Urban Agriculture themes

The theme pages help you specify your search and emphasise the most important themes within the field of urban agriculture. From the RUAF Foundation web site click here

Why is Urban Agriculture important?

The rapid urbanization that is taking place goes together with a rapid increase in urban poverty and urban food insecurity. By 2020 the developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America will be home to some 75% of all urban dwellers, and to eight of the anticipated nine mega-cities with populations in excess of 20 million. It is expected that by 2020, 85% of the poor in Latin America, and about 40-45% of the poor in Africa and Asia will be concentrated in towns and cities.

Most cities in developing countries have great difficulties to cope with this development and are unable to create sufficient formal employment opportunities for the poor. They also have increasing problems with the disposal of urban wastes and waste water and maintaining air and river water quality.

Urban agriculture provides a complementary strategy to reduce urban poverty and food insecurity and enhance urban environmental management. Urban agriculture plays an important role in enhancing urban food security since the costs of supplying and distributing food to urban areas based on rural production and imports continue to increase, and do not satisfy the demand, especially of the poorer sectors of the population. Next to food security, urban agriculture contributes to local economic development, poverty alleviation and social inclusion of the urban poor and women in particular, as well as to the greening of the city and the productive reuse of urban wastes (see below for further explanations and examples).

The importance of urban agriculture is increasingly being recognised by international organisations like UNCED (Agenda 21), UNCHS (Habitat), FAO (World Food and Agriculture Organisation), and CGIAR (international agricultural research centres).

1. Food security and nutrition

The contribution of urban agriculture to food security and healthy nutrition is probably its most important asset. Food production in the city is in many cases a response of the urban poor to inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to food, and the lack of purchasing power.
Most cities in developing countries are not able to generate sufficient (formal or informal) income opportunities for the rapidly growing population. The World Bank (2000) estimates that approximately 50% of the poor live in urban areas (25% in 1988). In urban settings, lack of income translates more directly into lack of food than in a rural setting (cash is needed). The costs of supplying and distributing food from rural areas to the urban areas or to import food for the cities are rising continuously, and it is expected that urban food insecurity will increase (Argenti 2000).
Food prices in Harare, for example, rose 534 percent between 1991 and 1992 due to the removal of subsidies and price controls, spurring poor urban consumers to get access to food outside of market channels through home production or bartering (Tevera 1996).
Urban agriculture may improve both food intake (improved access to a cheap source of proteins) and the quality of the food may improve (poor urban families involved in farming eat more fresh vegetables than other families in the same income category).

In Harare, sixty percent of food consumed by low-income groups was self-produced (Bowyer-Bower and Drakakis-Smith, 1996).
In Kampala, children aged five years or less in low-income farming households were found to be significantly better-off nutritionally (less stunted) than counterparts in non-farming households (Maxwell, Levin and Csete 1998). Urban producers obtained 40 to 60 percent or more of their household food needs from their own urban garden (Maxwell and Zziwa 1992).
In Cagayan de Oro, urban farmers generally eat more vegetables than non-urban farmers of the same wealth class, and also more than consumers from a higher wealth class (who consume more meat) (Potutan et al.1999).

In addition to production for their own consumption needs, large amounts of food are produced for other categories of the population. It is estimated (UNDP 1996; FAO 1999) that 200 million urban residents provide food for the market and 800 million urban dwellers are actively engaged in urban agriculture in one way or another.
These urban farmers produce substantial amounts of food for urban consumers. A global estimate (data 1993) is that 15-20% of the world’s food is produced in urban areas (Margaret Armar-Klemesu 2000).
Research on specific cities and products yield data like the following:

• in Hanoi, 80% of fresh vegetables, 50% of pork, poultry and fresh water fish, as well as 40% of eggs, originate from urban and peri-urban areas (Nguyen Tien Dinh, 2000);
• in the urban and peri-urban area of Shanghai, 60% of the city's vegetables, 100% of the milk, 90% of the eggs, and 50% of the pork and poultry meat is produced (Cai Yi-Zhang and Zhang Zhangen in Bakker et al. 2000);
• in Java, home gardens provide for 18% of caloric consumption and 14% of proteins of the urban population (Ning Purnomohadi 2000);
• Dakar produces 60% of the national vegetable consumption whilst urban poultry production amounts to 65% of the national demand (Mbaye and Moustier 1999). Sixty percent of the milk consumed in Dakar is produced in/around the city; and
• in Accra, 90% of the city’s fresh vegetable consumption is from production within the city (Cencosad 1994).
• Over 26000 popular gardens cover 2438,7 hectares in Havana and produce 25000 tons of food each year; a total of 299 square kilometres of urban agriculture produces 113525 tons/year (Mario Gonzalvez Novo and Catherine Murphy in Bakker et al. 2000);

Urban agriculture to a large extent complements rural agriculture and increases the efficiency of the national food system in that it (IDRC 1998) provides products that rural agriculture cannot supply easily (e.g. perishable products, products that require rapid delivery upon harvest), that can substitute for food imports and can release rural lands for export production of commodities.

2. Economic impacts

Growing your own food saves household expenditures on food; poor people in poor countries generally spend a substantial part of their income (50 – 70%) on food. Growing the relatively expensive vegetables therefore saves money as well as on bartering of produce. Selling produce (fresh or processed) brings in cash.

In Dar es Salaam, urban agriculture forms at least 60% of the informal sector (personal communication Mr. Majani UCLAS, Dar es Salaam, 2001) and urban agriculture is the second largest urban employer (20 percent of those employed). In 1993, urban fresh milk production was worth an estimated USD 7 million in 1993 (Mougeot 1994). The annual gross output of over ten thousand UA enterprises in the city of Dar es Salaam totalled 27.4 million USD, with an annual value added amounting to 11.1 million USD. In 1991, the individual urban farmer’s annual average profit was estimated at 1.6 times the annual minimum salary (Sawio 1998).

In Addis Abeba, above-normal profits are earned by even the smallest-scale backyard producers with very low capital (Staal 1997).

In Harare, savings accruing to small-scale urban farmers are equivalent to more than half a month’s salary (Sanyal, 1996

In Nairobi in the early 1990s, agriculture provided the highest self-employment earnings among small-scale enterprises and the third highest earnings in all of urban Kenya (House et al. 1993).

In Mexico City production of swine brings in 10-40% of household earnings, urban cowshed-based milk can supply up to 100% of household income and in sub and peri-urban areas maize production provides 10-30%, vegetable and legume production even up to 80% of the household income (Pablo Torres Lima, L.M.R. Sanchez, B.I.G. Uriza in Bakker et al. 2000)

Besides the economic benefits for the urban agricultural producers, urban agriculture stimulates the development of related micro-enterprises: the production of necessary agricultural inputs and the processing, packaging and marketing of outputs. The activities or services rendered by these enterprises may owe their existence in part or wholly to urban agriculture. Other services may also be rendered by independent families and groups (e.g. animal health services, bookkeeping, transportation).

Input production and delivery may include activities like the collection and composting of urban wastes, production of organic pesticides, fabrication of tools, delivery of water, buying and bringing of chemical fertilisers, etc.)

Transformation of foodstuffs may include the making of yoghurt from milk, or the frying of plantains or yams, chicken or eggs, etc. This might be done at the household level, to sell at the farm gate or in a local shop or market, and larger units to sell in supermarkets or even for export.

Special attention is needed for the strengthening of the linkages between the various types of enterprises in clusters or chains. The municipality and sectoral organisations can play a crucial role in stimulating micro-enterprise development related to urban agriculture.
The video shows an example from Ecuador where the municipality has provided marketplaces for urban farmers. The organic refuse left after a market day is collected by a women's group who compost the refuse to use in their own farms. A true win-win situation. A similar example is shown from Dar es Salaam.

3. Social impacts

Urban agriculture may function as an important strategy for poverty alleviation and social integration. We mentioned earlier the positive stimulus it may give to women.

Several examples exist of municipalities or NGOs that have initiated urban agriculture projects that involve disadvantaged groups such as orphans, disabled people, women, recent immigrants without jobs, or elderly people, with the aim to integrate them more strongly into the urban network and to provide them with a decent livelihood. The participants in the project may feel enriched by the possibility of working constructively, building their community, working together and in addition producing food and other products for consumption and for sale.

In more developed cities, urban agriculture may be undertaken for the physical and/or psychological relaxation it provides, rather than for food production per se. Also, urban and peri-urban farms may take on an important role in providing recreational opportunities for citizens (recreational routes, food buying and meals on the farm, visiting facilities) or having educational functions (bringing youth in contact with animals, teaching about ecology, etc.).

4. Contributions to urban ecology

Urban agriculture is part of the urban ecological system and can play an important role in the urban environmental management system.
Firstly, a growing city will produce more and more wastewater and organic wastes. For most cities the disposal of wastes has become a serious problem. Urban agriculture can help to solve such problems by turning urban wastes into a productive resource.

In many cities, local or municipal initiatives exist to collect household waste and organic refuse from vegetable markets and agro-industries in order to produce compost or animal feed, but one can also find urban farmers who use fresh organic waste (which may cause environmental and health problems).
Quality compost is an important input that can fetch a good price, as the example from Tanzania shows. Compost allows an urban farmer to use less chemical fertilisers and by doing so preventing problems related to the contamination of groundwater. In addition, compost-making initiatives create employment and provide income for the urban poor.

Farmers may use wastewater for irrigating their farms when they lack access to other sources of water or because of its high price. The use of fresh (untreated) wastewater has the additional advantage for poor urban farmers that it contains a lot of nutrients (although often not in the proportions required by their soils and crops). However, without proper guidance, the use of wastewater may lead to health and environmental problems. Farmers need to be trained in self- protection during handling of the wastewater, proper crop selection and adequate irrigation methods, among other things.

Technologies such as hydroponics or organoponics, drip irrigation, zero tillage etc. substantially reduce water needs and health risks and are very interesting for the urban environment and can indeed be found in many cities.

The treatment and reuse of more urban wastewater in agriculture also needs to be ensured. This necessitates special decentralised treatment facilities and low cost (preferably bio-) technologies. In many cases, partial treatment will be optimal for agricultural reuse. More and more experience is being gained in public-private initiatives involving private enterprises and/or civic organisations in the development and management of municipal wastewater treatment plants. However, in most municipalities, the treatment capacity will be far lower than what is needed for many years to come, and farmers will continue to use raw wastewater - a fact that should urge municipalities and other actors to take proper accompanying measures.

Without a doubt, each situation will require a tailor-made solution, preferably to be found by involving the stakeholders in a process of participatory problem analysis, planning and implementation.

Secondly, urban agriculture may also positively impact upon the greening and cleaning of the city by turning derelict open spaces into green zones and maintaining buffer and reserve zones free of housing, with positive impacts on the micro-climate (shade, temperature, sequestration of CO2).
Degraded open spaces and vacant land are often used as informal waste dumpsites and are a source of crime and health problems. When such zones are turned into productive green spaces, not only an unhealthy situation is cleared, but also the neighbours will passively or actively enjoy the green area. Such activities may also enhance community self-esteem in the neighbourhood and stimulate other actions for improving the community's livelihood.

EU Initiative Proposal

a. Outline. This project will develop an innovative approach to supporting, managing and developing urban agricultural spaces within regeneration areas of our cities, using innovative web technologies, experience-based learning, interactive sessions and workshops. With this project we are looking at the adaptation and use of existing urban spaces to provide food and employment for inner city areas.

This project would develop, complement and extend aspects of the work currently undertaken by the Greater Liverpool Food Alliance project see: http://www.urbanag.org.uk/projects/alliance-of-urban-agriculture-producers/

The project will provide specific support and training for people working within this arena including those responsible for regeneration, town planners, architects and local government officers. Three key modules for the project will be

1. content development

2. online environment and collaborative communication tools development

3. Training programme/framework

The content will include: Virtual Support, Mentoring, Networking and Collaborative Working, ethical and cultural implications, sustainable communities, equality of opportunity and inclusion issues and a training programme covering generic and specific support.

The training framework will be developed around active participation and collaborative learning.

b. Although there are several initiatives across the World that seek to promote community agriculture efforts and increased access to locally grown food there is a definite need to address the management and development of these initiatives within the EU including:

traditional education and training environments are not geared up to dealing with these community activities.

ethical, cultural and faith needs have not been fully considered.

the challenges with providing flexible and multi-use urban spaces for food production.

This project will address the issues above and alleviate the lack of understanding to the needs and requirements of the development and management of an urban food ‘industry’.

c. Target Groups. “AGRI-SPACES” will support those from urban communities that see urban food production as an integral part of regeneration of cities, that is, those wishing to develop innovative ways of managing urban agricultural initiatives, in addition, architects and planners that work in association with those communities including local government and NGOs. It will be developed as a best practice model with the specific focus on developing urban environments conducive to success within these communities. This will allow the “AGRI-SPACES” project to be developed, to be flexible in its design and implementation and allow it in addition, to be adapted to a wide range of intercultural dialogue activities.

d. Specific aims of the project are to develop, research best practice, test, evaluate the impact, improve and disseminate and exploit innovative approaches to targeted support, training and development of agricultural spaces within urban environments.

e. Tangible Outcomes.

1. project e-Newsletter

2. collaborative online communication facility

3. project management handbook

4. content management driven, online project dissemination and information sharing environment

5. virtual support environment

6. individual guidance and mentoring

7. training framework

8. support material inc: support content, Training material, Assessment tools, QA tools

8. valorisation web site

9. end of project regional ‘mini’ conference/workshops

The new public space: how Britons have reclaimed the streets

From guerilla gardening to outdoor ping-pong, we are becoming more creative with the gaps developers leave behind

guardian.co.uk

Last month, on one of the rare hot mornings of the school holidays, I risked going out with my small children for the day without making a plan first. We walked, slightly blinded and grumbling, through a parched, high-summer east London. After 15 minutes, approaching a particularly infernal road junction, I remembered I had read about a new park nearby. We found the entrance between a building site and a battered old wall, and stepped inside.

The traffic noise receded; immediately in front of us was a broad wooden deck with tables, a roof, and a huge blackboard covered in children's chalk drawings. Beyond the deck stood young trees and flowerbeds in hopeful rows. An elderly orthodox Jewish man was inspecting the plants, while at the tables some twentysomethings were chatting and laptopping. After one had offered my children some chalk, I asked him how the park had come about. "Oh, this bit of land is owned by Hackney council," he said, pointing at the deck, "and that bit"– he indicated the flowerbeds – "belongs to the shopping centre around the corner. But they've never used it."

In recent years, almost unremarked, a new confidence has crept into how the British use public space. As George Monbiot argued in these pages recently, and as Owen Hatherley shows in his forthcoming book on the built environment created by New Labour – A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain – this is a country ever more dominated by roads, shopping malls and other uncivic private developments. Public space, in much of the media at least, means CCTV, windswept pavements and 24-hour drinking.

Yet, in the crevices the developers have left behind, there is a counter-trend at work. You can see it in the guerrilla gardening movement and the boom in music festivals; in the vogue for temporary "pop-up" shops, restaurants and cinemas in empty urban spaces; in the artists occupying disused high-street stores from Durham to Margate; in the sudden appearance and popularity in London of outdoor ping-pong tables; and in the Edinburgh crowds last summer queueing to see spooky late-night art installations in the city's usually staid Royal Botanic Garden.

There is a growing appetite for transforming our apparently prosaic, profit-led landscape into something else – more playful, less predictable, even slightly utopian. Walking through some arty inner city areas, unsure what improvised event or amusement you're going to find round the next corner, can feel like some faint fulfilment of the famous slogan from revolutionary Paris in 1968: "Beneath the pavement, the beach!"

Of course, you can dismiss some of this as a rather boutique, urban phenomenon. But a lot of Britons live in cities, and their enthusiasms – whether for trouser turnups or gastropubs – have a habit of spreading. And the new adventurousness about public space has deep roots. For at least half a century, Britain has been a centre for experiments in land use: city squats in the 60s, rural free festivals in the 70s, raves in the 80s, anti-roads encampments in the 90s. What the American radical writer Hakim Bey calls Temporary Autonomous Zones – short-lived environments full of alternative social possibilities – is something we do well.

These experiments have often been an irritation to the authorities, but they have also subtly shifted official thinking about public places. In the 90s, it felt daring for the anti-car group Reclaim the Streets to block traffic and forcibly pedestrianise London highways. Now there is a traffic-free day on Oxford Street for Christmas shoppers every December. "Reclaim the streets with pedestrian power," urged the listings website Viewlondon last year.

Official attitudes to edgy arts events in public spaces have loosened up, too. In 1976 the confrontational rock band Throbbing Gristle performed at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London and were infamously denounced as "wreckers of civilisation" by the Tory MP Nicholas Fairbairn. In 2007, they performed in Tate Modern's Turbine Hall – one of the showpieces of the new, almost anything goes urbanism – and were sponsored by the Swiss bank UBS.

The frequent involvement of commerce and officialdom in such happenings may leave counterculture veterans suspicious. And in a way, they would be right to be. An art exhibition in an empty building, say, is more often a prelude to development than a statement of opposition to it. Property firms have learned the big lesson of gentrification: where artists go, estate agents follow.

Nor can local councils necessarily be relied on to remain enlightened about public space. Their budgets are about to be slashed, and when the good times return, selling off spare land to developers may be more appealing than letting artists test their ideas on it. Directly across the road from the little park I went to with my children, a fat tower of recently completed flats already looms.

Yet my hunch is that how many Britons treat public space has changed for good. We have a limited amount of countryside and indifferent weather, so there is only so much mileage in our natural sublime. It is in the built environment that much of our potential lies. And one based on driving and shopping, besides being environmentally disastrous, will always be a bit too boring to keep us all occupied.