idrc.ca - www.idrc.ca/cfp

Ahmedabad Green Partnership ProjectTo make an urban forestry programme a success, theproject partners need to keep a constant dialogue anda long-term commitment to make it happen. This is

illustrated by theAhmedabad GreenPartnership Project, an effort between theAhmedabad MunicipalCorporation (AMC) and the Private Sectorin Ahmedabad, India.

PA

GE

21

In this issue

5 Concepts andDefinitions

8 Urban Agriculture, aResponse to Crises?

11 Urban Agriculture andBiodiversity

13 The Integration ofAgriculture in UrbanPolicies

16 Living with Livestockin Town

19 Dynamics in TropicalHome Gardens

21 The Greening ofAhmedabad

24 The Urban Farmers ofSt. Petersburg

27 Urban Agriculture inHavana

RUAF is a global initiativeof the Support Group on Urban Agriculture, co-ordinated by ETC

Resource centre on Urban Agriculture

and Forestry (RUAF) The aim of RUAF is to facilitate integration of Urban Agriculture in thepolicies and plans of city authorities and to facilitate the formulation ofprojects on urban agriculture with active involvement of all local stake-holders. The duration of RUAF is five years, which started in October1999. A midterm review will take place in the third year of the Programme.

OBJECTIVESThe general aim of RUAF is to facilitate integration of Urban Agriculturein the policies and plans of city authorities and to facilitate the formulationof projects on urban agriculture with active involvement of all local stake-holders (like urban planners, groups of urban farmers, consumer organ-isations, technical and credit organisations, environmental groups, healthauthorities, related local small enterprises, and others).The information pro-actively disseminated by RUAF is also intended toinfluence agricultural research and extension organisations to includeurban agriculture and to provide more support to urban farmers. The specific objectives of the RUAF-Programme focus on: awareness rais-ing; identification and analysis of critical issues; improving access to docu-mented experiences; supporting local capacity development and network-ing; secure embedding of RUAF activities in international organisationsNext to the Newsletter, RUAF outputs are: one electronic conferenceon a selected key theme per year; a bibliography on Urban Agricultureaccessible by Internet and on diskettes; a resource directory; a “Reader”on Urban Agriculture and a homepage. Furthermore, it is envisagedthat six Regional Focal Points are in operation.

ORGANISATIONSThe RUAF-Programme will be administered by IDRC (in the “CitiesFeeding People Programme”). The leading implementing organisationwill be ETC-International, based in Leusden, The Netherlands, who willco-ordinate the activities of six regional focal points, TUAN, City FarmerNetwork and other organisations participating in the Programme.RUAF will maintain close working relations with the IDRC’s CitiesFeeding People Programme (CFP), FAO’s Food for Cities Programme(FFC) with the UNDP-UNCHS Urban Management Programme (UMP),WHO’s Healthy Cities Programme, The Local Environment InitiativesAgenda 21 (ICLEI), the CGIAR Strategic Initiative on Urban and peri-urban Agriculture (SIUPA) and other relevant international programmes.RUAF will also closely co-operate with existing and new regional net-works on urban agriculture. An important aim of the RUAF Programmeis to have RUAF services integrated in regular programmes of organisa-tions and networks.

RUAF receives financial support of DGIS (the Netherlands) and IDRC(Canada). Other institutions have contributed to specific components ofthe programme like CTA (database on resource persons), GTZ (city casestudies / Reader), DSE (regional workshop, publication of the Reader)and SIDA (annotated bibliography).

For more information, visit the RUAF Web-site: http://www.RUAF.org

Or contact Ir. Henk de Zeeuw, co-ordinator RUAF, Visiting address:

ETC, Kastanjelaan 5, 3830 AB Leusden, the Netherlands

E-mail: ruaf@etcnl.nl Phone: +31-33-4943086 Fax: +31-33-4940791

relative high food prices, is certainly oneof the factors inducing rapid growth ofurban agriculture. However, a crisis is notthe only driving factor. There are numer-ous cities where urban agriculture hasdeveloped where there has been no expe-rience of crises or where the crisis –forcertain categories of the population- is anintrinsic part of the urban system. All the articles show that urban agricultureis extremely heterogeneous, in size, extentand management levels. Urban agriculture

may be a matter ofsurvival, positivelyaffect biodiversity,increase food secur-

ity, improve waste-recycling, but may alsoimpose additional problems. They also callfor a need for systematic analysis of casesand the impact of urban agriculture, theexchange of information and developmentof policies.

Two articles (Mougeot and Gündel, deZeeuw and Waibel) are reworked articlestaken up in the Reader: Growing Cities,Growing Food (Bakker et al. 2000). Thefull text of these presentations can also befound on the RUAF website, while hardcopies are available from DSE, Germany.

We hope you appreciate this UA-Magazine and that you make yourselfknown to us, so that we start to knowwho our readers are.

Dynamics in TropicalHomegardens

The importance ofhome gardens, thesmall areas of cultivated landimmediately

surrounding a home or a homestead, is often under-estimated despite its vital contribution to meetingvarious household-needs, especially for poor familiesin developing countries. In this article, the impact ofhomegardens in the Philippines is explored.

PAGE 19

We hope you appreciate

this UA-Magazine

n the ground, urban agricul-ture is growing out of itsability to assist with, resolv-

ing or coping with diverse devel-opment challenges. It is spurredby a complex web of factors stilllittle understood, not the least ofwhich are urban poverty and foodinsecurity. A common agreed con-cept is necessary, because policyand technology interventionsneed first and foremost to identifymeaningful differences and grada-tions, if they are to better assessand intervene with appropriatemeans for promotion and/ormanagement of urban agriculture.

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENTConcepts are mental tools that weforge – and eventually rework –to better understand, interactwith and modify our real-worldexperience. They are historicallyand culturally bound, relevant in

some places and less so in others,fitting today but perhaps less sotomorrow. The urban agricultureconcept needs to evolve out ofour need to codify and refine ourperceptual experience with arather new world phenomenon,so as to ensure that it remains orbecomes more useful to us wherewe will need it. Its identitydepends on this external func-tionality as much as on its inter-nal coherence.

The expression UrbanAgriculture, or “Intra- and Peri-Urban Agriculture”, originallyused only by scholars and occa-sionally in the media, has nowbeen adopted widely (Smit et al.1996b, FAO, 1996; COAG/FAO1999). This makes the need to fur-ther define and specify the con-cept important. Only with greaterinternal coherence and external

functionality will it turn into adistinctive and useful tool for usto understand and intervene.

By internal coherence, we shouldask, whether urban agriculturereally is what we call, or want tocall, what we perceive to be outthere. The overarching definitionshould lead us into a full concep-tual system or edifice, a structureof interconnecting compartmentsanchored into real-world experi-ence.

With external functionality theposition of urban agriculture inrelation to other concepts, forinstance rural agriculture, sus-tainable urban development orurban food supply systems isneeded. The concept should beclear enough, that users can easilyperceive its potential for comple-mentarity and synergy with relat-ed concepts.

CURRENT DEFINITIONSThe more common definitions ofurban agriculture are based onthe following determinants (seefigure 1): ❖ types of economic activities;❖ food/non-food categories ofproducts and subcategories; ❖ intra-urban and peri-urbancharacter of location;

Luc J.A. Mougeot

International Development

Research Centre (IDRC),

Cities Feeding People

Programme, Ottawa, Canada

Urban Agriculture:Concept and definition

Key features of current definitions of ‘urban agriculture’ generally have downplayed a critical trait that makes urban agriculture to be urban. Urban agri-

culture is different from, and complementary to, rural agriculture in local foodsystems: urban agriculture is integrated into the urban economic and ecological

system. Unless this dimension is enhanced and made operational, the conceptwill remain little useful on the scientific, technology and policy fronts.

O

UrbanAgri-

culture

Destina-tion

Products

Location

Areas

Scale

EconomicActivities

Figure 1: Urban Agriculture:

Common Dimensions

Urban Agriculture

in Lomé, Togo

REFERENCES- Aldington T. 1997. Urban and peri-urban agriculture: somethoughts on the issue. Land Reform, Land Settlement and Co-oper-atives 2: 43-44.- COAG/FAO (Committee on Agriculture, Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the United Nations). 1999. Urban and peri-urbanagriculture. COAG/99/10. Presented at 15th Session of the COAG,FAO, Rome, 25-29 Janurban agriculturery 1999.- FAO. 1996. Urban agriculture: an oximoron? In: The state of foodand agriculture 1996 (Rome: FAO), pp 43-57.- Gumbo DJ & Ndiripo TW. 1996. Open space cultivation inZimbabwe: case study of Greater Harare, Zimbabwe. African UrbanQurban agriculturerterly 11 (2-3): 210-216.- Lee-Smith D. 1998. African urban policy: issues and priority. Paperpresented at International Conference on Urban agriculturePolicyin Southern Africa, Technikon, Pretoria, 3-5 March 1998.- Losada H, Martinez H, Vieyra J, Pealing R & Cortés J. 1998. Urbanagriculturein the metropolitan zone of Mexico: changes over time inurban, sub-urban and peri-urban areas. Environment andUrbanization 10 (2): 37-54.- Lourenço-Lindell I. 1995. Food for the poor, food for the city: therole of urban agriculturein Bissau. Paper presented at ODAWorkshop on The Social and Environmental Implications of UrbanAgriculture, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, 30-31 August 1995.- Maxwell D & Armar-Klemesu M. 1998. Urban agriculture: intro-duction and review of literature. Accra: Noguchi Memorial Institutefor Medical Research.- Mbiba B. 1994. Institutional responses to uncontrolled urban culti-vation in Harare: prohibitive or accommodative? Environment andUrbanization 6 (1): 188-202.- Mbiba B. 1998. Urban agriculturepolicy in Southern Africa: fromtheory to practice. In: Productive open space management with ashared focus on the potential of urban agriculture(urban food pro-duction) policy and Agenda 21. Draft papers for an InternationalConference, Pretoria, 3-5 March 1998.- Mougeot LJA. 1999. For self-reliant cities: urban food productionin a globalizing South. In: Koc M, MacRae R, Mougeot LJA & WelshJ (eds), For hunger-proof cities: sustainable urban food systems(Ottawa: IDRC), pp 11-25.- Moustier P. 1998. La complémentarité entre agriculture urbaine etagriculture rurale. In: Olanrewaju B Smith (ed.), Agriculture urbaineen Afrique de l’Ouest: une contribution à la sécurité alimentaire et àl’assainissement des villes (Wageningen: CTA / Ottawa: IDRC).- Moustier P (ed.). 1999. Filières maraîchères à Brazzaville: qurbanagriculturentification et observatoire pour l’action. Montpellier:CIRAD - Agrisud International - Agricongo.- Smit J, Ratta A & Nasr J. 1996b. Urban agriculture: food, jobs andsustainable cities. Publication Series for Habitat II, Vol. I. New York:United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).- Yi-Zhang Cai 1999. Case study: urban agriculture in Shanghai.GATE Technology and Development 2 (April-June): 18-19.

❖ types of areas where it is practised;❖ types of production systems;❖ product destination and production scale.

Economic ActivitiesMost definitions refer to the productionphase of agriculture, while recent definitions add processing and trade toproduction and emphasise the interac-tions between these. In urban agriculture, production and marketing (and also processing) tend to be more interrelatedin time and space, thanks to greater geo-graphic proximity and quicker resourceflow. Economies of agglomeration seemto prevail over those of scale.

Categories of ProductsThe definitions here may highlight foodproduction for consumption by eitherpeople or livestock. Further, a differencebetween type of crop (grain, root, vegeta-ble, aromatic and medicinal herbs, orna-mental plants, tree and fruit crops) andtypes of animals (poultry, rabbits, goats,

sheep, cattle, pigs, guinea pigs, fish, etcet-era) is made. Within the food category,definitions clearly stress the more perish-able and relatively high-valued vegeta-bles and animal products and by-prod-ucts. To exclude the non-food categoryfrom the general urban agriculture con-cept would truncate the understanding ofcity farming at large.

Exchanges are taking place across pro-duction systems and within particularproduction units. Many ways exist inwhich urban agriculture interacts withother urban functions to use and provideresources, outputs and services to the city.

LocationBy far the most common element of thereviewed definitions is location, andprobably the biggest source of conten-tion. Few field studies actually differen-tiate between intra- and peri-urban loca-tions, or if they do criteria used varywidely. Those who do differentiate haveused as criteria for intra-urban agriculture:population sizes, density thresholds, offi-cial city limits (Gumbo & Ndiripo 1996),municipal boundaries of the city(Maxwell & Armar-Klemesu 1998), agri-cultural use of land zoned for other use(Mbiba 1994) or agriculture within thelegal and regulatory purview of urbanauthorities (Aldington 1997).

For peri-urban agriculture, the location def-inition is more problematic. Peri-urbanlocations are in closer contact with ruralareas and tend to undergo, over a givenperiod of time, more dramatic agriculturalchanges than do locations in more centraland built-up parts of the city. Authorshave been trying to delineate the outerboundary of the peri-urban area, using forinstance urban, sub-urban and peri-urbanzones based on varying ratios of buildingsand roads and increasing ratios of openspace per km2 (Losada et al. 1998). Othersuse the maximum distance away from citycentre within which farms can supplyperishables to the city on a daily basis(Moustier, 1998), or the area within whichpeople living within the city’s administra-tive boundaries can travel to engage inagricultural activities (Lourenço-Lindell,1995).

Types of AreasCriteria according to which such areasare typified vary from author to author:location respective to residence (on-plot

or off-plot), development status of site (-built-up vs open-space), modality of ten-ure/usufruct of site (cession, lease, shar-ing, authorised through personal agree-ment or unauthorised, customary law orcommercial transaction) and the officialland-use category of the sector whereurban agriculture is practised (residential,industrial, institutional, etc.).

Product DestinationMost definitions embrace agriculturalproduction for both self-consumptionand some trade. Both destinations usually

are targeted to varying degrees by theproducers or households studied.Economic research recently has beenaimed at specific (export) market-orient-ed production and has helped us to betterunderstand the economic performance ofurban agriculture and its comparativeadvantages over other supply sources,both at the producer and consumer level.

Production System and Scale of productionFew definitions clearly include or excludespecific types of production systems a pri-ori. Surveys collect data on the differenttypes of systems found in the area understudy (see other section for details).Generally, the research effort has focusedon individual/family micro, small andmedium sized enterprises, as opposed tolarge scale, national or transnationalundertakings.

The urban ecosystem connectionWhile referring to these dimensions of

UrbanAgriculture

UrbanLand

Manage-ment

UrbanSurvival

Strategies

UrbanFood Supply

Systems

Sustain-able

UrbanDevelopment

UrbanFood Security

RuralAgriculture

Figure 2: Urban Agriculture and other

“Kids on the Block”

The most common element is location

urban agriculture, most authors define itonly in general terms. Studies rarely usetheir findings to refine the urban agricul-ture concept of the day (Mbiba 1998) or toanalyse how this concept is related to oth-er development concepts (see Figure 2).

One striking feature of the reviewed defi-nitions is that few of them contrast urbanand rural agriculture, even less so theimplications of one for the other. Indeed,all building blocks, perhaps except loca-tion, can apply to rural agriculture as well;they do not suffice to trademark urbanagriculture and justify the need for specif-ic knowledge, know-how and policy.

The lead feature of urban agriculture,which distinguishes it from rural agricul-ture, is its integration into the urban eco-nomic and ecological system (hereafterreferred to as “ecosystem”).

It is not its urban location, which distin-guishes urban from rural agriculture, butthe fact that it is embedded in and inter-acting with the urban ecosystem. Thisintegration into the urban ecosystem isnot captured in most definitions of theconcept, and less so developed in opera-tional terms. Though the nature of citiesand of urban food supply systems haschanged, the need for urban agricultureto interact well with the rest of city, onone hand, and with rural production andimports, on the other, remains as truetoday as it was thousands of years ago.

The principle of agriculture’s integrationinto the urban ecosystem enables to rec-ognise three types of situations, or rela-tionships, with regard to the degree towhich agriculture found in the city isactually integrated into the city organism(figure 3).

A first relationship is that, in any givencity, at any given time, agriculture will befound that is rural, peri-urban, and intra-urban in nature, the three interacting andcomplementing each other to varyingextents.

Several studies exemplify the principle ofintegration through comparisonsbetween intra-urban, peri-urban andrural activities. Urban agriculture isfound to complement rural agriculture interms of self-provisioning, marketingflows and market-supply flows, as shownfor instance by CIRAD studies on vegeta-

ble and livestock production in West andCentral Africa (Moustier et al., 1999).

A second relation is that across cities ofdifferent size or complexity, at any giventime, more of the agriculture found in thecity will be of an urban nature in larger asopposed to smaller centres. Systematicevidence for this relationship however,remains more limited than for the first. A six-city Kenyan study further showsthat intensity and productivity increaseswith city size; similarly, the use of organic

inputs and of networks of exchange ortrade increases with city size (Lee-Smith1998).

The third relation is that in any given cityand over a period of time, during urban-isation, agriculture of an urban naturewill grow as a percentage of all the agri-culture found in that city. Some evidenceis available on multiple-year trends forspecific systems and areas of Dar esSalaam, Dakar, Hong Kong and Cagayande Oro, where land-based farmingsystems have intensified or specialised,and marginal agricultural activities havebeen substituted by more profitable ones,increasingly combined with non-agricul-tural land uses, when not relocated.Shanghai exemplifies several of theseprocesses at work, with land-extensivesystems (vegetables and livestock) moving to the outskirts, while productionwithin city limits is becoming more efficient to deliver higher yields andlabour productivity and value-adding (Yi-Zhang Cai, 1999).

In all three relationships, agriculture willbecome more urban, or will integrateitself more into the urban ecosystem,through a series of processes, whichaccumulate over time and are morenumerous in the larger urban centres.

Figure 3: Three types of relationships

Agriculture

Mexico City

Resources

Products

Services

Intra-Urban

Peri-Urban

Rural

CONCLUSIONSThe urban ecosystem link of urban agriculture throughout its entire conceptual framework

remains to be fully developed. Its conceptualisation currently offers a generic definition and

some indications of its distinctive traits. A de-codification of this definition is needed to help

to identify its distinctiveness, in both theoretical and operational terms. Efforts in that direction

have already begun and are forcing to distinguish between intra-urban and peri-urban agricul-

ture, and to examine the place of urban agriculture within larger conceptual frameworks.

Because urban agriculture is reported to interact with so many facets of urban development,

city farming also holds the potential to help to diversify and strengthen urban management

strategies. This is not a small opportunity, as city-based electorates struggling for access to food,

income and sanitation are increasingly calling the shots in local and national policy arenas.

The above, is the background for the following revision of the concept: Urban agriculture is

located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, and

grows or raises, processes and distributes a diversity of food and non-food products, (re-)uses

largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban

area, and in turn supplies human and material resources, products and services largely to that

urban area.

here are significant regionaldifferences in the degree ofurbanisation. In the past

Africa was a predominantly ruralcontinent. However, in thepresent the cities in Sub-SaharanAfrica are growing with an excep-tional rate of 5% or more annual-ly, by the year 2020 half of thepopulation in this region will beurban (WRI 1999).

The capacity of governments tomanage this urban growth isthreatened in many developingcountries, or already on thedecline. The identification ofways to provide food, shelter andbasic services to the city residentsand create “sustainable cities” arechallenges for many city author-ities around the world.

Urban food security depends onvarious factors:

❖ Availability of food (whichdepends on food production inthe rural and urban sectors, foodimports, marketing and distribu-tion, infrastructure, availability offuel energy, etc.)❖ Access to food (depending onpurchasing power of urbanhouseholds, subsistence produc-tion, rural-urban linkages, house-hold networks etc.)❖ Quality of food (depending onpreservation of street food, qual-ity of production, abuse of pesti-cides, use of waste water for pro-duction, sanitary conditions onmarkets, air quality etc.).

URBAN AGRICULTUREThe phenomenon that a growingnumber of urban dwellers areengaging in agricultural activities,especially in the less developedcountries has been witnessed allover the world. We will further

mention “urban” areas here,referring to both, intra-urban andperi-urban areas (the Editor: fordefinitions see the article byMougeot in this Magazine).

It is estimated that 800 millionpeople are engaged in urban agri-culture world-wide and play animportant role in feeding theworld’s cities (UNDP 1996, FAO1999). Urban agriculture is emerg-ing strongly in Sub-Saharan Africa,where the fastest urban growthwill occur in countries leastequipped to feed their cities (Ratta& Nasr, 1996 in Mougeot 1999).

The objective of this paper is todiscuss why people get involvedin Urban Agriculture (UA).Food production in the city is inmany cases a response of urbanpoor to:❖ inadequate, unreliable andirregular access to food supplies,partly due to either a lack of avail-ability or a lack of purchasingpower 1

❖ inadequate access to formalemployment opportunities, dueto deteriorating national econo-mies in developing countries

Economic or food crises are cer-tainly not the only driving factorbehind the upsurge of UA. Thereare numerous cities where urbanagriculture has developed with-out having experienced a specialcrisis period (or where the crisis –for certain categories of the popu-lation- is an intrinsic part of theurban system).

URBAN AGRICULTURE AS INTRINSIC PART OF A CITYAgriculture, in general and thefood production for the urbanpopulation was, and still is,thought to take place in the ruralsector only. In reality this under-taking has failed in many coun-

A.W. Drescher - University of Freiburg,

Germany, P. Jacobi and J. Amend German

Development Co-operation (GTZ) and Ministry

of Agriculture, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Fig. 1: The development of mega cities since 1950 (after FAO-SOFA 1998)

Urban Food Security Urban agriculture,

a response to crisis?Urbanisation is one of the major problems of mankind in the near future.By 2015 about 26 cities in the world are expected to have a population of10 million or more (figure 1). To feed a city of this size today - for example

Tokyo, São Paulo or Mexico City - at least 6000 tonnes of food must beimported each day (FAO-SOFA 1998). In 1988, about 25% of the developingworld’s absolute poor were living in urban areas, by 2000 about 56% of the

absolute poor would be living in urban areas according to the WorldResource Institute (WRI 1996) while, urban areas are expected to surpass

rural areas in population around the year 2005 (FAO 1998).

T

✱ 1950● 1975▲ 2000*◆ 2015* * projected

tries due to missing infrastructure (deliv-ery of seeds and fertilisers to rural areasand delivery of the harvested produce tourban centres) and lack of purchasingpower of the urban poor. Although theinterest in agriculture in urban centres isquite recent, it is practised for a long time.

Evidence suggests that urban agriculturecomplements rural agriculture andincreases the efficiency of the nationalfood supply in that it (IDRC 1998):❖ provides products that rural agricul-ture cannot supply as well, e.g. perishableproducts, export crops that require rapiddelivery upon harvest; ❖ can substitute for food importsintended for urban consumption, andthus save on foreign exchange;❖ can release good rural agriculturalland for export-oriented production; and ❖ can reduce pressure to cultivate newrural land, relieving stresses on marginalrural lands.

Additionally urban food production:❖ can contribute to the generation ofincome in the rural sector by various andmultiple interactions between the areasand its inhabitants (Drescher & Iaquinta1999).

Urban people are not passive food recip-ients; in many cities they are activelyinvolved in food production (Drescher &Iaquinta 1999).

URBAN AGRICULTURE AS ARESPONSE TO CRISESUrban agriculture refers not only to foodcrops and fruit trees grown in cities butencompasses animals, poultry, bees, rab-bits, snakes, guinea pigs and other indige-nous animals. Urban fish production isalso part of the food system in many trop-ical cities (Drescher & Iaquinta 1999). Theurban farming system is a composition ofmany different activities like gardening,

staple food production, gathering, hunt-ing, and even urban forestry often com-bined with food production (figure 2, p.10).

The locus of poverty is shifting to urbanareas (Haddad, Ruel, & Garrett. 1998).Economic crisis and structural adjustmentpolicies introduced in developing coun-tries have had a disproportionate impacton the urban poor, especially women, andhave resulted in rising food prices, declin-ing real wages, redundancy in the formallabour market, cuts in food subsidies forurban consumers. and further reducedpublic expenditure on basic services andinfrastructure. It is often overlooked, thateconomic crisis has different impacts onwomen and men (see e.g. Drescher &Iaquinta 1999, Foeken & Mwangi 1999,Hasna 1998, Mbiba 1999 and others).

The short- and medium-term results ofconditionally programs have put an eco-nomic squeeze on poor populations indeveloping countries, narrowing of theincome gap between rural and urbandwellers, and resulting in acceleratedmigration from rural to urban areas(Nugent 1997). These urban poor fre-quently resort to the non-market (infor-mal sector) activities for survival, likeurban food production (Drescher &Iaquinta 1999).

Under such circumstances, urban foodproduction can be defined as a “crisisinduced strategy”, ensuring survival of thepoorer segment of the population. The fol-lowing examples of people’s survival strat-egies during periods of economic declineand social unrest in densely populated cit-ies support the “crisis model” view.

Jakarta is one example in recent history.The economic turmoil that first hitIndonesia in 1997 has left millions of peo-ple vulnerable to food insecurity, withoutenough money to buy sufficient food.

First urban areas were dramaticallyaffected. Alarming food related problemswere reported (FAO 1999a). As a reactionto this people started to produce food onsmall plots and open spaces all over thecity—even transformed former publicparks into gardens and government bod-ies encouraged the people of Jakarta togrow their own food. Problems started inurban areas to spread to rural areas latercaused by migration. In some rural com-munities the population has increased upto 30%, putting severe pressure on thoseareas (FAO 1999a).

Maidar (1996) reports an example fromMongolia. The recent “shock therapy”measures taken by the Government havecreated great hardship as prices for con-sumer goods rise while salaries remainunchanged. The prices for food, coal,wood, electricity, transportation, etc. areskyrocketing. In 1990/1991, 850 familiesgrew vegetables in the city. In 1996 thisnumber has increased over 20 timesreaching 21,000. More and more familieshave begun to realise that urban agricul-ture might be a way to improve theirstandard of living.

Globally induced economic crisis, rapidpopulation growth and rural to urbanmigration, deteriorating national econo-mies or persisting economic difficulties

1 Unreliable and irregular access can be caused by natural disasters (as thehurricanes Georges and Mitch in 1999, flooding or economic disasters (likerecent strikes in Ecuador, causing lack of food provision for several days)

2 The Urban Vegetable Promotion Project (UVPP) was launched 1993 as a bilateral project between the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives (MAC) and the German Development Co-operation (GTZ). It is financed bythe Ministry of Economic Co-operation (BMZ).

This article is partly based on

information extracted from

20 city case studies on urban

agriculture world-wide

and additionally draws from

experiences of the Urban

Vegetable Promotion Project2

in Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania).

Most of the case studies

were commissioned by the

German Development

Co-operation (GTZ) in

1998/1999 and presented at

the International Workshop in

Havana, Cuba in October

1999 (Bakker et al, 2000)

Additional literature and own

experiences of the authors

in urban agriculture will

complement the information.

Maize is cultivated at many open spaces in Harare, Zimbabwe

are pre-conditions for urban food pro-duction in many developing countriesand countries of transition. Neverthelessurban food production would by far haveless importance if there would not be ashortage of adequate and accessibleincome opportunities and an unsatisfieddemand for appropriate quantity andquality of agricultural products in cities.

Responsibilities have to be taken over bythe appropriate authorities to ensure andto support food security in cities and havean impact on urban poverty alleviation.

CRITICAL ISSUESA major problem in the acceptation ofurban agriculture as a serious contributorto food security in the city and sustain-able urban development. Another criticalinstitutional constraint to urban agricul-ture, particularly crop cultivation, isaccess to land. This uncertain legal statusof urban agriculture is such that officialprojects or programmes aimed atimproving urban agriculture have beenrelatively rare. Typically urban agricul-ture is not taken into account in theurban planning process (Drescher &Iaquinta 1999).

Urban agricultural activities must be inte-grated into cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder strategies for mutually bene-ficial urban and agricultural development(Mougeot 1996). Gender plays an impor-tant role. Women tend to dominate urbancultivation because they are marginalisedin other forms of employment in the for-

mal sector of the urban economy. The term urban greening could assist inbroadening the idea of urban agriculture.The new concept of “urban greening”(Kuchelmeister 1997), comprises theplanning, and managing of trees, forestsand related vegetation to create or addvalues to the local community in anurban area.

There is an increasing perception thatrural and urban environments operate asa system („continuum“) rather than inde-pendently. Therefore it is needed tobridge the rural-urban artificial detach-ment. In terms of migration and urban-isation, peri-urban environments play a

REFERENCES- Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S. Gundel, U. Sabel-Koschella, H. deZeeuw, (2000), Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agricultureon the Policy Agenda, DSE, Germany.- Drescher, A.W. & D. Iaquinta (1999): Urban and peri-urbanAgriculture: A new challenge for the UN Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO). FAO - Internal report. Rome.- FAO (1998): Majority of people live in cities by 2005. Web PageInformation FAO: http://www.fao.org/NEWS/FACTFILE/FF9811-E.HTM- FAO-SOFA (1998): The State of Food and Agriculture. Food andAgriculture Organziation of the United Nations, FAO, Rome. - FAO (1999):Issues in urban agriculture - Studies suggest that up totwo-thirds of city and peri-urban households are involved in farm-ing. Web Page Information FAO: http://www.fao.org/ag/maga-zine/9901sp2.htm- Foeken, D. & A. Mboganie Mwangi (1999): Farming in the City ofNairobi. In: City Harvest - A Reader on Urban Agriculture, GTZ,Eschborn.- Haddad, L., M. Ruel, & J. Garrett (1998): Growing urban povertyand undernutrition and some urban facts of life. International FoodPolicy Research Institute, Washington (forthcoming). - Hasna , M. K. (1998): NGO Gender Capacity in Urban Agriculture:Case Studies from Harare (Zimbabwe), Kampala (Uganda) andAccra (Ghana). Cities Feeding People CFP Report Series, Report 21.IDRC, Ottawa. - IDRC (1998): Other Organizations Active in Urban Agriculture.Web Page information: www.idrc.ca/cfp/other_e.html.- Jacobi, P., A.W. Drescher & J. Amend (2000): Urban Agriculture,Justification and Planning Guidelines. UVPP, GTZ/MAC, Dar esSalaam.

- Kuchelmeister, G. (1997): Urban trees in arid landscapes:Multipurpose urban forestry for local needs in developing coun-tries. In: The Arid Lands Newsletter (e-mail version), Fall/Winter1997: Number 42.- Maidar, Ts. (1996): City Farming in Mongolia. Urban AgricultureNotes. Published by City Farmer, Canada’s Office of UrbanAgriculture, www.cityfarmer.org.- Mbiba, B. (1998): City Harvests: Urban Agriculture in Harare(Zimbabwe). In: City Harvest - a Reader on Urban Agriculture.GTZ, Eschborn. - Mougeot, L. (1999): Urban agriculture: Definition, Presence,Potentials and Risks, and Policy Challenges. Paper presented to theInternational Workshop “Growing Cities, Growing Food”, October11-15 1999, La Habana, Cuba.- Nugent, R.A. (1997): The Significance of Urban Agriculture.Published by City Farmer, Canada’s Office of Urban Agriculture,www.cityfarmer.org.- Ratta, A. & J. Nasr (1996): “Urban Agriculture and the AfricanUrban Food Supply System,” African Urban Quarterly 11/2-3.- UNDP (1996): Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and SustainableCities. United Nations Development Program, Publication Seriesfor Habitat II, Volume One. UNDP, New York.- UNCHS (1998): Privatisations of municipal services in East Africa:A Governance Approach to Human Settlements Management.United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) Nairobi,Kenya.- WRI (1997): World Resources 1996-97: The Urban Environment.World Resource Institute, Washington DC.- WRI (1999): World Resources 1998-99: The Urban Environment.World Resource Institute, Washington DC.

Figure 2: The wide range of urban agriculture within an interaction

system (after Drescher 1998, modified)

Urban Small Scale Farming System(Microfarming-System)

Livestock Production

Small Scale Livestock Keeping

Urban Fishery(UFi)

HuntingFishing

Plant Production

Production of staplesand cash-crops

Vegetable Production

Fruit Production

Gathering Urban Forestry

(UFo)

Open SpacesFieldsGardensRoadstrips

PRODUCTION SITES

FishpondsRiversLakes

mediating role between rural and urban(Iaquinta & Drescher 1999). This impliesmanifold rural- urban linkages:

Local urban governments are often rela-tively weak. Municipal councils whichstarted off as colonial institutions werenever fundamentally transformed tocater for a growing urban populationespecially in Africa (Unchs 1998). Theyhowever play an increasing importantrole in development activities. Little isactually known on the functioning ofthese local institutions. We presume thatlocal institutions (formal or informal) likee.g. farmer groups, water users etc. havelittle influence on the decision making inthe urban centres. Capacity building forlocal institutions and support for the for-mation of new, more efficient and inter-disciplinary institutional approachestowards the urban-rural continuum aretherefore needed. Greater collaborationbetween research and developmentcapacities in urban planning and those inagricultural development is needed tomake urban farming more efficient andsustainable (Mougeot 1996).

REMAINING QUESTIONSOpen questions will remain for discus-sion and solution: ❖ How does urban agriculture develop,when the “crisis” is over?❖ How can UA be integrated in urbanplanning ?❖ How can UA institutionally and tech-nically be linked to sustainable city pro-grammes?

n earlier geographic times, onespoke of the hinterland, theperi-urban and the sub-urban

area as systems for the city. Today,New Yorkers eat Bengali shrimpdaily, while Japan engorgesCanadian and Malaysian forests.In a way, this is not so different inprocess than Athens mining theforests of Calabria (MagnaGreacea), or Rome the wheat andsoil of the North African coastalhills and plains. What is differentis that today, with over six billionhumans living on Earth and withhalf the population now urban(and increasingly more), it is on anentirely unprecedented scale thatthe global environment (and itsbiological diversity) is beingdiminished by urbanisation.

The urban footprint is an indica-tor more of the nature of theeconomy and of our lifestyle thanof the number of urban residents.Estimates at the time of the EarthSummit (Rio) in 1992 found that75 percent of the natural resourc-es that we harvest and mine fromthe Earth are shipped, trucked,railroaded and flown to 2.5 per-cent of the Earth’s surface, whichis metropolitan. At that destina-tion, 80 percent of those resourc-es are converted into ‘waste’. Thislinear process of resource to pol-lution reduces biodiversity.

There is an earth-wide commit-ment by national governments toreverse this linear process and mit-igate its damaging consequences.Clearly no single solution canaddress this infinitely complexproblem. One could argue that akey component to transformingthis vicious process is to bring backagriculture, forestry, and livestockrearing to the human settlement,as was done in earlier civilisations.In the real world, such a trend mayalready be taking place, as thegrowing literature on urban agri-culture and the rapid increase in itsshare of the food market, fromRussia to Tanzania to Indonesia tothe USA, is making clear.

The importance of urban agri-culture as a response to crises isillustrated in numerous situations.But the hypothesis that urbanagriculture has a role to play insustainable development of modern cities is more difficult toaddress. This question has severalsubsets. As urban land, water,energy, money, and researchsystems are well established, how can urban agriculture as“community or civic agriculture”be integrated? If modern capital-intensive commodity agricultureis efficient, is there a role in theagri-food system for community-based, labour-intensive agricul-

ture? Modern engineering, archi-tecture and city planning havecreated cities that exclude agricul-ture: could urban agriculture becompatible with the modern city?

CITY FARMING’S DIRECTAND INDIRECT IMPACTON BIODIVERSITYA great variety in the types of ecological impacts are given inreports of agriculture in townsand cities. At the metropolitanscale, urban agriculture cleans theair and returns carbon to the soil.It restores microclimates, con-serves urban water resources insome cases, but degrades them inothers, and maintains a penetra-ble surface between air and land.And although livestock and poul-try can contribute to disease andpollution, they are also powerfulwaste converters and soil enhanc-ers. At the community scale,urban agriculture can eitherimprove the “landscape for liv-ing” but it may also cause pollu-tion and diminish human health.

Urban farmers are not inherentlymore environmentally conscious;they use the waste because theyare farming on the 2.5 percent ofthe earth where the waste is. ATUAN (The Urban AgricultureNetwork) study for CAREInternational found that much of

I

Several studies have found that modern cities, but also ancientones, have a negative ecological footprint that is 50 to 125 times

the area of the metropolis itself. Rees defines this ecological foot-print as “the land area functionally required to support any given

population. The resultant aggregate area can be called the relevantcommunity’s total ‘ecological footprint’ on the Earth.” In addition,Girardet invented the term ‘biocidic cities’ – with which he labels

“human settlements that take natural resources and give nothingback to mother earth”. Folke et al., find that the pollution from cities

on the Baltic sea diminishes the biosphere over 200 times the areaof their collective built-up area. Future studies will tell us whether

[a] the harvesting of resources to feed the city or [b] the poisoningof the ecology by the cities’ waste streams are the more damaging.

Jac Smit, The Urban

Agriculture Network (TUAN),

USA

Urban Agriculture andBiodiversityUrbanisation and Diminishing Biodiversity

what didn’t get to the dump producedboth food and green.

Agriculture in urban areas can mitigatenegative impacts on surrounding andmore distant biodiversity (the urban foot-print). It is argued that urban agriculture isinherently more biodiversity-prone thanmodern rural agriculture, by being moresustainable, less chemically dependentand more biologically friendly. Urban agri-culture occurs on smaller sites and typical-ly has a more diverse/integrated crop mix.Urban agriculture closes open nutrientand energy loops. Perhaps the most effec-tive example is modifying urban wetlandsto food, fuel and recreation instead of fill-ing them with waste and converting tobuilt-up uses. Further research might beworthwhile on differences in biodiversityin different climate zones, associated withurban versus rural farming.

As urban agriculture grew in theWashington USA metropolis from 1978to 1998, the variety of tomatoes availablein the market increased from eight to sev-enty- four. Urban agriculture is the con-servator and generator of biodiversity inagricultural crops from poultry to lettuce.One acre of urban agriculture, usingurban waste as an input, can save fiveacres, or more, of rural marginal agricul-tural land or rain forest. Food productionin our own back yards and city parksdoes not require genetically modifiedcrops to be economically viable.

Urban agriculture produces food and ener-gy crops close to the market demand, somewithin the neighbourhood. This proximityof production to consumption reducestraffic, storage, and packaging as sources ofthe pollution that erodes biodiversity. Theaverage distance travelled for a food item

on a supermarket shelf in New York wasdetermined in 1995 to be 2,000 kilometres.In contrast, Rikers Island prison withinNew York City produces fresh food for theoccupants, and for a catering service, with-in one kilometre of its consumption.

However, it is also possible to have a neg-ative impact on the biodiversity of a city,by using poor urban agricultural practic-es. The negative health impacts of agricul-

ture in cities played a major role in theirsubstantial disappearance in 20th centu-ry Europe and North and South America.Today, as in earlier times, agriculture inthe city poses a range of possible negativeimpacts. Irrigation with polluted water,animal waste in the streets, or prayingchemical insecticides next door to aschool of church can be injurious to manand the community biosphere.Converting park-like open space tomono-cropping can diminish biodiversityof the site (a vineyard is not a wilderness).

The management of a ecologically sus-tainable or ‘biogenic’ city, which con-serves biodiversity, will require a muchhigher level of environmentally sophisti-cated management than current practices.

IMPACTS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE Agriculture at community level is a goodtool to self-management of resources, andthe strive towards maximum or optimumbiodiversity. With the rise of metropolis, a great deal of community responsibilityhas been handed over to the city and tolarge profit-making corporations.

The appropriate level of biodiversitymanagement may well be the bio-region (watershed, island, coastal plain, or rangeof hills). Here rural and urban jurisdic-tions and interest groups will need tomeet and negotiate to discover and assignthe best role of urban agriculture. Thismay be done on a crop-by-crop basis, orat the farming system level, takingaccount of implications of the interactionbetween crops for biodiversity.

Taking the discussion a level higher, theappropriate role of urban agriculture insub-Saharan Africa, may be quite differ-ent than for the Caribbean archipelago ofsmall islands, where shipping costs andwaste management are more critical. Itmay be desirable for a “low-income, food-deficit” country to concentrate on foodproduction within urban areas in order toconcentrate on foreign earnings from rur-al agriculture, and to conserve nationalnatural resources for future generations.

POLICY CHANGES The 1990s have witnessed a worldwidecommitment to biodiversity. Beginningwith the Environment Conference in Riode Janeiro in 1992 and advancing throughthe work of the environmental NGOs, thegreen political parties, and some national

governments, awareness of the threat of losing local and global biodiversity isbecoming well established.

The 1996 USA Census of Agriculturereports that the number of farms, farmersand value of crop is increasing in bothcities and the so-called sub-urban belts ormetropolitan fringes. This is said to be aresponse to convenient markets andimproved access to land and inputs, butis without national policy support.Similar data is emerging half a worldaway, in South Africa where national policy supports urban agriculture.

The alternative to the WTO scenario ofliberalisation and international trade,may mean street trees on the main shop-ping street; vegetable production com-bined with chicken production in a smallwatershed; or a home garden containing179 plant species (as an FAO study foundin one sub-district in Java).

The essence of community ecologicalmanagement is the principle of “closednutrient loops”. Urban waste managementpolicy could benefit biodiversity by con-centrating on closing open nutrient loops.This requires public and private organisa-tions to maximise the re-use of wastewithin urban regions to ecological benefit.On the negative (control) side, there couldbe polices to reduce burning, use of chemicals, and long-distance hauling.

The Climate Change Convention urgesmember countries to “enhance carbonsequestration in forests and agriculturalland“. The International Centre for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is cur-rently recommending “carbon trading”by towns and cities.

There is some degree of consensusamongst international developmentorganisations and national governmentsin favour of “sustainable agriculture”,“sustainable urbanisation” and conserv-ing a bio-diverse Earth. Urban agricultureis an effective tool to slow down the lossof biodiversity. Sustainable urban agricul-ture may be a smart policy option. To besustainable throughout the 21st century,agriculture, our burgeoning urbanhuman settlements and mother earthneed city farmers.

Urban agriculture isan effectice tool to slow down

the loss of biodiversity

t has been observed that urbanagriculture exists within heter-ogeneous resource utilisation

situations. In terms of its contri-butions to development, urbanagriculture enhances food secur-ity, provides additional incomeand employment for poor andmiddle-income urban dwellers,and contributes to an ecologicallysound urban environment. Thus urban agriculture can havedifferent purposes, which are byno means mutually exclusive andco-exist in a range of differentcombinations. For instance, poorfamilies might be engaged inurban agriculture for several rea-sons. Whereas the woman mayemphasise the importance ofurban agriculture for subsistence,her husband might stress theadditional income generatingbenefits of it. Meanwhile, urbanplanners may evaluate these activ-ities on the basis of their contribu-

tion to urban greening and micro-climate development or to the re-use of urban organic wastes.

The diversity of urban agricultureis one of the main attributes,which contributes to its impor-tance within a wide range ofurban situations and for a diverserange of stakeholders.

OUTLINE OF A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR URBANAGRICULTURE The fore mentioned variety ofconditions, characteristics andpurposes of urban agriculture,indicates the importance of acareful analysis of the specificcontext, and carefully designedinterventions and policy meas-ures for urban agriculture.Interventions must be linked withspecific development objectives,to which urban agriculture isexpected to make a significant

contribution, and be based onparticipatory and multi-stake-holder diagnosis and planningprocesses.

In this section a range of potentialpolicy options will be presented,which were identified by the par-ticipants as (potential) suitablepolicy responses to urban agricul-ture. It is clear that such recom-mendations are of a generalnature and will have to be refinedaccording to specific local condi-tions. The policy options aredescribed in relation to the inte-gration of urban agriculture in thefollowing urban policy areas: landuse policy; food security; healthpolicy; environmental policy, andsocial development policy.

Land Use PolicyAccess to land and water resourc-es, as well as security of userrights and the level of the landrent, are crucial factors in thedevelopment of urban farming.Access to prime locations is fierce-ly disputed. Especially subsistencetype of urban agriculture oftentakes place on lands where prop-erty rights are in dispute. In plan-ning land use in city development,more often than not, land alloca-tion for urban food producers isexcluded from land use plans. Thepolicy instruments identified bythe participants to achieve theobjective of integrating urbanagriculture in land use planningfall in the following categories: ❖ Removal of legal restrictions.The first step that needs to be tak-en is to persuade urban plannersto accept urban agriculture as alegitimate form of urban land use.Participants strongly felt that a

Henk de Zeeuw, ETC

International, The Netherlands

Sabine Gündel, National

Resources Institute, UK and

Hermann Waibel, University

of Hannover, Germany

The Integration of Agriculture in Urban Policies

Urban agriculture is seen as a dynamic concept that comprises a varie-ty of farming systems, ranging from subsistence production and pro-cessing at household level to fully commercialised agriculture. Urbanagriculture normally has a niche function in terms of time (transitory)and space (interstitial), as well as social (e.g. women and low income

groups) and economic (e.g. financial crisis, food shortage) conditions.

I

This article is a shortened

version of the article published

in Bakker et al., 2000. It

presents the policy options

for facilitating and regulating

the development

of urban agriculture in Third

World cities, as identified by

the participants of the

International Workshop on

Urban Agriculture “Growing

Cities, Growing Food –

Urban Agriculture on the

Policy Agenda”, Havana,

Cuba, October 1999.

Direct marketing from producer to consumer in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

review of existing policies and bylaws isnecessary as a precondition for theremoval of unsubstantiated legal restric-tions on urban agriculture. Such a reviewshould go hand in hand with the devel-opment of a number of measures to pre-vent encroachment on biologically sensi-tive areas, the use of drinking water forirrigation, or contamination of ground-water by high-external-input agriculture.❖ Integration of agriculture in urban devel-opment planning. A second important stepis the revision of actual urban zoningbylaws and the integration of urban agri-culture in zonification plans, indicating inwhich zones urban agriculture is allowed(or what type of agriculture is allowed),and other zones where (certain types of)farming are prohibited, due to specialconditions (eg. water retention zones).Kampala and Kumasi are two exampleswhere such a revision has recently beenundertaken (Atukunda 1998; Abutiate1995). ❖ Temporal use of vacant land. Anothermeasure is the promotion of urban agri-culture as a temporal use of vacant publicand private lands. For example, the gov-ernor of Jakarta issued a decree on the useof vacant land to mitigate the fallout of theAsian crisis for the laid off workers (NingPurnomohadi, 2000). ❖ Multifunctional land use. The promo-tion of multifunctional land use andencouragement of community participa-

tion in the management of urban openspaces. Under certain conditions foodproduction may be combined with otherurban functions such as recreation, andnature conservation.❖ Integration in new housing projects. The inclusion of space for individual orcommunity gardens in new public hous-ing projects and private building schemes,like in Dar Es Salaam where urban agricul-ture was included as interim or permanentland use in public housing schemes(Mwalukasa 2000, Jacobi et al. 2000).

Food Security Policy Analyses of current trends regardingurban food systems reveal that, in order

to achieve food security for the urbanpoor, a sole reliance on food produced inrural areas is insufficient. It is necessaryfor cities to develop plans to enhanceurban and peri-urban food production.This was already found to be 60% inKampala, and 50% in Nairobi (Maxwell1995). Policy instruments link to the fol-lowing two areas.❖ Improved access of urban farmers to agri-cultural research, technical assistance andcredit services. Overwhelmingly, access ofurban farmers to agricultural extensionservices in most cities is very restricted. Ifit exists at all, it is directed at full-timecommercial farmers mainly producing inperi-urban areas. Consequently, urbanfarming is often technically inefficient andignores the potential human and environ-mental risks to a larger degree than inrural areas. Recommendations include:the stimulation of participatory fieldresearch, field training and technicaladvice to urban farmers, and improve-ment of access to credit schemes. In DarEs Salaam a broader urban agricultureprogramme was implemented targetingboth, strengthening the self help capacityof the urban farmers, and the capacity ofcity and governmental extension struc-ture to deliver services to urban farmers(Jacobi et al. 2000)❖ Improved systems for input supply andproduct distribution. Local governmentscould facilitate the local marketing offresh urban grown food, by authorisingfarmer markets and other forms of directselling of fresh agricultural produce fromurban and peri-urban producers to localconsumers. The supply of natural fertilisers, bio-pesti-cides, etc should be promoted, by provid-ing incentives and facilitating the creationof a network of local stores, among others.Small-scale enterprises linked with urbanagriculture could be stimulated by provi-sion of licences, technical and manage-ment assistance and in the creation oflocal infrastructure. For example, BrasiliaD.F. is furthering the integration of small-scale food production with local food pro-cessing and marketing (de Carvalho 1999).

Health PolicyOne of the drawbacks of urban agricul-ture is the potential negative healtheffect. For example, cultivated areas in

cities may attract rodents, mosquitobreeding in puddles of rainwater, irriga-tion tanks and wells that may further leadto malaria or dengue. Certain diseasescan also be transmitted to humans bylivestock kept in close proximity to them,or related to aquaculture. Crops pro-duced in soils polluted by local industry,irrigated with polluted irrigation water,or produced close to main roads, can becontaminated with heavy metals (lead,cadmium, etc.).

City authorities should develop andimplement policies that minimise healthrisks without compromising the foodsecurity needs of the urban poor. Basedon examples in many cities around theworld, participants proposed the follow-ing measures.❖ Producer and consumer education.Creating awareness among farmers ofhealth risks associated with urban agri-culture and providing information andtraining on ecological farming tech-niques, proper selection oif crops, ani-mals and irrigation techniques, depend-ing the local situation of soils and water isof vital importance. This should go handin hand with clear quality standards forurban grown products and introductionof “green’ or ‘safe food’ labels Consumersshould be educated on the advantagesand risks of eating fresh locally producedfood and the necessity to clean and cooksuch food well.❖ Soil and water quality. Participants recommend periodic testing of soil andwater quality in zones where urban agri-culture is practised. Zoning regulations

A sole reliance on food produced in rural areas

is insufficient

Youth

in Lima,

Peru with

small

gardens

at school

should indicate what type of crops/ani-mals are allowed in a zone with certaintype of pollution. Bio-remediation can beapplied to regenerate polluted zones.Intensive use of agro-chemicals is to beprevented.

Environmental Policy A large part of city garbage is organic, butit is often simply dumped or illegallyburned. Waste water and sewage sludgecontain nutrients that are of high value inagriculture. Urban agriculture can help toreduce environmental pollution by recy-cling solid and liquid waste in the processof agricultural production. Urban agricul-ture also plays a role in greening the city,helps to improve the micro-climate, toreduce erosion, reduces noise, and toplays a role in maintaining bio-diversity(see Smit, this issue). However, urbanagriculture may also have some detri-mental effects on the urban environment,like the pollution of local water sources,or the accumulation of animal wastes.

In order to enhance the positive environ-mental impacts of urban agriculture andto prevent negative effects on the urbanenvironment, the following measuresmay be applied.

❖ Safe re-use of urban organic wastesand wastewater, through the establish-ment of low cost facilities for “close tosource “ collection and sorting of organicwaste; ❖ Compost or biogas production (andthe stimulation of applied research oncomposting and digesting technologies);❖ Investments in systems for rainwatercollection and storage and for small-scalewater saving irrigation systems (e.g. dripirrigation) in order to reduce the demandfor treated water; ❖ Introduction of preferential prices forwastewater treated to secondary level forirrigation and fully treated potable water;❖ Farmer education on proper handlingof waste and wastewater.

For example, in Lima (Moscoso 1999) asequence of settlement ponds allowseffluents of a higher quality to be safelyapplied at each step of treatment for aspecific use (woodland irrigation, aquaticweeds and fish farming, crop farming).

Social DevelopmentDuring the Havana workshop, the impor-tance of urban agriculture for social

development was stressed. It was said toenhance social cohesion in neighbour-hoods and bring people together.Degraded derelict land can be trans-formed in green community or allotmentgardens, and contribute to feelings ofhigher self-esteem or safety in lower classneighbourhoods. In Brazil, urban agricul-ture is promoted by the city authorities tofacilitate the social integration of recentimmigrants in the socio-economic fabricof the city by creating access to municipalland, credit and technical advice (Bakkeret al, 2000). Garnett (1996) describes thepositive impact on women’s social wellbeing in a community gardening projectin Bradford, North England.

Policy measures can further enhance thissocial development within communitiesthrough urban agriculture. For instanceby stimulating inclusion of urban agricul-ture in urban regeneration projects link-ing urban agriculture with educationaland community development activities;allowing for communal ownership ofland; and by facilitation of local exchangesystems bringing local producers andconsumers together.

CREATING AN ENABLING POLICYENVIRONMENT Historically urban agriculture does not have an institutional home. Organisa-tions like a Ministry of Agriculture usual-ly lack a political mandate for urban agriculture. Urban agriculture projectsare rarely integrated in overall urbanplanning. Generally there is little co-ordi-nation between NGOs and municipalagencies, and urban farmers are often not

organised. The participants of theHavana workshop recommended a seriesof activities oriented at the creation of anenabling policy environment.

❖ To raise awareness among nationaland city administrators, planners andNGOs and to provide them with reliabledata and positive examples; ❖ The selection of a national lead agencyon urban agriculture and the establish-ment of an interdepartmental workinggroup at national level.

❖ Stimulation of documentation andexchange of experiences at local, nationaland regional level through networks,workshops, exchange visits, newsletters,etc. For instance, the establishment ofdatabases on urban agriculture withinformation on successful policies andprojects, appropriate technologies forurban agriculture, effective and participa-tory planning and research methodolo-gies, and available expertise. ❖ The creation of city level inter-agencycommittees on urban agriculture andstakeholder platforms for dialogue andconsensus building at city and neigh-bourhood levels.❖ The promotion of participatory, sitespecific and interdisciplinary fieldresearch with a strong policy and actionorientation and stimulation of self–organisation of urban farmers.❖ Facilitating networking and dialogue.

The Ministry of Agricultureusually lack a politicalmandate for urban agriculture

REFERENCES-Abutiate WS. 1995. Urban and peri-urban horticultural activity in Ghana: an overview. In: NRI (ed.), Peri-urban interface research: workshop proceedings (UK Overseas Development Administration / BritishCouncil), Kumasi, Ghana, 23-25 August 1995, pp 45-50. -Atukunda G. 1998. An analysis of the impact of IDRC funded research projects on urban agriculture inUganda. Makerere Institute of Social Research, University of Kampala, Kampala. Paper presented at IDRCCities Feeding People Workshop on Lessons Learned from Urban Agriculture Projects in African Cities,Nairobi, July 1998. -Bakker, N., M. Dubbeling, S. Gundel, U. Sabel-Koschella and H. de Zeeuw, 2000, Growing Cities, Growing Food, urban agriculture on the policy agenda. DSE, Germany.-Carvalho JLH de. 1999. Combatir a la pobreza ayuda a dinamizar la economia. La Era Urbana 5 (3),Suplemento para América Latina y el Caribe 1: xiv-xvii.Garnett T. 1996. Growing food in cities: a report to highlight and promote the benefits of urban agriculture in the UK. London: National Food Alliance & SAFE Alliance.-Garnett T. 2000. Urban agriculture in London: rethinking our food economy.-Jacobi P, Armend J & Kiango S. 2000. Urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam: providing an indispensable part ofthe diet. -Maxwell D. 1995. Alternative food security strategy: a household analysis of urban agriculture in Kampala.World Development 23 (10): 1669-1681.-Moscoso J. 1999. El uso de aguas residuales en la agricultura urbana. La Era Urbana 5 (3), Suplemento paraAmérica Latina y el Caribe 1: xix-xxi.-Mwalukasa M. 2000. Institutional aspects of urban agriculture in the city of Dar es Salaam.-Ning Purnomohadi. 2000. Jakarta: urban agriculture as an alternative strategy to face the economic crisis.-Rees W. 1997. Why urban agriculture? Notes for the IDRC Development Forum on Cities Feeding People: A Growth Industry, Vancouver, 20 May 1997.-Yoveva A, Gocheva B, Voykova G, Borissov B & Spassov A 2000. Sofia: urban agriculture in an economy intransition.

ivestock numbers are grow-ing in many African cities.While throughout Africa,

large-scale “modern” productionin peri-urban areas is declining inmany countries struggling withStructural AdjustmentProgrammes, numerous small-scale livestock enterprises arebeing started up to sell throughinformal channels and to meetthe families’ own food needs.

The costs of imported inputs havesoared and the luxury marketsserved by these enterprises havedwindled. Urban consumers arebuying products from livestockreared on low-cost local resourc-es and sold through unofficialchannels rather than dairy plantsor certified butchers.

Those familiar with Asian citiessuch as Hong Kong, Singapore orCalcutta will know how widespread

is the raising of pigs, poultry andfish there, and will know of the clo-se links between animal keepersand restaurants for feed supply andproduce marketing. Likewise, thosewho have been in poor quarters ofLatin American cities such as Lima,La Paz or Mexico City will have seenpigs, poultry and guinea pigs beingraised in backyards and on rooftops.

CLASSIFICATIONRelatively little is known aboutthe small enterprises inside thecities and between city quarters.These intra- and inter-urban live-stock keepers can be roughlydivided into:

On-plot. Livestock kept on-plotare often enclosed by a fence,walls or cage or are tethered, andtheir feed and water are broughtto them. Larger animals may beallowed to graze part of the dayor seasonally. Besides homeown-

ers, also employees living on hos-pital and school compounds keepanimals. For example, 81% ofpeople living on the universitycampus in Zaria, Nigeria, keeplivestock, mainly poultry andsmall ruminants (Gefu 1992).

Off-plot. Livestock kept off-plottend to be grazing animals, suchas sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, buffa-lo and donkeys. They are herded,tethered or allowed to roam freelyon land used by agreement orwithout the landowner’s consent.Some of these animals belong tothe above-mentioned homeown-ers, but most belong to landlessfamilies. For example, in towns ofnorthern and central Nigeria, milkis produced by settled Fulani withsmall herds or by Fulani who keeponly their milk cows in town. Thecows are grazed on unoccupiedland in and near town, and are fedsome purchased agro-processingby-products and crop residues.The women process the milk andsell it directly to consumers. Themanure is sold as fertiliser to near-by farmers. When only the milkcows are kept in town, the rest ofthe herd is taken by the men to

grazing pastures further fromtown, where a second temporarycamp is set up (own observations).

Next to the above, there are vari-ous other possibilities of classifi-cation, such as according to:❖ main production aim: commer-cial, semi-commercial, subsistance; ❖ scale of production: large,medium, small, micro;❖ intensity of production: high,medium or low level of externalinputs❖ husbandry methods: free-roaming, herding, tethering, stall-feeding or a combination;❖ land tenure: private, usufruct

Living with

Livestock in TownUrban Animal Husbandry and Human Welfare

Ann Waters-Bayer,

ETC International,

The Netherlands

Government services concerned with livestock production for urban popula-tions have given most attention to large-scale enterprises with exotic breedsproducing eggs, milk or pork in peri-urban areas. Small-scale raising of ani-

mals by families living inside the cities is usually ignored and often forbidden.Such urban livestock keeping is much more widespread than most city author-ities would care to admit. It consists mainly of low-input production of poultry,

small ruminants, pigs, rabbits, guinea pigs or of a few milk buffalo or cattle,usually indigenous breeds. With deteriorating economic conditions and rapidurbanisation, small-scale urban farming, including animal husbandry, is beingpractised by a growing number of families in all income groups in the tropics.

LLivestock numbers

are growing in many African cities

Small

livestock

easily kept

at home,

like these

“cuy” in

Lima, Peru

rent or lease, informal agreement,unsanctioned.In any given setting, the most useful clas-sification will depend on the historicaldevelopment, the settlement patternsand the major resource constraints.

Urban livestock systems could also beclassified according to the overall incomelevel of the households, i.e. not only theincome from animals. Some types of live-stock keeping are more widely practisedby the relatively rich, and others by therelatively poor. This is important to dis-tinguish if development is to be aimed atalleviating poverty, as the functions ofkeeping livestock and the possible strate-gies for improvement will differ.

Off-plot livestock-keeping, such as road-side grazing, appears to be mainly anactivity of lower-income and landlessgroups. On-plot livestock keeping by thepoor is largely restricted to micro-live-stock such as poultry, rabbits and guineapigs, and a few small ruminants. Here itshould be noted that the majority of low-income urban farmers, many of whomkeep some smallstock, are women(ENDA-ZW 1994, Maxwell & Zziwa 1992,Sawio 1994). These producers have littleaccess to veterinary care and can affordonly very limited amounts of purchasedfeeds. Very poor urban dwellers rake upgarbage to find food for their small stock,or spread out garbage piled on city streetsto let their goats select from it.

For low-income as compared with high-income urban families, livestock keepingplays a far more important role as a sourceof food, income and security. Urban live-stock keeping provides a source of employ-ment not only for the animal keepersthemselves but also for people operating inthe informal supply systems: herders, sell-ers of leaves and grasses, and collectorsand sellers of produce (Centres 1991).Poorer women go house-to-house to buycereal bran to resell to livestock keepers intown. On urban markets and roadsides,

bundles of cut grass or lopped browse,groundnut hay and other crop residues areoffered for sale, not only by farmers butalso by poor urban dwellers who make dai-ly forays beyond the city to collect feed forurban stock. Some people without animalseven grow forage for sale, such as theNapier grass grown around Nairobi to sellto urban livestock keepers (Lado 1990).

OPPORTUNITIESLivestock keeping also offers opportu-nities at the city level. The few studiesmade thus far suggest that public benefitsderived from urban livestock keepinginclude: more efficient land use; providingemployment, also upstream and down-stream from the production itself; reduc-ing transport and energy costs; reducingpublic costs for land maintenance ormunicipal services; improving the supplyof perishable but nutritious foods; provid-ing lower-cost food for urban dwellers.

One of the greatest strengths of small-scaleurban livestock keeping is its great mobilityand flexibility. It gives value to municipaland private land momentarily not beingused for other purposes, making opportu-nistic use of land in a positive sense.

A key opportunity offered by urban live-stock keeping is waste recycling. One ofthe biggest problems in cities - garbage -

can be a resource for animals: organicwastes from households, streets, market-places and agro-industries can providevaluable feed. Urban wastewater can alsobe a resource for urban animals andcrops. For example, the City Council ofHarare uses recycled water to irrigate pas-tures for grazing herds, and sells the meatto urban market outlets (Mougeot 1994).Another use of wastewater is aquaculture,a fast-growing form of urban livestockkeeping. Fish can be raised in wastewaterpurified less completely than needed fordirect human consumption.

Just as livestock can turn urban wastesinto resources, also the wastes from live-stock keeping can become a valuable inputfor urban growing of staple foods, vegeta-bles and fruits. Indeed, it is reported fromIndonesia that animal manure mixed withrejected feed and sold as fertiliser makesup a large part of cash generated fromstall-kept ruminants (Orskov 1994).

The efficient recycling of sewage andorganic wastes for and from animals willbe one of the major tasks for research andextension services for urban livestocksystems.

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS ON URBAN LIVESTOCKThe next issue of the Urban Agriculture Magazine will focus on UrbanLivestock (UL). The publication is planned for October.

There is a clear need for determination of the impact of urban livestock in the city and the need and effect of policy measures. Many issues you couldwrite on, are raised in the article on Urban Livestock in this issue.

The following issues are suggested: Concepts and definitions; Poverty alleviation; Zoonosis / Public Health; Environmental issues – waste and recycling;Policies; Gender; Economics and Market Relations; Extension /PTD/knowledgedevelopment; Ethno-Veterinary Knowledge; Cultural Preferences; Benefits andSavings; Industry-Agricultural Activity in the city.

You are invited to contribute to this first issue of the Urban AgricultureMagazine with an article, further suggestions, description of best (or bad)practices in general, photo’s and information on interesting publications,websites, workshops and training courses. Your article should give a cleardescription of the livestock system, the urban aspects and should address policy implications and recommendations. Articles should be written in such a way that they can readily understood by those working with farmers. If you are interested in writing an article, please send a full draft before 1 September 2000, to: The Editor of Urban Agriculture Magazine, RUAF,P.O. Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden, The Netherlands, fax: + 31 33 4940791,ruaf@etcnl.nl

This article was published earlier in

the proceedings of the Eighth

International Conference of

Institutions of Tropical Veterinary

Medicine, held in Berlin, Germany in

1995. This abridged version is reprint-

ed with the permission of the author.

A longer version is available on the

RUAF website. The next issue of the

Urban Agriculture Magazine will be

fully dedicated to Urban Livestock

(see the call for contributions below).

Authorities must recognise the existence

of livestock in town

PROBLEMSLiving with livestock in town also givesrise to problems. As veterinarians wellknow, the proximity of animals to humansincreases the risk of transmitting diseases.Manure, dirty bedding material, feed restsand the wastes of animal processing, if notproperly handled, can attract flies and leadto water pollution. With more direct salesthrough informal channels, control ofhygiene conditions and food qualitybecomes impossible, in view of the lack oflaboratories and qualified staff in mostdeveloping countries. Traffic accidentsmay be caused by roaming animals.Neighbours often complain about the noi-se and odours from livestock in town.

Banning ani-mals and salesof non-con-trolled productsis not theanswer, as thiswould deprivemany urbanfamilies of avital source oflivelihood.Besides, inmany cities, thebans are alreadyin the books,but cannot beimposed. Mostimportantly,bans prevent

the state from intervening to improve ani-mal health and productivity and to mini-mise risks to human health, as animalkeeping will be clandestine.

Further major problems experienced byurban livestock keepers are high animalmortality and uncertain feed supply. Forexample, the value of animals that diedannually was found to be higher than thevalue of animals consumed or sold byurban cattle keepers in Nairobi (Lee-Smith & Memon 1994). It will be a chal-lenge for livestock services to find eco-nomic ways to reduce mortality.

ACTIONMany planners in developing countriesregard urban livestock keeping as a tran-sitory phenomenon. However, there is noindication that livestock and other formsof farming decrease, the longer peoplelive in cities. Indeed, quite the contraryappears to be the case.

In the past, government support wasgiven mainly to large-scale intensivemeat, milk and egg production units.Government incentives included taxexemption, low-interest credit and subsi-dies on inputs and/or outputs (Krostitz1984). Recent economic changes have put

an end to many of these ventures, partic-ularly in Africa. A study of the effect ofstructural adjustment in Nigeria revealedthat small-scale food producers are react-ing more flexibly and productively thanthe large-scale units, and further financialsupport for the latter is strongly ques-tioned (Porter 1994).

Micro-entrepreneurs have developedinner-city livestock keeping through pro-cesses of indigenous innovation, withoutexternal support. Development agents andgovernment officials are only beginning torecognise what is happening under theirvery noses. The questions are now: Whatcan and should be the role of governmentand development agencies in the face ofthese local initiatives? How can urban live-stock keeping be assisted to alleviate pov-erty and improve human welfare in cities?

First of all, authorities must recognise theexistence of livestock in town. Officialrecognition makes it easier for veterinaryand extension services to deal with thedangers of livestock to human health andenvironmental quality, and to maximisethe opportunities.

More research is needed into livestock-keeping systems and their constraints,taking into account the concerns and val-ues of the producers themselves, theirneighbours and city authorities. Theresults of such studies need to be madewidely known among political decision-makers in clear, concise language.

Information also needs to be spread to pro-ducers and consumers about livestock-related dangers for human health and howto avoid or reduce them. Developmentagencies should be creating opportunitiesfor livestock keepers and other city dwell-ers to communicate with each other,understand each other’s actions andencourage changes in behaviour. One pos-sibility would be to promote producerorganisations: common-interest groups

which can negotiate with other local stake-holders in jointly defining and implement-ing regulations for using urban resourcessuch as garbage or public land for grazing. Governments need to set up policy andservices which favour small-scale live-stock production based on local inputs:encouraging the use of local non-conven-tional feeds and focusing on animal spe-cies and breeds (e.g. local cattle, buffalo,goats, rabbits) which can use the avail-able roughages and depend less on con-centrates. Combined efforts of farmersand animal nutritionists will be needed toidentify locally-available resources and todesign feed mixtures to meet the needs ofdifferent animal species. Particular atten-tion needs to be given to the role ofwomen in urban livestock keeping.

In summary, the challenge for veterinaryservices confronted with the reality oflivestock in cities is to interact in a posi-tive, enabling manner with urban dwell-ers, rather than making vain attempts atbanning livestock. What is needed fromgovernment services is well-founded andlocally applicable information and appro-priate low-cost inputs for healthy andproductive livestock in town. All stake-holders will then be in a better positionto make wise decisions when jointlyplanning the use of urban resources forlivestock keeping and other sources oflivelihood for urban dwellers.

REFERENCES- Centres JM. 1991. Améliorer I’approvisionnement deBamako en produits maraichers et en protéines animales.1. Agriculture et élevage à Bamako. GRET, Paris, n.p.ENDA-ZW. 1994. Urban agriculture in Harare: report onan IDRC-supported project. ENDA-Zimbabwe, Harare,47 pp.- Gefu JO. 1992. Part-time farming as an urban survivalstrategy: a Nigerian case study. In: J Baker & PO Pedersen(eds), The rural-urban interface in Africa. ScandinavianInstitute of African Studies, Stockholm, pp 295-302.- Krostitz W. 1984. Poultry development in the develop-ing countries. World Animal Review 52: 17-23.- Lado C. 1990. Informal urban agriculture in Nairobi,Kenya: problem or resource in development and land useplanning? Land Use Policy 7 (3): 257-266.- Lee-Smith, d. & P.A. Memon. 1994. Urban Agriculture inKenya, IN\n: A.G. Egziabher et al. (eds) Cities FeedingPeople: An Examination of Urban Agriculture in EastAfrica, Ottawa, IDRC.- Maxwell D & Zziwa, S. 1992. Urban agriculture inAfrica: the case of Kampala. ACTS Press, Nairobi, 74 pp.- Mougeot LJA. 1994. Urban food production: a survey ofevolution, official support and significance. Habitat 94,20 September 1994, Edmonton, 42 pp.- Orskov R. 1994. Landless livestock keepers. ILEIANewsletter 10 (4): 24.- Porter G. 1994. Food marketing and urban food supplyon the Jos Plateau, Nigeria: a comparison of large andsmall producer strategies under “SAP”. The Journal ofDeveloping Areas 29: 91-110.- Sawio CJ. 1994. Who are the farmers of Dar Es Salaam?In: AG Egziabher et al. (eds), Cities feeding peoples: anexamination of urban agriculture in East Africa. IDRC,Ottawa, pp 25-46.

Waste recycling using

animals in India

More research is needed

Backyard

vegetable

garden in

Cagayan

de Oro,

Philippines

Sponsored by the InternationalPotato Centre (CIP), theProgramme, Users’ Perspectives

with Agricultural Research andDevelopment (UPWARD) is an Asianagricultural research and developmentnetwork dedicated to enhancing partici-pation of users in technology and appli-cation, especially by marginalized groupssuch as women home gardeners.

HOME GARDENS IN PHILIPPINESHome gardens are the small areas of cul-tivated land immediately surrounding ahomestead. There has been an increasingnumber of global and local initiatives topromote and support home gardens sincethe 1980s. Most of the initiatives so farehave been directed to improved house-hold income, food production and familynutrition. Less attention has been givento exploring the inherent diversity withinhome gardens, and assessing its contribu-tion to the achievement of the multiplefunctions and goals of this particular pro-duction system

Earlier studies by UPWARD (e.g. Verdonkand Vrieswijk 1992; Mula and Gayao1992, Gayao et al. 1992, Prain and Piniero1995) have not only confirmed the preva-lence of home gardens in tropicalPhilippines, but also highlighted the inti-mate and interdependent relationshipbetween the food security and nutritionimprovement functions of home gardens,and their potential as a vehicle for help-ing to conserve local biodiversity.

These studies also showed that homegardening is also common among bothrural and urban households. The choiceof garden crops is generally a function ofthe intended use of the garden produce,e.g. food needs of the household, feed forbackyard animal raising, or cash cropswhich serve as a potential source ofadded income, and further aestheticinterests of household members.

The range of crops is extensive, from veg-etables and multi-purpose tree species tomedicinal herbs and forage grasses. Mostnotably, assessment results suggest thatthe more biologically diverse a garden,the more likely the family is to consume anutritionally healthy range of food types.

(BIO)-DIVERSITY DYNAMICSFollowing up on these earlier works,UPWARD initiated a study in 1994 insouthern Philippines to further examinebiodiversity issues in home gardens, andtheir links to household strategies forfood security and family nutrition. Thestudy sought to:❖ characterise the prevalent home gar-den systems in the area;❖ assess their crop species diversity;❖ identify home gardeners and theirmanagement of diversity;❖ evaluate and enhance the contributionof home gardens to various house hold-ing objectives.

Lantapan, the study site, is part of theManupali watershed in Mindanao island.

Elevations range from 320 to 2938 metersabove sea level, extending from rain fedpaddy fields to partially cleared forest-lands. An initial survey revealed increas-ing erosion of biodiversity in thewatershed. Plant and animal species weredisplaced due to deforestation and a shiftaway from subsistence farming towards acommercial monocropping system.

One recommendation to arrest furtherbiodiversity loss and to help local house-holds satisfy food and cash income needs,was through home gardens. To identifyopportunities for introducing and testingimproved home garden managementpractices, prelim-inary assessmentand long-termmonitoring activ-ities were con-ducted through amix of participa-tory methods andtools.

A completeinventory ofhome gardenplants in theManupaliwatershed identified 167 plant species whichinclude 24 forest trees, 25 fruit trees, 4 cereal crops, 31 vegetables, 4 root crops,20 herbs, 5 spices, and 54 ornamentals(Prain and Piniero 1994). The inventorysupports the hypothesis that home gar-dens in the tropics adopt the vertical dis-tribution of biological diversity found in

Dynamics in

Tropical Home Gardens

Raul Boncodin, Programme Associate

Dindo Campilan, Co-ordinator, CIP-

UPWARD, Makati City, Philippines, Gordon

Prain, Global Co-ordinator, CGIAR Strategic,

Initiative on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture

(SIUPA), CIP, Lima, Peru (see page 34)

A

The importance of homegardens is often under-

estimated. The small are-as of cultivated land

immediately surroundinga homestead make a vital

contribution to meetingvarious household

needs, both rural andurban, in developingcountries. Providing

research and develop-ment support to home

gardens is even more significant as it implies reaching out to the“invisible farmers” – women and children who often play the key

role in establishing and maintaining home gardens.

Fig. 1: Location of the Manupali

Watershed, Lantapan, Bukidnon,

Philippines

natural communities (Troutner and Holle1979). The home gardens across thewatershed varied widely in terms of theirspecies composition, which ranges from 4to 35 species and are maintained and har-vested year-round (Medina et al. 1996).

Home garden diversity also variesaccording to the three distinct agro-eco-logical zones of the watershed. Homegardens found in the middle zone (at analtitude of approximately 700-1500meters above sea level) have more plantspecies than those found both in theupper (1500 - 1800 meters ) and lower(below 700 meters) zones. The dominantspecies in the two lower zones are theperennials (e.g. herbals, fruit and foresttrees), thus no significant change in spe-cies composition in these zones wasobserved over the two-year monitoringperiod. The number of species in theupper agro-ecological zone, however,significantly varied over the same period.The gardens in this zone are planted withvegetables and ornamentals, which weremostly annuals, and thus much morereflective of other changes going on inhouseholds maintaining these gardens.

The study indicates that home gardenersin the area have consciously evolved somerather specialised management strategies,which cannot only be attributed to thedifferences in the micro-environments.This impelled the researchers to analyse

the relationship of home garden diversityto socio-economic variables. The analysiswas able to substantiate the effect of thegardener’s occupation and economic orwealth status to her home garden man-agement strategies. Home gardens offarmers of the lower economic strata, aredominated by annual crops primarily forutilitarian purposes. Those maintained byprofessional and self-employed garden-ers, belonging to the higher economicstrata, are dominated by perennial cropsprimarily for homesteads’ beautificationand are mostly found in residential or“peri-urban” areas.

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITYLocal households reported that homegardens contribute an average of 14% ofdaily food intake costs, which is 22% ofthe average household daily wage. Moresignificantly, home garden contributionrises nearly to 50% among those in thelower-income bracket. It is not surprisingtherefore that home gardens maintainedby the poorer households are dominatedby annual vegetable crops.

The two-year long quarterly monitoringof home gardens also revealed cyclicalchanges in biodiversity ranges. Home gar-den diversity decreases during the dryseason, which lasts from February untilMay. The onset of the rainy season in Juneis accompanied by an increase in diver-sity, peaking in November/Decemberwhen most of the garden crops, planted atthe start of the season, are ready for har-vest or have been harvested.

Home garden crops are most importantduring the lean months, which start inMay and become critical in July. By thistime, the harvest of the previous fieldcrops, such as rice and corn, have run low,but newly planted field crops are still notharvestable. Opportunities for casuallabour are also few and far between atthis time, putting further strain on familyresources. Drought-tolerant crops plantedearly in the garden and early-maturingcrops that can be quickly harvested arethus of great importance to supplementthe households’ food needs through thesehard times. This is especially the case forthe low-income home gardeners in theupper agro-ecological zone where thelean months most severely affect thehouseholds.

FAMILY NUTRITIONA total of 33 different food crops wereidentified in local home gardens includinggreen, leafy, and yellow vegetables; starchyroots and tubers; as well as legumes, beans,nuts, and spices. While home gardening isdirectly aimed at providing subsistenceand supplementary household food sup-ply, it was shown to concurrently make asignificant contribution to the amount ofnutrients and variety in the householdfood intake. Home gardens provide year-round food supplements to households notonly in terms of quantity but also in termsof food diversity and variation.

The study showed that home gardensplay an important role in provision ofVitamin A, (compensating for the lack ofretinol in the diet of local households) andVitamin C while they also supply one-third or more of calcium and iron needs.These results are consistent with the find-ings in a similar study on urban home gar-dens in the Philippines (Velez 1997).

LINKING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND USE Aclose correlation between householdfood security and nutrition improvementon the one hand, and home garden biodi-versity conservation on the other wasfound. This offers significant researchopportunities for exploring ways toimprove and consolidate these comple-mentary functions of home gardens inoverall household management.

From the assessment results, theUPWARD project has subsequentlyworked with home gardeners to test andintroduce new crop species and accom-panying home garden management prac-tices. The follow-up participatory actionresearch, consisting of home gardentrials, validation workshops and fieldmonitoring, has a three-fold objective:first, to enrich the inherent biodiversityof home gardens; second, to improveaccess, regularity and adequacy of foodsupply for households; and third, toenhance nutritional quality in the house-hold diet through the diversity of foodcrops made available by home gardens.Medium- and long-term impact assess-ments are still being carried out.

Home garden contribution rises nearly to 50% among thosein the lower income bracket

REFERENCES- Alvarez N. 1997. Biodiverse farming produces more. Seedling 14(3): 6.- Gayao BT, Alupias EB, Sim JM, Quindara HL, Gonzales IC &Badol EO. 1992. Sweet- potato household gardening develop-ment. Progress report. La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines:NPRCRTC-BSU.- Medina C, Prain G & Locht J van de. 1996. Assessing and devel-oping the contribution of home gardening to biodiversity conser-vation and household nutrition. Paper presented at the UPWARDParticipatory Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop, Pampanga,Philippines, 14-15 December.- Mula RP & Gayao BT. 1992. Urban and rural home gardens inthe highlands of the Northern Philippines: The case of the sweet-potato. Final report. La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines: BenguetState University. 86 p.- Prain G & Piniero M. 1994. Communities as Curators of PlantGenetic Resources: the case of rootcrop conservation in SouthernPhilippines. In: Prain G. (ed.), Conservation and Change: farmermanagement of agricultural biodiversity in the context of devel-opment (Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines: UPWARD).- Prain G & Piniero M. 1995. Approaches to community-basedPGR conservation. In: UPWARD, Taking Root: Proceeding of the3rd UPWARD Review and Planning Workshop (Los Baños,Laguna, Philippines: UPWARD).- Troutner M & Holle m. 1979. The homestead area in the atlanticzone of Costa Rica: An efficient agroecosystem. Paper presentedat the Meeting of American Society for Horticultural Sciences,Tropical Region, Mexico, November 1979.- Velez C. 1997. Home gardening as a strategy for food and nutri-tion security: a case study of selected households in Lantapan,Bukidnon. MSc paper in Applied Nutrition, submitted to theFaculty of the Graduate School, University of the Philippines, LosBaños.- Verdonk I & Vrieswijk B. 1992. Sweetpotato consumption in twomunicipalities in the Cordillera. Project Terminal Report. LosBaños, Laguna: UPWARD.

n 1995, the Centre of EnvironmentalPlanning and Technology (CEPT), withsupport from USAID, carried out an

Environmental Risk Assessment for theCity of Ahmedabad. A major finding ofthe study determined that the city’sambient air quality was a major healthrisk to its residents. In response to thesefindings the Ahmedabad MunicipalCorporation gradually evolved a compre-hensive approach, “the Greening ofAhmedabad Program” which includesefforts in various fronts to tackle thecity’s air pollution problems.

Responding to the decline in the city’senvironment, the Ahmedabad MunicipalCorporation (AMC) has launched variousimprovement projects, in infrastructure,slum improvement projects, and initiatedthe “Greening of AhmedabadProgramme”.

The Greening of Ahmedabad is a concert-ed effort between the AhmedabadMunicipal Corporation (AMC) and thePrivate Sector. It aims to increase thegreen cover and improving the environ-mental quality of Ahmedabad. The maincomponents of this Programme are activities like the greening of roadsideand traffic islands; park and gardendevelopment and maintenance; city forest development; and natural regeneration and wasteland restorationon vacant lots (taking the preservation ofthe city’s watershed as a high priority).

Through partnership agreements withinterested parties, like business and indus-

trial houses, local entrepreneurs, insti-tutes, service oriented organisations andNGOs the greening of the city is increased,developed and maintained. For instancecompanies such as Syntex Ltda., TorrentLab., Anil Bakery, Ashima Sintex Ltda etc.are involved in “road side plantations”,“development and maintenance of newand existing parks and traffic islands”.Under the Greening of AhmedabadProgramme, the AMC also launched theAhmedabad Green Partnership project (AGP) as part of this greening drive.

The AGP has been initiated as an innova-tive scheme using the concept of ‘-partnerships’ and ‘participation’ as itsmain ingredients. The city has managedto launch this program as an initiativethat provides responsibilities and spacefor innovation to its citizens, to civicorganisations and to private sector enterprises. For example, in an effort toincrease road side tree plantation, privateand public sector institutions wereoffered to “adopt” plantation units (500meters long, with trees planted at 5 meterspacing) along the main roads of the city.They provide the funding for the saplingsand the tree guards while maintenance isdone by AMC. In exchange, they areallowed to advertise their logos on thetree guards. Through this effort, between1996 and 1997, a total of 16.292 trees havebeen planted along main roads

The Greening of Ahmedabad An Innovative Urban Community Forestry Model

Liliana Marulanda S.

Independent consultant in Lima, Perú.

I

Ahmedabad is a very dynamic industrial city in India with a long-standing history in the textile sector of India. The textile crisis in

the seventies hit this ‘Indian Manchester’ hard, but todayAhmedabad is again known as a city bustling with industrial and

commercial activities. The cities ongoing growth has been marked by a substantial influx of population, growth of slumsand unauthorised colonies and a subsequent environmental

decline. This deterioration of the environment in Ahmedabad isnot only visible in the settlements of the poor, but in the city as awhole, and this fostered a process of awakening and awareness

about the urgency to introduce corrective measures.

Table 1: Parks and Gardens

Size No. of gardens No. of traffic islands Maint. by AMC Maint. by privite s.

Up to 2 acres 38 45 30 15

From 2 to 5 acres 19 - 17 2

Above 5 acres 15 - 12 3

Totals 72 45 59 20

THE “AHMEDABAD GREEN PART-NERSHIP” PROJECT (AGP)The Green Partnership is an initiative bythe Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation(AMC) to utilize empty plots, owned bythe AMC, for urban forestry related activ-ities in partnership with NGOs workingwith poor communities and other citi-zens groups. This idea took quite sometime to evolve into a feasible and benefi-cial approach for the parties involved.

The approach has been developed withthe support of RHUDO/USAID. After theProgram Guidelines were developedthrough several workshops, and agreed atotal of 17 plots were allotted to andagreements were signed with 12 NGOsfor undertaking an equal number offorestry and other greening related activ-ities in these plots.

Objectives The objectives of the AGP Project are:❖ To contribute to the greening ofAhmedabad through the development ofurban forest and other greening relatedactivities in vacant plots owned by AMC.❖ To facilitate and encourage participa-tion of low-income residents, especiallywomen, through the formalisation ofpublic-private partnerships.❖ To increase, through such partner-ships, the income generation possibilitiesfor low-income residents of the city.

Operation and Management Under the AGP, plots owned by AMC, areoffered to NGOs and other organisationsfor the development of urban forestryand related activities. Plots were allottedfor a period of 5 years, with possibilitiesof extension of other 5 years. TheAhmedabad Green Partnership is man-aged by the Director Parks and Gardensunder the Department of Special Estates,Parks & Gardens of the AMC. The list ofavailable plots was prepared by the StateDepartment of the MunicipalCorporation.

Plot demarcation and water connectionswere provided by the AMC. Fencing, con-struction of sheds and preparation of the

land was carried out by NGOs. Plantationwork started when weather conditionswere appropriate (in this case plantationwork could only start during the mon-soon season).

For the fiscal year 1997/1998 the AMCbudgeted Rs. 15 million (1U$ /34 Rs) forthe greening of the city. Yearly provisionsof Rs. 10 million have been made forimplementation of the AGP in the nextfour years.

Financial resources are granted by AMCto the implementing organisations forfencing, saplings, tools, fertilisers, a port-able shed and other expenditures for thefirst year. Additionally, the AMC providesone water connection, while the organ-isations are responsible to provide forwages, maintenance, security and otherplanned amenities, which were not cov-ered by the grant.

For the second year funding will be avail-able only for items such as watering,weeding and fertilisers. For the third yearonwards, 10% to the amount provided for the second year will be granted. It isexpected that after a period of five yearsthe projects will achieve financial sustainability.

Projects under the AGPTo give an example of the project activities a number of projects will bedescribed below.

The Centre for Environmental Educationis supporting a group of associated students to develop a plot into an urbanforest for research and academic purpos-es. The main objectives are creatingawareness and understanding amongcommunities of the importance of greenareas in cities, to create avenues, to devel-op and disseminate information on thediverse species that can thrive as anurban forest.

Akhil Bharatiya Vanaaushadhi AbhyasMandal is active in propagating ethno-botany and conservation of theenvironment. They are developing a

plot into a garden of medicinal trees andplants for the benefit of the communityand the city.

The State Bank of India OfficersAssociation is the trade union of the bankofficers. It is developing a plot into anurban forest, through its Social ServiceWing which implements small projectsfor the benefit of communities and thecity in general, while providing a goodcorporate image to the Bank.

Under the Green Partnership, SelfEmployed Women Association (SEWA)–an internationally well known NGO andwinner of the HABITAT II award for itshousing programmes- got allotted twoplots, located in residential areas, whichare used to generate employment for themembers of the unions and to contributeto the greening of the city.

ISSUES FOR THE CONSOLIDATIONOF PARTNERSHIPSThe following lessons are learned:

In the initial stages flexibility is needed,to give room for identification of poten-tial problems, and the necessary adjust-ments. Technically realistic criteria haveto be set for plot selection, taking intoaccount site-specific conditions, well inadvance so that the extra inputs andresources required for its developmentare known to the parties involved, whenthe plot is allotted.

Full agreement of the proposals is need-ed, in order to assess at beforehand, theland uses allowed under the agreement,but also for evaluation purposes. Theinvolvement of residents, in the prepara-tion, monitoring and evaluation of theareas where plots are located is vital forthe success of these projects. This process

After 5 years the project will achieve

financial sustainability

takes time but will prevent confronta-tions, which only disrupt project imple-mentation.

Projects should further financially be fea-sible, to ensure sustainability and toavoid or minimise the need for subsidies,as it is the case for the AGP component ofthe Greening of Ahmedabad Programme.

Since each organisation or project hasdifferent characteristics, objectives andapproaches. It is difficult for a govern-ment office alone to monitor day-todayneeds and provide the assistancerequired. This is why it is advisable tocount on the mediation of an appropriateinstitute/organisation to act as a media-tor between the municipality and theimplementing agencies.

For most of the grassroots organisations,the partnership arrangement is a com-pletely new experience. They are motivat-ed with the perspective of deriving somebenefits, while contributing to improve thegreen cover of the city. Assistance in tech-nical matters and in the development andimplementation of participatory approach-es will greatly help to maximise theresources and outputs of these projects.

RELEVANCE OF THE AGP FORURBAN DEVELOPMENT POLICIESThe AGP includes very relevant and inno-vative features, which can radiate verypositively when they are adopted and/or

included in the development policies of acity. From this particular case there arethree aspects we would like to highlight.

Urban Agriculture as a StrategyUrban agriculture and forestry, and othergreening related activities could be fea-sible strategies towards improving sus-tainable city development. In this partic-ular case, both, the parties involved andthe city environment are benefiting fromthe decision to include urban agricultureactivities within the urban developmentframework. Private institutions create theopportunity to a socially responsiveoriented outlook while sharing benefitsand responsibilities with the municipaladministration. The latter in turn, com-bine the solution of environmental prob-lems with working on economic andsocial problems. The green coverage ofthe city further decreases air pollutionand creates a healthier urban environ-ment. Finally, a substantive amount ofjobs and incomes can be created.

The Partnership ApproachThis experience shows that the partner-ship approach is indeed a viable alterna-tive to supply an efficient service at lowercosts. Important to note, is that the jointeffort is understood as an opportunitythat benefits all the parties involved butat the same time entails clear responsibil-ities. The development of transparent

tools, like in this case a very simple andclear contract and an expedite, red tapefree, application and plot award process,has encouraged the participation of theprivate sector partners. Apart from thecommitment, the partners must have thecapacity and skills necessary to fulfil theirresponsibilities. In certain cases, technicalassistance may be needed. Success fur-ther depends on realistic planning andprogramming.

Planning for Urban Agriculture A first step is that urban agriculture andurban forestry activities are considered as

part of the strategy in urban sustainability.Then the city needs to plan for it to hap-pen. Sanctioning of land is a requirementto formalise further implementation. Citymanagers and planners need to take intoaccount that trees and crops are long-term products and that these investmentsneed proper time to yield benefits. This isespecially valid for those plots thatbelong to the municipality; the privatepartners need the certainty that there istime to recover their investment.

CONCLUSIONSThe use of partnerships for the development and maintenance of public services is

paying good dividends to AMC. The Ahmedabad Green Partnership Programme

demonstrates that when the rules of the game are clear, partnerships between gover-

nments, NGOs, CBOs and other citizens groups are viable development options,

which offer benefits for all parties involved.

With transparency, commitment, continuity and efficient administration from the

AMC, the private sector, including low-income residents, have been encouraged and

enabled to respond and support the government in making Ahmedabad a healthy,

green and less polluted city.

Urban agriculture, urban forestry and other greening activities need to be recognised

by urban managers and planners as viable development alternatives. Especially those

aimed at improving the living conditions of the urban poor will help to develop better

cities of which not only we but future generations can feel proud of.

A substantive amount of jobs and incomes

can be created

This paper is based on

the Documentation

Report of the Ahmedabad

Green Partnership Project

prepared by the author

for the Regional Housing

& Urban Development

Office (RHUDO) of the

United States Agency for

International Development

(USAID), New Delhi,

India, 1997. With some

modifications, it also will

be presented in the

International Symposium

on Urban Agriculture

to be held in Berlin July,

2000.

he main reasons for citydwellers to practice farmingare (Moldakov, 1999):

❖ self-sufficiency, especially thesupply of fresh green food;❖ additional income, throughthe sale of fruits, vegetables, eggs,milk, and flowers. People’sexpenditures for food are veryhigh, up to 60% of total income;pensions are very low and unem-ployment is high.❖ access to “healthy” food ❖ leisure ❖ productive use of “free”resources, such as kitchen waste-water and residues.

Mainly middle-aged and elderlypeople carry out urban agriculturalactivities, falling between the agesof 35-45 and above; younger peop-le are not interested or are engagedwith other occupations. The tech-

nologies applied by these urbanfarmers are normally very basic:hand labour and simple tools.

In 1998, the urban farmers of St.Petersburg produced: 15,800 tonsof potatoes; 47,400 tons of apples,pears and plums; 38,500 tons ofvegetables; 7,900 tons of strawber-ries; and 23 million cut flowers onthe plots (Maydachenko, 1999b).This is more than all agriculturalfarms of the Leningrad Region.

Urban agriculture is practised inthe inner city and in the peri-urban areas. In the inner city thefarming takes place in backyards,in public lands and vacant spacenear the houses, basements, roof-tops, balconies, windowsills.

The areas for peri-urban farmingmay be located at the city boun-daries (commercial or subsisten-ce-oriented) or at larger distances(10-100 km). The latter includesthe large amount of allotmentswith weekend or summerhouses,which are worked by Petersburgcitizens during weekends in thesummer periods. Thousands of

urban people spend almost everyweekend in these areas from mid-April until the end of October.

The agricultural activities providean important way to solve the poverty and unemployment problems.

HISTORY The history of the urban gardeningmovement in St. Petersburg datesback to the end of the nineteenthcentury, when village noblemenmoved into the city but kept theirfarming practices. They were thefirst to create a summer residencecum farm outside the city.

Until the Soviet period, St.Petersburg practically had no realurban area, but consisted of manyone-level houses made of woodwith small gardens and animals.The Soviet authorities did not wel-come agricultural activities in thecity, and built new multi-storyapartments and subsequentinfrastructure. Inner city agricul-tural activities, such as cultivationand selling of flowers or growingvegetables for sale, were allowedonly to urban and suburban pen-sioners and invalids. Individual subsistence orientedagricultural activities were permit-ted to rural and peri-urban inhabi-tants, but were limited by the sig-nificant tax to land-property.

Approximately from the begin-ning of the sixties, some urbanfamilies in St. Petersburg were

The Urban Agriculture

Magazine tends to focus on

regions in the South. Most

contributions and case studies

draw heavily on experiences in

Asia, Africa and Latin

America. And as an initiative

under RUAF, this is not

surprisingly so. Another project

on urban agriculture ETC

Ecoculture is called “Soil and

Water Management in

Agricultural Production in

Urban Areas in CEE/NIS

Countries” (SWAPUA).

The St. Petersburg

Downtown Gardening Club

is one of the six Eastern

European organisations

active in SWAPUA.T

Annually up to 2,5 million inhabitants are involvedin agricultural activities in St. Petersburg. The

total area cultivated by city dwellers around thecity is 560,000 ha, and in the summer time over

500,000 of them constantly live on their summerresidences and other types of buildings on plots.

Oleg Moldakov,

St. Petersburg Downtown

Gardening Club,

St. Petersburg, Russia

Selling products from the

garden

on the

streets

The Urban Farmersof St Petersburg

allowed to engage in agriculture on smallsites in suburbs. Such sites were in thepremises of suburban plants, of schoolsor hospitals, and the urban authoritiesdid not object to such small gardens fortheir own use.

At the same time, others had the opportu-nity to cultivate for own use in communitygardens in peri-urban areas created by co-operative societies. These gardens weredivided into numerous clusters of plots ofabout 0.1 ha with small houses. Initially,these ‘dachas’ were exclusively state pro-perties and were placed at the disposal ofthe Soviet Union’s new “high society”, for-mally for temporary use, but in reality theycould be owned for life and inherited bythe next generation. Their inhabitantswere Communist Party functionaries andoutstanding scientists, artists, actors, etc.These were places for relaxation and theagricultural activities represented no morethan an exotic hobby.

After the Stalin era, some lands in peri-urban areas were made available to theDSK (‘Association for cooperative buil-ding of single storey cottages’), whichaimed to build for ordinary people. Smallsummer-houses were built on plots ofaround 0.1 ha on the basis of cooperativefees by special building companies andthese houses were regarded as the assetsof the dacha-building cooperative union.Since the late 1970s almost all Sovietenterprises and organizations began toask the local authorities for permission toacquire plots for gardening, with single-storey houses on them. Usually landsplaced at people’s disposals were forestsites or on unused land, located 2-3 kmfrom railroads or motorways and 10 up to100 km from the cities. The plot-owners’main objective was to grow fruit, orna-mental plants and vegetables for homeconsumption, while any surplus could besold to neighbors and any chance purcha-sers. From 1985 onwards enterprises andorganizations also helped their staff mem-bers with loans in order to acquire theirplots of land. Between 1986 and 1996 thenumber of dacha-owners doubled.In the period of radical changes and econo-mic crisis 1989 - 1996 the need to cultivateland was guided by the logic of survival.Since then, under the market economy, theagricultural production in the city becamedifficult, for instance because the cost for the transport has increased for non-pensioners and children (Maydachenko,

1999a). Market oriented production beca-me unprofitable (Maydachenko, 1999).Still however, many people, with the timeand means to cultivate, aspire to get their own peri-urban plot by any meanspossible. St. Petersburg provides to all pensioners a subsidy on public transportcosts in order to allow them to go to theirplots and cultivate for their subsistence.

TYPES OF URBAN AGRICULTURE IN ST. PETERSBURGSeveral types of urban agriculture havebeen established. There are the former co-operative types: Dacha, Sadovodstvo andOgorod; as well as individual land plots.

Dachas are blocks of gardening plots(0.08-0.15 ha) with cottages. They are usu-ally located in the peri-urban area of theolder cities and are presently under priva-te ownership. There are approximately150,000 dachas in the Leningrad Region,most of them 50 km. from the city. Theproduction is mainly for subsistence.

A sadovodstvo is a gardening community,consisting of 50-600 gardening plots (usu-

ally 0.06 ha), with small summer housesand a common infrastructure (roads, wel-ls). Sadovodstvos are usually located inthe peri-urban areas of new and industrialcities and towns, and are now under pri-vate ownership. Today there are some2800 officially registered gardening com-munities located in areas around St.Petersburg which include 560,000 plots(Maydachenko, 1999a). They also producemainly for subsistence.

An ogorod is a gardening plot (0.02-0.3 ha)without any buildings, and often with noor little infrastructure, and mostly informalor even illegal entities. Ogorods are usually

located in the peri-urban areas of smalltowns. Ogorods are on municipal lands orprivately owned. Thhere are some 180 000plots (Maydachenko, 1999a).

Factory gardens and greenhouses; duringthe communist period nearly all plants

The St. Petersburg Downtown Gardening Club (STDTGC)The St. Petersburg Dopwntown Gardening Club has developed out of the Centre forCitizen Initiatives USA-Russia (CCI), a non-profit foundation. A group of enthusiasticpeople decided to establish this Club, as an effort to make the city more natural andecological. The Club was officially registered in 1992 as an NGO. In 1993 a Rooftop Gardening Programme (RGP) started. The main goal was to tryout the gardening techniques developed by Dr. Martin Price of ECHO (“EducationalConcerns for Hunger Organisations”) for gardening on apartment-building roof-tops (Martin, 1997).

The advantages of rooftop gardening in urban areas are many:❖ large amounts of extra food can be raised ❖ household wastes can be directly utilised; the Club used empty basements toaccommodate special containers with California redworms that recycle kitchenwastes into compost, which is subsequently used as fertiliser for the rooftop gar-dens (Gavrilov, 1997)❖ people can engage in gardening right where they live and do not need to travelfar from the city; women with young children can engage in gardening, generatingincome, while staying close enough to the home to look after the children.❖ improved ecology (household waste recycling; production of oxygen: one rooftop garden of 150 m2 can create enough oxygen for 100 people to breathe for oneyear)❖ people in the city can feel closer to nature Next to rooftop gardening the Club also started kitchen gardens in the “Kresty”(Cross) city prison, developed a model ecological apartment building (Eco-House),started gardening as a therapy at the prosthesis institute, and participated in aschool gardening and recycling projects. The Club focusses now on the creation ofbetter marketing conditions for small urban and peri-urban farms and promotesurban agriculture as an integral part of the urban productive system.

The agricultural activitiesprovide an important way to

solve the poverty problems

and factories used to grow food in gar-dens and greenhouses to feed theiremployees in its canteens. Especiallyolder, larger companies and military firmscontinue to do so. Land under greenhou-ses is in municipal or private ownership.

Individual permanent houses with backyardgardens can still be found in the older partsof the city and in the city periphery (oftenprivately owned or municipal property)

Various households and private entrepre-neurs use the basements to grow mush-rooms, other use the rooftops and balco-nies to grow vegetables, other use theseplaces to process fruits and vegetables

In the periphery of the city one encoun-ters conglomerates of private parcels of landthat formed part of a former collective andstate farm. These lands are a now belon-ging to the former labourers of the collec-tive or state farm. The production is moreintegrated, including small livestock andfruits, and aims at both subsistence andmarket production.Furthermore, former kolhozes and sov-chozes are transferred in a “companywith limited liability” and maintained aslarge-scale, fully commercial farms, withthe former kolhoz- or sovhoz- membersas shareholders of the company.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIESThe current Russian law allows and evenstimulates the existence and furtherdevelopment of agricultural activities inthe city and its periphery. For example,one clause mentions, that the authoritiesare obliged to help the gardening associa-tions on important issues, such as con-struction and reparation of roads, trans-mission lines, water drains and watersupply. Local authorities are also suppo-sed to facilitate the transport of garde-ners to their sub-urban plots and summerresidences (Marjina, 1998).

City authorities in St. Petersburg considerurban and peri-urban farming to be amajor social factor and means of subsis-tence for at least 2 million citizens (totalcity population nearly 5 million). St.Petersburg city budget provides to allpensioners a subsidy on public transportcosts in order to allow them to go to theirplots and cultivate for their subsistence.From May to October, twenty-five spe-cialised medical ambulances serve garde-ning and country facilities. AnInformation Centre for gardeners hasbeen created to assist in the “manage-ment and development of kitchen gar-dens”.The City of Petersburg operates an Officefor the Development of Horticulture andGardening in St. Petersburg and theLeningrad Region, which co-ordinatesthe activities of state agencies and localgovernment agencies. One of the otheractivities of the Office is the organisation,jointly with the “Union of Gardeners” ofthe yearly competition “Gardener of theyear” as an effort to promote technologi-cal innovation and “rational” land use.

MAIN PROBLEMS Despite the fact that the authorities of StPetersburg disburse funds for services to(peri-) urban gardeners for garbage col-lection, maintenance of roads, wells, etc.,gardeners complain that the living condi-tions in the garden communities are notup to standard as in the city itself. Theyrefer to police control and health careservices, amongst others.

Peri-urban counties claim to be compen-sated for their extra administrative

expenses for services to the almost twomillion St Petersburg residents, whospend their summers in peri-urban loca-tions. One must consider that one gardenarea alone, “Trubnikov the Boron“ inTosno, houses 50,000 summer residents,while in the nearby “Danube” gardenarea, almost 100 thousand gardeners areactive during summer weekends. Another key problem is the marketing ofthe produce. The businessmen from StPetersburg only come irregularly andtransport is costly.

Theft is also a major problem in the gar-dening areas. It has been proposed thatpolice from St Petersburg helps the localpolice to patrol the gardening complexes.

Other constraints for the further develop-ment of urban agriculture are:❖ absence of a clear strategy for the deve-lopment of urban agriculture in StPetersburg;❖ insufficient information on nutritional,socio-economic, ecological and healthaspects of urban gardening;❖ the shortage of written information(books, articles) on urban agriculture forurban gardeners;❖ low rentability of agricultural activities.

OPPORTUNITIES OF URBAN AGRICULTUREThe opportunities for urban agriculturein St Petersburg are many. The following issues are opportunitiesand at the same time challenges:❖ there are plenty of vacant lands in thecity that can be used for small scale agri-culture;❖ most urban gardeners are optimistic,well-informed, self-trained and skilled; ❖ many people are active in the field ofsustainable and organic agriculture; theurban agriculturist in St Petersburg hasnever been keen to use chemicals andalways preferring manure and compost;❖ well-established education at the uni-versity level;❖ low salaries, limited purchasing powerand high market prices of agriculturalproducts force people into self-produc-tion;❖ growing governmental and municipalinterest to support food security, self-employment and small enterprise deve-lopment for social and political stabilityreasons.

REFERENCES- Afanasjev O., Gardener and Law, Moscow, 1998- Boyko Oksana, The Day of Gardener has appeared, Neva time No 55 (1936) March 27, 1999- Competition “ Most - most... “, PetersburgVedomosti No 107 (1781), June 10, 1998- Gavrilov Alexander, Roof top gardening in St. Petersburg., 1997- Marjina T., Dispute on the land plot boundary,Petersburg Vedomosti No 87 (1761), May 13, 1998 - Maydachenko Roman, Kitchen garden in cityboundaries: family help or financial servitude?Petersburg Vedomosti No 182 (2096), October 1,1999- Maydachenko Roman, Are any land plots available? Petersburg Vedomosti, No 76 (1991),April 26, 1999a- Maydachenko Roman, Gardeners are pleasedwith them, Petersburg Vedomosti, No 56 (1971),March 30, 1999b- Moldakov O., City survey on urban gardening inSt-Petersburg, 1999- Preriev Ilya & Gunt Boris, “Summer residences:yesterday, today, tomorrow”, “Land andFreedom” electronic journal, N18 (215) May 7,1998.- Sokol A.Ya., Roof top gardening. 1996- St-Petersburg Land resource ManagementDepartment Report, St-Petersburg, 1998

The City authorities in St. Petersburgconsider urban and peri-urban farming

to be a major social factor

oday food is much moreavailable, prices have comedown, and quality is up. Per

capita figures for fresh fruits andvegetables are recovering. Muchof this turn around has been dueto a mass movement within alllevels of Cuban society to produceand market food, flowers andmedicines “in the community, bythe community, and for the com-munity” (Fuster, 1999).

Such crises as Cuba experiencedin the 1990s are a quiet andeveryday crisis around the globe.For the hungry, whether they arein underdeveloped or overdevel-oped countries, Cuba is demon-strating to the world that with anappropriate set of policies,resources, and technologicalinnovation hunger and food inse-curity need not be the norm for somany families.

THE ROOTS OF THE URBANAGRICULTURE MOVEMENTAll over the island, agriculturechanged in response to the newsituation. Without fuel and partsfor the tractors or agrochemicals,Cubans began to use sustainabletechnologies. The urban agricul-ture movement was born out ofthis crisis. Although Cuba is high-

ly urbanized, urban agriculturewas virtually nonexistent prior tothe 1990’s. When the crisis came,the urban areas were the hardesthit because it was difficult totransport produce into the citiesdue to the fuel shortages. As aresult people in many commu-nities began to quietly take overempty lots and to farm. Othersrequested local agencies to letthem farm on their open space.Many of the first gardens wereplanted in side lots, on patios, and on rooftops by urban familieswho were trying to feed them-selves when the store shelveswere bare.

Martin Bourque and

Kristina Cañizares

Food First/Institute for Food

and Development Policy

Oakland, USA

During the crises years of the early 1990s whendue to the deconstruction of the easternEuropean bloc, Cuba lost it main trading part-ners and at the same time the US intensified itseconomic blockade against Cuba, the blackmarket thrived and food prices skyrocketed.Many food items got “sidetracked” from statedistribution chains feeding the black marketand causing scarcity in the ration system.Fresh fruits and vegetables, even when produ-ced in ample quantities often rotted in thefields or at warehouses because the transpor-tation system was also in crisis.

T

Urban Agriculture in

Havana (Cuba)Food production in the community by the community and for the community

Figure 1 Urban Agriculture as a Percentage of Total Production

(MINAGRI, 2000; Cuba News 2000)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

64%

58% National Total

Urban Agriculture

39%

13%

6%

Pro

duc

tion

of to

ns

Rice Vegetables Non CitrusFruits

Tubers (Millionsof) Eggs

The urban agriculture movement was born

out of this crisis

Organopónicos

in Havana,

Cuba

Santa Fe, a small beach community onthe western edge of Havana, grew to beone of the leading farming neighbor-hoods in Havana. By 1995, there were 915small farms and gardens with 400 gar-deners working on them.

As policy makers watched this movementthey began to realize its potential. Aftermany visits and interviews in Santa Feand other successful communities, UrbanAgriculture was declared a national pri-ority and was supported by the highestauthorities in the country (Gonzalez,2000). The Ministry of Agriculture creat-ed a National Urban Agriculture Programthrough which significant resources werechanneled to support food production incities and small towns (MINAGRI, 1999)

THE GROWTH OF URBANAGRICULTURE The principal challenges for urban farm-ers and gardeners at that time were accessto land and a lack of experience. In 1993,the Ministry restructured urban land userights to make it easy for locals to applyfor land. Any unused land could be givento a gardener in permanent usufructownership- it would remain under his orher control as long as it was under culti-vation. Havana blossomed with gardens.

Most urbanites people had little experi-ence with agriculture, and even thosewith farming backgrounds had littleknowledge of the small-scale, organictechniques that were necessary for urbancultivation. The Department of UrbanAgriculture coordinated a comprehensive

network of extension agents based onSanta Fe and other experiences to assistthe gardeners, provide information aboutthe latest technology, and help to distrib-ute seeds and tools. Many independenturban farmers have now formed cooper-atives for credit and service (CCS) andnew collective farms are being created

under the legal umbrella of the BasicUnits of Cooperative Production (UBPC)(Companioni et al. 1998).

The Cuban government wanted to makeit easier for farmers to distribute theirproduce to the population. Previously allfood that was bought and sold eitherwent through government stores or wastraded on the black market. To preventthis practice and to lower food prices, thegovernment allowed food to be sold atfarmer’s markets and on-site standsthroughout the city (Gonzalez, 2000).Because the food is sold where it is grown,there are no transportation or storagecosts, and the food is always fresh. Somegardens have hired neighbours to sell pro-duce on bicycle carts. Many gardens alsodonate some food to local communitycenters, schools, elder cares facilities, hos-pitals, and the like (Murphy, 1999).

The government programmes are suc-cessful because they are not static; theychange in response to the needs of theproducers and consumers. For instance,as the demand for garden inputs grew,the Ministry found that its small stores,or seed houses, would be more efficient ifless centralized. Therefore each seedhouse, which supplies all the necessarygarden inputs, is highly autonomous. TheMinistry delivers inventory, but does notset the sale prices. This type of negotiatedcooperation has provided the flexibilitynecessary for unprecedented growth andinnovation.

A DIVERSITY OF TYPES OF FARMSAND GARDENSUrban agriculture in Havana takes manyforms; gardeners use different methodsdepending on the size, location, andquality of the lot. The existing forms canbe divided up by methods used and bysocial organization The different types ofmethods are intensive gardens and patioplots, organoponicos and small diversifiedfarms. In the densely populated urbanareas where gardens are small (under twohectares), Cubans use either intensive

Figure 2: Total Production and Yields of Organoponicos 1994 to 1999.

(After Companioni et al., 2000)

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Yields

Total Production

Pro

duc

tion

(100

0 to

ns)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

25

20

15

10

5

0

Yie

ld (k

g/m

2 )

Table 1: Extent of Urban Farming in the City of Havana 1997

(after Companioni et al. 1998).

Form of Production Total Number of Sites Total Area (ha.)

Intensive Gardens 92 gardens 17.00

Organopónicos 96 gardens 23.80

Hydroponics & Zeoponics 3 locations 111

Suburban Farms 2,138 private farms 7,718

285 state farms

Popular Gardens 5,000 gardens 1,854

26,604 gardeners

Business and Factory Gardens 384 gardens 5,368

Household Gardens Unknown Unknown

Total 7,998 gardens 15,092 ha

Compañeros,For some time I have been insisting

on the importance of developing our urbanagriculture. I am convinced that these are

the first products that we will be self sufficient in and that this will represent an important factor

in the gradual solution to the problems of feeding the population.

-Raul Castro, Minister of theRevolutionary Armed Forces, 1998

could get) and provides the infrastructuresuch as fencing, sales kiosk, tool shed,irrigation system, and startup productionloans, which the cooperative will pay offover time. The rates are low and the landis free so most are able to pay off theirloans before the term is up.

Many state run enterprises have beenexperimenting with a new arrangementwhere they break up the large stateowned lands surrounding the city andgive small plots (up to 20 hectares) tonew farmers. They are like Usufructuariosin many senses except that they mustcontinue to produce the crops that thatenterprise traditionally produced, andsell it exclusively to that enterprise. Thecontracts are based on production quo-tas, and the prices are fixed before plant-ing. Anything the farmer produces aboveand beyond the quota either gets anincreased price or can be sold directly toconsumers at higher prices.

As a result of the policy, resources, landand market reforms, and dedication ofgovernment and community members,the urban agriculture movement hasexploded. Figures for number of gardens,area farmed, total production, yieldand percentage of total food productiondemonstrate these trends.

REAPING THE BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTUREThe urban agriculture program has had a fantastic impact on nutrition and foodsecurity. Besides vegetables, the urban

agriculture programme also producesherbs, medicinal plants, rice, fruits, cook-ing oils, honey, pigs, chickens, rabbits,and ornamental plants. Specific programsprovide irrigation systems, worm com-posting, and recycling of householdwastes. Urban agriculture has provided

urban dwellers with a way to grow theirown food, and current production is ris-ing so fast that some areas are alreadyproducing 30% of their caloric intake.

Another important impact of urban agri-culture was that food prices went downdue to the increasing production.

REFERENCES-Castro, Raul. 1998. Communiqué to the First Secretaries of theprovincial committees of the Cuban Communist Party.September 4, 1998.-Companioni Nelso, Ojeda, Egidio Páez, and Catherine Murphy.2000. Urban Agriculture in Cuba: Structure and Fundamentals.In Transforming the Cuban Countryside: Advances in sustaina-ble agriculture. Food First Books. Oakland. In Press.-Companioni, Nelso, Elizabeth Peña, Adolfo Rodriquez, YanetOjeda, and Mirian Carrión. 1998. La Agricultura Urbana enCuba: Su Estructura y Fundamentos Organicos. INIFAT.Havana.-González, Mario. 2000. Institucionalización de la AgriculturaUrbana en la Ciudad de La Habana. A paper presented to theUrban Development Program of the United NationsDevelopment Program. Quito Ecuador, April 2000.-MINAGRI. 1999. Lineamientos para los Subprogramas de laAgricultura Urbana para el Año 2000. Grupo Nacional deAgricultura Urbana. Havana.-Murphy, Catherine. 1999. Cultivating Havana: Urban agricultu-re and food security in the years of crisis. Development Reportno 12. Food First / Institute for Food and Development Policy.Oakland.

gardening or the organopónico methods ofcultivation. The intensive garden is usedwhere the existing soil is healthy anddrainage is adequate, and seeds and seed-lings can be planted directly into theexisting soil. Raised beds may be createdwith supports around them to protectagainst heavy rains and to more efficient-ly use the organic fertilizer.

In areas where the soil is poor, rocky,compacted, contaminated, or non-exis-tent, especially where drainage is blocked,or on paved lots the organopónico methoduses raised beds with “imported” soil andcompost. The beds are usually construct-ed out of any handy material, includingold roofing tiles and rocks or brokencement blocks. The soil is brought in fromthe area and mixed with equal amounts oforganic material to fill the beds. Both ofthese systems are extremely intensive.They never try to have the beds unplant-ed more than 48 hours, and they are alluse very high application rates of compostand other organic soil amendments(González, 2000; MINAGRI, 1999;Murphy, 1999).

In the outskirts of the city where moreland is available, are the suburban farmsexceeding two hectares in size. Becauseof their larger size, the suburban farmsare able to integrate more livestock, fruitand forestry trees in with the horticultu-ral production found in the smaller gar-dens. These farms are also highly diverseand may produce crops with longer cropcycles that a small farm would see as aninefficient use of limited space. Many ofthe starchy tubers and grains are pro-duced on these farms.

There are many different ways that urbanfarms are organized and two main typesof land tenure. The farmers who have tra-ditional private parcels are in both urbanand suburban areas are called Parcelerosand are typically organized into creditand service cooperatives (CCSs). Since1993, when the government began givingout land to individuals in free and perma-nent usufruct ownership, a new categoryof farmer was created: The Usufructuario.They are increasingly being incorporatedinto the CCSs. When several farmerscome together and form a cooperativeand ask for land and loans as a group,they form a Basic Unit of CooperativeProduction (UBPC). The state gives thema piece of land (larger than an individual

Urban agriculture activities in Havana

takes many forms

?!Frequently asked questions include thefollowing:

❖ Information on gardening practices and techniques, like organic farming Answers to many of these type of questionscan be found on the website of City Farmer:http://www.cityfarmer.org. If not, thesequestions could be dealt with by otherinstitutions participating in RUAF, or other of the Support Group.❖ Information on conferences and other activitiesSee the section on Forthcoming Events of the UA Magazine or here, or athttp://www.ruaf.org. There you will also find links to other websites that may providethis type of information see the section onWebsites.

❖ How to find certain publications?On the Bibliography pages of the RUAFwebsite you may find what you look for.Furthermore, we will regularly review newreleases under the section New Publications.

Recent questions received, that were ofinterest to quite a few of who communicatedwith RUAF are:

❖ Where to find information on indicators or models that may assist in calculating the percentage of food security and income deliveredby urban agriculture. ❖ Information on the qualitative and quantitative impacts of community gardens.❖ Where to find or how to apply for funding for setting up a community garden.

We invite you to share your experiences with us. You cansend your answers, suggestions and questions to:

The editor of UA Magazine: RUAF: ruaf@etcnl.nlETC InternationalPO Box 64 , 3830 AB LeusdenThe Netherlandstel: + 31 33 4943086fax: + 31 33 4940791

Questions and answers

RUAF, being a resource centre, regularly recei-ves questions from a variety of persons and

institutions on many different subjects. Someof them can be answered directly by RUAF;others are forwarded to partner institutions

with the required expertise. Readers are alsowelcome to contribute and share experienceswith others. In the next issue we will start with

an interactive Question and Answer section.

Next issue

www.ruaf.org

ColofonUrban Agriculture MagazineVolume 1, No 1June 2000

The UA-Magazine is publishedby the Resource Centre forUrban Agriculture (RUAF), aProgramme executed by ETCNetherlands and financed byDGIS, The Netherlands andIDRC, Canada.

The UA-Magazine is published 3 times a year.

In the future the UA-Magazinewill also be published in Frenchand Spanish, and distributedthrough regional institutions.

The UA-Magazine is also published on the RUAF website:www.ruaf.org.

Address RUAF, P.O. Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden, The Netherlands, Visitors address:

Kastanjelaan 5, Leusden.

Tel: +31.33.4943086Fax: +31.33.4940791Email: ruaf@etcnl.nlWebsite: www.ruaf.org

EditorialThis Issue has been compiled byHenk de Zeeuw (guest editor) and René van Veenhuizen(responsible editor)

PhotographsExcept for the article ofAhmedabad (photo’s by L. Marulanda), photo’s availablewith RUAF have been used, ofthe following sources: C. Schilter(Togo), B. Mbiba (Zimbabwe), T. Pinzas (Peru), P. Jacobi(Tanzania), F. Nunan (India),L.M. Sanchez (México), M.Amar-Klemesu (Ghana), PUVPPProject (Phillippines), Ciudad deHavana (Cuba).

AdministrationBernie Coenders

SubscriptionsThe editorruaf@etcnl.nl

Design and LayoutJan Hiensch, Leusden

Language EditorAmunda N. Salm

PrintingKoninklijke BDU, Barneveld

No. 2 Urban Livestock

(October 2000) No. 3 Integration of urban

agriculture in urban planning

(January 2001) No. 4 Management of urban

agriculture related health aspects

(April 2001)No. 5 Methodologies in planning

and facilitation of urban agricul-

ture (September 2001)No. 6 Urban agriculture and food

security (December 2001)

You are invited to contribute to the UrbanAgriculture Magazine with an article, description ofbest (or bad) practices, photo’s and information oninteresting publications, websites, workshops and

training courses.

An article-contribution, shouldhighlight the urban aspects and policy implications and recommen-dations. Articles should be written insuch a way that they can be readilyunderstood by those working withfarmers. We would like to suggestarticles of up to 3000 words long(This is about 6 pages A4). Articlesshould preferably be accompaniedby an abstract, illustrations (digital if possible) and references. The plan-ning for the next issues is:

RUAF is a global initiativeof the Support Group on Urban Agriculture, co-ordinated by ETC