%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
INTRODUCTION
Urban agriculture can be briefly defined as the growing of plants and trees and rearing of livestock within or on the fringe of cities (intra-urban and peri-urban agriculture, respectively), including related input provision, processing and marketing activities and services (Smit et al. Reference Smit, Ratta and Nasr1996). The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) introduced the acronym UPA (Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture; Nugent Reference Nugent, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and De Zeeuw2000), with ‘urban agriculture’ referring to agriculture that takes place within the built-up city and ‘peri-urban agriculture’ to agriculture in the areas surrounding the cities.
UPA is practiced in a variety of places (on field plots, on vacant public land, in gardens, on rooftops, in barns and cellars). UPA most often focuses on perishable and high-value products (green vegetables, mushrooms, herbs, fresh milk, eggs, poultry and pig meat, fish) that can be grown in confined spaces. The orientation and scale of UPA may vary from purely subsistence-oriented or recreational types of UPA at the micro scale, through small-scale semi-commercial gardeners and livestock keepers, to medium- and large-scale fully commercial enterprises. In many cities in developing countries, the most frequent type of UPA encountered is the family farm, combining production for self-consumption with sales on the market to raise income (Moustier & Danso Reference Moustier, Danso and van Veenhuizen2006).
Although in developing countries most urban and peri-urban farmers are from the poorer strata of the population, one can often also observe participation in UPA from middle class people (e.g. the lower- and mid-level government officials in Dar es Salaam with a stall-fed dairy unit on their house plot; Jacobi et al. Reference Jacobi, Amend, Kiango, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and de Zeeuw2000), as well as entrepreneurs seeking good investment for their capital in more intensive forms of UPA (e.g. a larger poultry farm or intensive irrigated horticulture in greenhouses) (Mougeot Reference Mougeot, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and De Zeeuw2000). Some urban farmers are recent immigrants but, contrary to popular belief, more often than not urban and peri-urban farmers have already lived in the city for longer periods of time; time that is needed to gain access to urban land, water and other resources (Mougeot Reference Mougeot, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and De Zeeuw2000). Most urban gardeners, especially in Africa, are women (Hovorka et al. Reference Hovorka, De Zeeuw and Njenga2009).
Many national and local authorities, especially in developing countries, previously viewed intra-urban agriculture mainly as a source of problems (due to perceived health and environmental risks associated with UPA as well as being a nuisance to traffic and neighbours), or at best as a survival option for the urban poor in times of crisis. Peri-urban agriculture was mainly seen as a temporary use of land until such time as this open space would be incorporated into the city and developed for other uses (Bourque Reference Bourque, Bakker, Dubbeling, Guendel, Sabel Koschella and de Zeeuw2000).
After reviewing the research literature on UPA, Mougeot (Reference Mougeot, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and De Zeeuw2000) came to the conclusion that the most striking feature of urban agriculture is not its location, but the fact that it is an integral part of the urban socio-economic and ecological system. UPA uses urban resources (land, labour and urban organic wastes), grows produce for urban citizens, is strongly influenced by urban conditions (urban policies and regulations, high competition for land, urban markets, prices, etc.) and impacts the urban system (having effects on urban food security and poverty, as well as having impacts on ecology and health). UPA is a permanent feature of urban systems (although its location within the city's regions may shift over time) and UPA tends to grow when cities grow (although its relative contribution compared to other sectors may decline).
Moreover, the growing body of research on UPA continually reveals that UPA is not just a problem to be prohibited and restricted but has a number of benefits and can provide important contributions to answering a number of key challenges encountered by cities. This has led many national and local governments to the conclusion that the development of UPA needs to be facilitated and controlled, in order to maximize its benefits while reducing the associated risks, rather than being restricted and stifled. UPA can be considered as an integrated part of viable strategies for sustainable and equitable urban development.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF UPA TO KEY URBAN CHALLENGES
Cities in developing countries are confronted with enormous challenges and their resources are often rather limited (especially so in sub-Saharan Africa). Below, data on the contributions UPA can make to the solution of some key urban challenges are reviewed briefly.
Urban poverty alleviation and social inclusion
In 2008, the world's urban population outnumbered its rural population for the first time in history (UNFPA 2007). Urban growth is projected to increase significantly in the coming decades. The world's urban population is expected to double from 3·3 billion in 2007 to 6·4 billion by 2050. It is predicted that 0·60 of the world's population will live in cities by 2030 (UN-Habitat 2007), although in many countries this proportion is already higher. Accompanying this urbanization process is a phenomenon referred to as the urbanization of poverty (Ravallion Reference Ravallion2001): the population growth is combined with a gradual shift in the locus of poverty from rural to urban areas. The proportion of the poor living in cities is expected to increase from 0·30 in 2000 to 0·40 by 2020 and 0·50 by 2035 (UNFPA 2007). Moreover, in most developing countries, urbanization has become virtually synonymous with slum growth: the slum population has almost doubled in the past 15 years (UNFPA 2007). Most cities in developing countries encounter great difficulty in creating sufficient employment opportunities and to provide adequate basic services for the rapidly growing population. This leads to high unemployment (especially among the youth and disadvantaged categories of the population) and very poor living conditions in the slum areas. Most urban poor rely on the informal sector and unstable intermittent jobs for their survival.
The presence of UPA varies from city to city but, in developing countries, the proportion of the urban population that is involved in UPA or UPA-related activities is often quite substantial e.g. 0·13 in Accra (Sonou Reference Sonou2001), 0·15–0·20 in Dar es Salaam (Sawio Reference Sawio1998), 0·20 in Lima (IPCC 2007), 0·45 in Governador Valadares (Lovo & Pereira Costa Reference Lovo and Pereira Costa2006), and in Beijing a large number of migrants (0·5–1 million) are involved in peri-urban horticulture (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Cai and Yang2003).
The effects of UPA on poverty alleviation vary with the type of participants involved, the products produced and degree of market orientation, among other things. The more subsistence-oriented and semi-commercial types of urban agriculture may have smaller economic significance, but the number of households involved is often high and UPA often plays an important role in the survival strategies of the urban poor, who may benefit from UPA in various ways. Firstly, when a household produces food, its expenses are reduced, which can lead to important savings since poor urban households spend 0·60–0·80 of their household budgets on food (J. Smit, personal communication, 2001). Secondly, households that produce more than they need for their own consumption will sell their surpluses and eventually generate an income, complementing income from other sources. van Veenhuizen & Danso (Reference van Veenhuizen and Danso2007) summarized data regarding net income generated in small-scale peri-urban open space vegetable production in a number of African cities. They concluded that monthly net income figures for such peri-urban producers usually range between US$30 and US$70 per month, but can increase to US$200 or more. In the same countries, the minimum monthly wage is in the range of US$20–40, indicating that urban vegetable production is a profitable business compared to other urban jobs.
Other households will gain an income through becoming agricultural labourers or by producing certain agricultural inputs (e.g. producing compost and worms from organic wastes), processing and marketing activities (e.g. by food preparation and street vending of food) or providing other services (transport and veterinary services). For example, 26 000 people in Havana are involved in jobs indirectly related to UPA, in addition to the 117 000 people involved in UPA production directly (Gonzalez Novo & Murphy Reference Gonzalez Novo, Murphy, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and De Zeeuw2000).
In addition, UPA often makes productive use of land that is not fit for construction (flood or earthquake-prone areas, land under power lines and in buffer zones) and adds value to land that might not otherwise have an economic output (Kaufman & Bailkey Reference Kaufman and Bailkey2000). It also provides a productive way of using urban wastes and wastewater and can play a role in the management of public parks and the maintenance of open green urban spaces (e.g. flood plains/wetlands), thus reducing the related public costs (van Veenhuizen & Danso Reference van Veenhuizen and Danso2007).
UPA mainly focuses on perishable products such as leafy green vegetables, fresh milk and poultry products and, as such, generally complements rural agriculture rather than competing with it, thereby strengthening the national food system (Mougeot Reference Mougeot, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and De Zeeuw2000). UPA can also act as a market stabilizer by complementing rural production in the dry season and/or when rural areas are poorly accessible during the rainy period (Moustier & Danso Reference Moustier, Danso and van Veenhuizen2006).
Proximity to the consumers and availability of cheap resources (e.g. organic wastes and wastewater) creates comparative advantages for urban food production. Specific disadvantages for urban producers are rising land prices, exposure to land, air or water contamination by urban industry and traffic, and the fact that UPA is often not yet recognized as a legal urban land use. The latter leads to poor land use security (hampering investment) and a low level of support to urban producers by agricultural research and extension services (Mougeot Reference Mougeot, Bakker, Dubbeling, Gündel, Sabel-Koschella and De Zeeuw2000).
Urban agriculture can also play a role in the social inclusion of marginalized groups (the aged without a pension, unemployed youth, people with disabilities, those afflicted by HIV/AIDS, refugees, female-headed households, etc.) by providing them an opportunity to feed their families and raise their income, while enhancing their self-esteem, self-management and entrepreneurial capacities (Bailkey et al. Reference Bailkey, Wilbers and van Veenhuizen2007).
Urban food security and nutrition
Urban poverty goes hand in hand with food insecurity and malnutrition (Mougeot Reference Mougeot2005). This is often overlooked because economic and social conditions, overall, in urban areas are better than those in rural areas (FAO 2004).
The recent financial/economic crisis and the rising food, fuel and energy prices have affected the poor in both rural and urban areas, although having a disproportionately large effect on the urban poor. The latter are particularly vulnerable to changes in food prices and variation in income, since food makes up a large part of their household expenses (often over 0·60) and urban consumers are almost exclusively dependent on food purchases (Baker Reference Baker2008; FAO 2008; Maxwell et al. Reference Maxwell, Webb, Coates and Wirth2008). Variations in income or food prices have a significant and direct impact on their diets. A recent nutrition study in low-income neighbourhoods of five large cities, implemented by the Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (the RUAF Foundation; Prain Reference Prain2010), showed that the recent financial and food crisis resulted in many urban poor households reducing their number of meals and turning to cheaper and less nutritious food, with negative effects on the nutritional status of family members. In the same low-income neighbourhoods, not only did the level of wasting and stunting among young children increase but so did the number of overweight or obese people, due to the changes in the diet (more fat and carbohydrates): a ‘double burden of malnutrition’ (Prain Reference Prain2010).
It is estimated that the rise in food prices in 2007 and 2008 increased the number of people living in extreme poverty in urban areas in East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa by at least 1–5% (Baker Reference Baker2008). Since then food prices have fallen, but remain higher than before the food crisis. Further price increases are expected (Maxwell et al. Reference Maxwell, Webb, Coates and Wirth2008; ESCAP 2009).
UPA can contribute to enhancing urban food security and healthy nutrition of the urban poor. Urban households that are involved in some sort of farming or gardening are more food secure, have a better and more diverse diet, and eat more vegetables than non-farming households (Zezza & Tasciotti Reference Zezza and Tasciotti2008). Production of food by poor urban households can supply 0·20–0·60 of their total food consumption (especially in green vegetables, medicinal and aromatic herbs, eggs, milk and meat from small animals; Smit et al. Reference Smit, Ratta and Nasr1996). Involvement in UPA may also lead to better mitigation of diseases (better nutrition, home-grown medicinal plants), more physical exercise, less dependency on gifts and food aid and enhanced self-esteem (Lock & de Zeeuw Reference Lock and De Zeeuw2001).
UPA also increases the availability of fresh, healthy and affordable food for other urban consumers, as much of the food produced by urban farmers is bartered or sold locally. It is estimated that 0·15–0·20 of the world's food is produced in urban areas (Armar-Klemesu Reference Armar-Klemesu, Bakker, Dubbeling, Guendel, Sabel Koschella and de Zeeuw2000). In many cities, urban agriculture provides a substantial part of the urban demand for vegetables (especially fresh green vegetables: often 0·90 or more), fresh milk (often 0·60–0·70), poultry and eggs (0·50–0·70), and to a lesser extent, pigs, fruits and freshwater fish (0·15–0·50). Van Veenhuizen (Reference van Veenhuizen and van Veenhuizen2006) provided an overview of available research data on a large number of cities. Locally produced food is fresher, more nutritious and diverse than food products bought in supermarkets or in fast food chains; it also leads to more regular food intake (Yeudall Reference Yeudall, Boischio, Clegg and Mwagore2006). This is of crucial importance for young children, the elderly or sick household members (e.g. HIV/AIDS and TB patients) and pregnant and lactating women.
UPA also contributes to ensuring food availability during times of natural disasters or armed conflicts. For example, in Sierra Leone the residents of Freetown are well aware of the importance of urban farming, as many of them would have starved during the decade-long civil war in the absence of UPA (Larbi & Cofie Reference Larbi and Cofie2007).
For refugees, displaced people and recent migrants that live in camps around cities or with their relatives in slum areas, local food production on vacant land or in containers is an important survival strategy. Their involvement in productive activities may also help them to regain dignity, hope and self-respect and enhance their self-reliance, while reducing operational costs for humanitarian agencies (Bradford et al. Reference Bradford, Hoekstra and van Veenhuizen2009).
Urban environmental challenges
The urban demand for fresh water is rising rapidly and availability of fresh water is becoming a serious problem (UNESCO 2003). At the same time, rapid urbanization and changing consumption patterns lead to the generation of vast amounts of urban wastes and wastewater, the management of which is a growing concern and high cost for many cities (Cofie & van Veenhuizen Reference Cofie and van Veenhuizen2008). In most developing countries, only a small proportion of urban wastewater is treated and most of it is discharged untreated into the environment (Obuobie et al. Reference Obuobie, Keraita, Danso, Amoah, Cofie, Raschid-Sally and Drechse2006). Most of the solid wastes, if they are collected at all, are disposed in dump sites (Drechsel & Kunze Reference Drechsel and Kunze2001).
Climate change adds to the challenges faced by cities and is recognized as one of the most serious environmental, societal and economic challenges (IPCC 2007). The UN Populations Fund (UNFPA) indicates that climate change disproportionately affects people ‘who live in slum and squatter settlements on steep hillsides, in poorly drained areas, or in low-lying coastal zones’ (UNFPA 2007). There are 3351 cities in such zones worldwide, of which 0·64 are in developing regions, and many of them are rapidly expanding (UN-Habitat 2009). Moreover, it is predicted that climate change, especially in certain parts of Africa, will lead to massive displacement of people from rural areas affected by drought or flooding to the urban centres. Often, a large proportion of them will end up living permanently in and around urban areas, exacerbating the pressure on urban systems to provide basic services and livelihoods (IASC in press).
UPA can play a role in improving the urban environment and adaptation to climate change (and to a lesser extent in mitigation). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggested that more urban farming should take place as a response to climate change and as a way to build more resilient cities (WMO, personal communication 2007). Urban agriculture and urban forestry were also mentioned at the International Conference Urban Challenges and Poverty Reduction in African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries, jointly organized by World Bank and the European Union in Nairobi in June 2009, as having a high potential for improving the urban environment and climate change adaptation (UN-Habitat 2009). FAO concluded that it is crucial to build more resilient cities by enhancing local food production and diminishing the dependency on food imports (FAO 2008).
UPA helps cities to improve the urban environment and become more resilient by:
• Reducing vulnerability of specific urban groups and strengthening community-based adaptive management by diversifying urban food sources and income opportunities of the urban poor and being a source of innovation and learning about new strategies/technologies for land and water-efficient food production (Smit & Bailkey Reference Smit, Bailkey and van Veenhuizen2006).
• Maintaining green open spaces and enhancing vegetation cover in the city with important adaptive (and some mitigation) benefits. UPA (including urban forestry) helps to improve the urban micro-climate (Tidball & Krasny Reference Tidball, Krasny and Wals2006). Urban agriculture may also prevent building on risk-prone land, and by maintaining such areas as, for instance, agro-forestry spaces, not only are the impacts of climate change due to flooding, landslides and other disasters reduced but also urban biodiversity and living conditions are improved (Dubbeling et al. Reference Dubbeling, Caton Campbell, Hoekstra and van Veenhuizen2009a). Such open green spaces also help to control storm water flows by allowing water storage and increased infiltration of excess storm water (Dubbeling et al. Reference Dubbeling, Caton Campbell, Hoekstra and van Veenhuizen2009a). In open green spaces in and around the city, food production can be combined with other services to urban citizens, such as agro-tourism (Jiang et al. Reference Jiang, Yuan, Liu and Cai2005) or park and landscape maintenance (e.g. ‘productive parks’, Lattuca et al. Reference Lattuca, Terrile, Bracalenti, Lagorio, Ramos and Moreira2005).
• Reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by producing fresh food close to the city: The UN Comprehensive Framework for Action of the High Level Task Force on the global Food Crisis (FAO 2008) states: ‘A paradigm shift in design and urban planning is needed that aims at: (…) Reducing the distance for transporting food by encouraging local food production, where feasible, within city boundaries and especially in immediate surroundings’. The current food system in many industrialized countries uses over four times more energy in the process of getting food from the farm to the plate than is used in the farming practice itself (Heinberg & Bomford Reference Heinberg and Bomford2009) and many cities in developing countries are moving quickly in that same direction. Encouraging food production close to cities helps in reducing the ecological foot- (and food-) print of the city, which may also enable synergistic and cyclical processes between urban domestic and industrial sectors and agriculture, for example the use in greenhouses of excess heat, cooling water or CO2 from industry (Smeets et al. Reference Smeets, Van Mansfeld, Zhang, Loohuis, Broeze, Buijs, Moens, Van Latesteijn, Van Steekelenburg, Stumpel, Bruinsma, Van Megen, Mager, Christiaens and Heijer2007).
• Decentralized reuse of wastewater and composted organic waste in UPA: Productive reuse of wastewater in urban agriculture will help to reduce the demand for fresh water supplies as well as reducing the discharge of wastewater into rivers, canals and other surface water sources and thus diminish their pollution (Buechler et al. Reference Buechler, Mekala, Keraita and van Veenhuizen2006). Use of urban wastewater as a source of irrigation will help to adapt to risks of drought and flooded roads (hampering the transport of food from rural areas) by facilitating year-round production close by. Urban wastewater can be recycled for irrigation/fertilization of horticultural crops, i.e. floriculture and fruit crops, as well as for irrigation of forest plantations that combat desertification and provide wood for fuel. In many cities, attempts to decrease pressure on wood energy (fuel wood and charcoal) by subsidizing gas or electric technologies have not succeeded. The prognosis for many regions, such as in sub-Saharan Africa, is that wood will continue to be the main source of energy for cooking and heating of the majority of their population (Baudoin & Drescher Reference Baudoin and Drescher2008). Forest plantations can turn steep slopes and low-lying lands into urban ‘green areas’.
Decentralized collection and composting of urban organic wastes will reduce the costs of public waste management, while large amounts of nutrients are reclaimed. Domestic wastes in developing countries contain a great deal (0·60–0·90 of the total fresh weight) of organic biodegradable material (Lacoste & Chalmin Reference Lacoste and Chalmin2007) and can be used for the production of compost and livestock feed (Prain Reference Prain2010). Every year in Nairobi, c. 2223 tonnes (t) each of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) and c. 3700 t of potassium (K) – together worth about US$2 million – could be generated from the city's estimated 635 000 t of waste (Prain Reference Prain2010). Reuse of wastewater and composting of organic wastes will help in reducing the mining of finite mineral resources (such as P) and energy expended to produce artificial fertilizers.
MANAGEMENT OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN AGRICULTURE
UPA does have some disadvantages and is associated with a complex mix of potential health risks, both for urban producers themselves and for their neighbours and clients (Birley & Lock Reference Birley and Lock1999; Brown & Jameton Reference Brown and Jameton2000). Many of these health risks are similar to those in rural agriculture, and some others are specific for the urban context.
For an extensive overview and discussion of management strategies, see Lock & de Zeeuw (Reference Lock and De Zeeuw2001). However, the main potential health risks of UPA are associated with:
a. Inappropriate use of contaminated irrigation water (water from rivers and canals contaminated by wastewater from industry and/or households) in UPA. Where no treatment is available, health risks from reuse of wastewater and contaminated streams can be reduced through complementary health risk reduction measures, as explained in the new WHO guidelines for safe use of excreta and wastewater (WHO 2006; Drechsel et al. Reference Drechsel, Scott, Raschid-Sally, Redwood and Bahri2010).
b. Inadequate management of livestock. Proper management of animals, manure and urine as well as proper slaughterhouse procedures will reduce an important part of the associated health risks (see Boischio et al. Reference Boischio, Clegg and Mwagore2006; Cole et al. Reference Cole, Lee-Smith and Nasinyama2008).
c. Intensive and inadequate use of agrochemicals in UPA (fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides) may lead to residues of agrochemicals in crops or in the groundwater. The risk mainly occurs in areas with a long history as intensive commercial horticulture (WHO 1992). In such areas transition to ecological farming practices may be recommended. In subsistence and semi-commercial urban farming, this risk is limited because these producers rarely apply agrochemicals due to poverty, use of composted organic wastes and their preference for a clean product for self-consumption (Lourenço-Lindell Reference Lourenço-Lindell1995). In peri-urban market vegetable farming, more organic than mineral fertilizers are applied (Kouvonou et al. Reference Kouvonou, Honfoga, Debrah and Smith1998; Tixier & De Bon Reference Tixier, De Bon and van Veenhuizen2006).
City authorities have often been reluctant to accept agriculture as a formal urban land use because of perceived health risks. However, prohibitive laws and regulations have proved to be largely ineffective and, despite such laws, urban agriculture is practiced on a substantial scale (Lock & de Zeeuw Reference Lock and De Zeeuw2001; Mougeot Reference Mougeot2005). In cities where urban agriculture is neglected or simply tolerated, this may lead to negative impacts on public health. Hence, policies are required that lead to an active management of the potential health risks associated with urban agriculture. This may be based on local identification of the main potential health risks and multi-stakeholder participation in the design and implementation of strategies to contain such risks or reduce them to acceptable levels. The development of evidence-based policies and regulations for the urban livestock and aquaculture sectors in Kampala through cooperation between researchers, policy-makers, urban planners, health officials and direct stakeholders provides an excellent example (Cole et al. Reference Cole, Lee-Smith and Nasinyama2008).
POLICY PERSPECTIVES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF UPA
Since the early 1990s the international interest in UPA has increased and the body of research has grown steadily (see the website of the RUAF Foundation http://www.ruaf.org for an online bibliographic database on research reports and other relevant publications on UPA).
UPA is now recognized by a growing number of city and national authorities (Mougeot Reference Mougeot2006). Many cities and several countries (Brazil, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, to mention just a few) have developed policies regarding UPA and have initiated major programmes to facilitate the development of safe and sustainable UPA (several of these policy documents have been published at http://www.ruaf.org; for a review of a number of these policies see Wilbers & de Zeeuw Reference Wilbers and De Zeeuw2006).
One can distinguish important differences in the approaches followed by the various policy initiatives regarding UPA, each expecting different contributions as summarized in Fig. 1. Clarifying the intentions and focus of a policy or programme on UPA often helps greatly to identify effective measures to implement such a policy.
Main policy perspectives on urban agriculture. (Source: Dubbeling & de Zeeuw Reference Dubbeling and De Zeeuw2007.)
Some cities and countries use UPA mainly as a strategy to enhance food security and nutrition, and to promote social inclusion of the urban poor and disadvantaged. Such policies and programmes often provide access to vacant municipal or semi-public land, basic training in gardening and/or animal husbandry techniques, seeds/young stock and tools to (often groups of) disadvantaged urban households (e.g. HIV/AIDS affected households, refugees and internally displaced persons, handicapped people, poor female-headed families, etc.) in order to facilitate local production of food and medicinal herbs (maybe with sales of surpluses). This enhances their access to nutritious food and provides some additional income as well as restoring self-esteem and increasing participation in the urban society. Promotion of home, community and school gardening is often included in such strategies as well as nutrition, and health/hygiene-related education.
Examples abound, e.g. the government of Brazil included urban agriculture in its ‘Zero Hunger’ policy and programme, and many urban districts are developing UPA programmes aiming at enhancing food security, poverty reduction and social inclusion of the urban poor (C. de Moreira, personal communication, 2008). The Sri Lankan government is actively promoting home and community gardening and aquaculture on vacant municipal and private land as part of its ‘National campaign to motivate domestic food production’ (Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Services 2007).
For example, Bulawayo is the second largest city in Zimbabwe with an estimated population of 2 million people, of which c. 0·60 are below the poverty line. The city council recognized the importance of urban farming to improve access to healthy food by the urban poor and adopted policy guidelines and new municipal by-laws on urban and peri-urban horticulture, livestock and aquaculture (replacing existing restrictive rules). Over 450 ha of vacant municipal land on the edge of the city were allocated for (permanent) use in urban agriculture to disadvantaged urban households. Treated wastewater is made available to some of these households and others (mainly on intra-urban sites) have been assisted by collaborating non-governmental organizations (NGOs; especially World Vision) and other actors (university, national extension service) to establish community gardens, to resuscitate derelict boreholes, strengthen group management skills and train in basic horticulture practices. Lately, with the support of the RUAF Foundation, some of these groups now also engage in market-oriented production and processing activities (e.g. poultry, mushrooms) (Mubvami & Toriro Reference Mubvami, Toriro, Dubbeling, De Zeeuw and van Veenhuizen2010).
Other cities and countries mainly support UPA in order to stimulate local enterprise development, income and employment creation. Such programmes seek to enhance the capacity of urban producers to produce food as well as non-food products (e.g. flowers, pot plants, tree seedlings, aromatic herbs, etc.) for the market as well as to stimulate related processing (packaging, drying and the production of, for example, marmalades or shampoos) and marketing of primary or processed products. Such programmes focus most of the time (but not exclusively) on small-scale family-based (often peri-urban) producers as well as agricultural production, processing and marketing initiatives by collectives of urban poor (e.g. women's groups and groups of unemployed youth). The usual ingredients of such programmes are: enhancing security of land use; provision/improvement of infrastructure and working capital; improving access to credit; technical and management support to producer groups and micro/meso enterprises engaged in processing and marketing (licenses, establishment of farmers’ markets and home delivery schemes, preferential governmental procurement programmes, support for establishment of trademarks and quality labels, provision of market information).
A good example is the municipal urban agriculture of the City of Rosario (Argentina). Rosario has about 1 million inhabitants, of which 0·60 live below the poverty line. The economic crisis in 2000 led to the formulation of a municipal policy and programme on UPA in order to support the livelihoods of the urban poor. The policy includes several measures to enhance access of the urban poor to vacant land for food production and to secure their user rights. These are: mapping of vacant land and setting up a land bank; tax incentives to private land owners that make vacant land available to urban poor on a temporal basis; provision of user permits and inclusion of permanent urban/peri-urban agriculture zones in the urban development plan. Secondly, the Rosario UPA programme includes a number of measures (implemented by the municipality in close cooperation with NGOs and other local stakeholders) to stimulate urban and peri-urban food production and marketing. This includes: setting up a city network of urban producer groups; providing access of groups of producers and/or unemployed to infrastructure and finance to establish small-scale processing and packaging units: training in market analysis and business planning, food safety, hygiene and quality control: and the establishment of ‘farmers’ markets’ and home delivery schemes (Ponce & Terrile Reference Ponce and Terrile2010).
Countries and cities applying an ecological perspective on UPA mainly focus on its role in urban environmental management (storm water storage and flood management, urban greening and micro climate, reuse of organic wastes and wastewater, reduction of the urban energy/water foot print, capturing CO2 and dust). With this perspective in mind, policies and strategies are developed that seek to integrate/maintain open spaces in the urban structure and promote ecological and multi-functional types of UPA that can provide environmental and other services (next to food) to the city.
The Asian cities participating in the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network aim at building capacity to undertake climate change resilience building activities for/with poor and vulnerable people. This includes the use of UPA and urban forestry in maintaining vulnerable areas (low-lying areas prone to floods; steep slopes prone to landslides) free from construction and developing such areas as open green multi-functional spaces and a permanent and natural part of the urban infrastructure (C. Rumbaitis del Rio, personal communication, 2009). The City of Amman included urban agriculture/forestry as one of the four pillars of its ‘Amman Green Growth Programme’ with the World Bank Carbon Partnership Facility (Z. Moussa, personal communication 2010).
The City of Beijing developed a new zoning plan reserving substantial peri-urban zones for the development of ‘recreational agriculture’, combining sustainable agricultural production with recreational services to urban citizens, nature and landscape conservation, eco-education and preservation of cultural heritage. These areas are protected against acquisition for other uses and substantial amounts of government investment are applied to facilitate the development of such ‘recreational agriculture’ by the peri-urban village cooperatives and private investors (Jiang et al. Reference Jiang, Yuan, Liu and Cai2005; Cai et al. Reference Cai, Liu, Yang, Yuan and Jiang2006; J. Liu, personal communication, 2008).
TOWARDS UPA AS AN INTEGRATED COMPONENT OF SUSTAINABLE CITY DEVELOPMENT
The 2007/2008 food crisis has made national and city authorities more aware of the need to enhance attention to rising urban food insecurity; to strengthen the resilience of the urban food system; and reduce vulnerability of the urban poor to price hikes in the international markets. This has enhanced the uptake of urban and peri-urban food production in city and national policies and programmes directed towards strategies for food security and poverty reduction. In addition, the attention being paid to reducing the environmental footprint of cities (energy, CO2, water and nutrients) and the potential impacts of climate change, as well as enhancing resilience, is growing.
These trends fit with concepts in urban development that stress the ‘regionality of city space’ (Soja Reference Soja2000) and ‘poly-centric urban development’ (Hall & Pain Reference Hall and Pain2009). They indicate a spatial and economic urban development model that focuses on a regional urban system in which various nodes interact with each other and with the open spaces included in such a ‘functional urban region’. The open areas in between the urban nodes are not seen as a reserve for future urban development and construction but as an integral part of the city's regional infrastructure, fulfilling multi-functional roles (FAO and Ministry of Agriculture of the Netherlands 1999). The green infrastructure is fully integrated as wedges and corridors (or continuous productive urban landscapes) while the city expands (Viljoen Reference Viljoen2005). This in sharp contrast with city expansion in ever widening concentric circles, as is still the dominant practice in most developing countries.
Within such poly-centric city regions, three main types of urban agriculture might be facilitated:
a. Micro-scale urban agriculture as an integrated part of social housing and slum development projects and in vacant intra-urban open spaces (such as neighbourhood greening, home/school/community gardening and small-scale animal raising along railways, under power lines (Dubbeling et al. Reference Dubbeling, Bracalenti and Lagorio2009b)). The main focus is on building a safety net and securing access to nutritious food for disadvantaged categories of the population while enhancing liveability and resilience of the slum areas.
b. Small-scale multi-functional agriculture and agro-forestry in urban green corridors and peri-urban areas, especially in locations where other uses are less desirable (flood and earthquake-prone zones, steep slopes, areas with special ecological or landscape values) with an emphasis on ecological soil-based types of agriculture that can perform multiple functions (food production as well as reuse of composted urban wastes, storm water storage, recreation and biodiversity).
c. Clusters of intensive and (often) high-technology agriculture (mainly not soil-based) including large-scale intensive pig, poultry and fish farms, intensive horticulture in high-technology green houses and related agro-industry (animal feed and slaughter house) making optimal use of the possibilities to create synergy between the various components of the cluster by reusing by-products. For example, the manure from the pig farms is used in neighbouring mushroom farms; CO2 resulting from the mushroom farms is used in greenhouses to stimulate plant growth; excess heat and wastewater from the city power plant is used in the agro-cluster. By clustering the intensive UPA, the negative trade-offs of intensive agriculture for the environment and human health can be better controlled, whereas creation of closed resource circuits is enabled. See for example the Agropark that is being developed in Dongtan, Shanghai (Smeets et al. Reference Smeets, Van Mansfeld, Zhang, Loohuis, Broeze, Buijs, Moens, Van Latesteijn, Van Steekelenburg, Stumpel, Bruinsma, Van Megen, Mager, Christiaens and Heijer2007).
These three types of production complement each other within a sustainable city regional development, although the main actors involved in the development of each of these types of production, as well as their rational for involvement, may vary substantially.
A series of ‘best bet’ recommendations have gradually evolved as policy measures at local and national level of high relevance to the development of sustainable UPA (Dubbeling & de Zeeuw Reference Dubbeling and De Zeeuw2007). These facilitate optimal benefits while preventing or reducing any associated risks. This set of recommendations was developed from experiences gained from the 17 cities that participated in the RUAF coordinated cities farming for the future programme (2000–08) supplemented by a number of international and regional conferences and workshops on UPA involving local authorities, researchers, practitioners and international organizations.
